In all fairness, it won't matter if they
Posted By: linda on 2008-11-06
In Reply to: I expect s/m - gourdpainter
do want to attend to anything with a dem majority. Think Pelosi will get that private plane now? LOL. The party needs to reboot, that's for sure. This is exactly why I don't like a one party majority. We need those checks and balances from both sides, brilliantly set up by our forefathers.
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
In all fairness. sm
This isn't your list. It's copied and pasted from BuzzFlash. Link below. I only mention it because there was a time some time back when you guys went ballistic on some on the conservative board for doing this.
In all fairness
One thing I agree with you on, if Obama is elected, I fully believe there will be an assassination or at least an attempt. God forbid that should happen. I would far prefer Biden in the Oval office instead of Gov. Airhead. "Experience" in Washington means nothing to me, in fact I would prefer NO Washington experience, provided the Gov. had anything between her ears besides air.
In all fairness. s/m
Someone mentioned Obama's voting record. Has anyone actually looked at his voting record...or McCain's? Obama didn't vote 46.3% of the time. McCain didn't vote 64.1% of the time!!! I find where Obama missed 1 important vote, McCain missed many. In fact, McCain looks like he hardly voted at all in the last couple of years except to speed to Washington to make sure his Wall Street buds got their bail-out. In all fairness, many of the votes both failed to vote on were nothing than motions for cloture (or however you spell that word).
In all fairness
People overseas can vote via e-mail. While I understand that not all of them do and all votes should be counted, there is an alternative to whatever mail problems exist. They only need to go to the FVAP web site. That being said, not everyone in Iraq is lucky enough to have internet access and, from what my husband says, the e-mail voting is quite a pain in the behind because things have to be faxed and all kinds of stuff.
In all fairness...
I am sure that nobody has the time to read every e-mail that he will get. I am sure that they filter them for threats and such, but I doubt he will ever read it unless it is a real standout! Nothing against you, just can't imagine how many e-mails he must get.
And in all fairness
They had to have them disinfected from the Clinton administration. I had heard that it just oozed with cooties.
In all fairness, gourdpainter,
I don't really think Obama is going to come right out and admit that he is friends with Ayers - that would spell disaster for his campaign and plans. I have learned I cannot trust what is fed to me, so I watch all of the stations, including Fox, and I read through tons of information on the internet and make up my own mind instead of letting the media make it up for me.
I will tell you, when this campaign first started, I was so excited to hear what he had to say about the issues and to think he has young kids, etc., etc., but the more I have researched (just facts with proof), I have decided that I cannot vote for this man. He is not who I believe will take America forward. His policies most definitely I don't agree with but I cannot accept a man whose character is questionable.
If you are really concerned about fairness -
I don't understand you folks. I am very concerned about the military having their say in the voting process - I have a son in the military and I want his vote counted (even though he voted for McCain), I have an exhusband in Iraq (who I am sure would not waste his time voting for anybody), but I want their votes counted; however, if you want to be fair then even the homeless people "who do not contribute anything" have the right to vote. Being homeless does not take away their basic rights in this country. You are all talking about how Obama is going to take away this, or take away that, or do this, or do that to the people, but now you are advocating not letting a homeless person vote becaues they don't have a permanent address.
You know what, I have come close to being homeless several times in my life due to unfortunate situations - one of those time when my husband was a SOLDIER and the Army did not pay us for a whole month - and I don't think that homeless people are the scum of the earth and should just be discounted. Any one of us could find ourselves right there on that park bench beside them at any time. If the United States were a better place, then we would not have homeless people sitting on those benches anyway!
I cannot believe the lack of compassion that people in the United States are now showing toward their fellow countrymen!
It doesn't. Now in all fairness....
the campaign says they "had nothing directly" to do with that. Like they had nothing directly to do with Acorn and then had to return 800G. And like they did not provide a list of maxed out donors so Acorn could hit them for get out the vote contributions and registration efforts. Like Acorn is not in the tank for Obama.
Sounds more like the old USSR than the USA.
Then fairness should go on the other hand
Just skip over the posts you don't like.
Fairness Doctrine
oh no its not. Geez. Please watch the actual news programs.
Thank you for your fairness and tolerance......nm
nm
The Fairness Doctrine
No one in the Democratic party ever seriously considered restoring the Fairness Doctrine. Someone occasionally will bring it up, but it never goes beyond committee and it dies there. It's not on the Democratic agenda nor will it be. It's yet another canard invented by the right-wing noise machine.
More Fairness Doctrine
The Senate voted to approve a bill granting representation to Washington DC in congress. However, Senate Republican Steering Committee Chairman Jim DeMint (S.C.) and Senate Republican Conference Vice Chairman John Thune (S.D.) added a totally unrelated amendment to the bill prohibiting reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine. The Senate passed the measure 87-11.
In response, Senate Majority Whip D*ck Durbin (D-Ill) proposed an amendment that called for the FCC to encourage diversity in media ownership. This proposal simply re-stated current existing law. It passed 57-41 despite the fact that every single Republican in the Senate voted against it.
So to summarize, the Senate passed an amendment to allow congressional voting privileges for Washington DC, but Senate Republicans added a totally unrelated amendment that prohibits reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, which the FCC wasn't considering and the Obama administration never supported. Nevertheless, the Democratic-controlled Senate overwhelmingly passed it anyway 87-11. Then, when a Democrat introduced a measure to "encourage diversity in media ownership," every single Senate Republican voted against it.
DeMint told reporters that Democratic efforts to legally encourage diversity in media ownership would open a "back door to censorship."
Uh, okay Jim. Whatever you say. Could this be because the vast majority of the mass media in this country are owned by Republicans? Liberal bias in the media? Gimme a break.
Once again, gt, you are not thinking from a base of fairness.
But I didn't expect you to. And when another poster actually did, you responded with HOW COULD YOU. I expected that, as well. So much for philosophical conversation, exploring intent, and misspeaking. I notice you never mentioned Maher, which, again, is typical. I drew a cogent correlation and you dismissed it completely. Again, expected. Thank you, Gadfly, for the conversation.
Okay, in all fairness, the link does not work for me either. nm
x
I like equality and fairness.....like most grown-ups...nm
nm
Well by all means, in the usual fairness...
of the as-far-from-democratic-Democratic Party...guilty until proven innocent, bash, belittle, and then turn right around in the SAME post and accuse someone else of the same. You need to get a new schtick. YOur number one does not have as much experience as the Repub #2. Yet you keep bringing experience into the conversation.
As to self destruct, not seeing it. Got a little bounce and sucked ALL the air out of the britney spears stage speech.
I am not at all underestimating the clintons....your #1 is, and the DNC is.
Yes, by all means, toe that party line. lol.
As far as your last line...THANK GOD for that!! And may i remind you, on the issue of experience...when Hillary Clinton ran for her NY state senate seat, she had NO experience in government whatsoever, unless you consider running around behind Bill cleaning up his messes experience. She had held absolutely NO legislative positions but I am sure you would agree she has been an effective senator...right?
Puhlezzzzz. Double standard is SHOWING. And all Bill had done before he became Prez was be a governor. Double standard is SHOWING.
geeeez. lol.
It is called the Fairness Doctrine Act
s
There needs to be equality and fairness in congress
Don't shoot me - these are only my observations. Granted I have been very busy with work only catching the news in between, but what I have seen over the past few days or a week is that the republicans are not being treated fairly by the democrats. I voted for Obama because I believed that he would be the best choice and like he said he would be able to get the republicans and democrats to be able to work together. I didn't see that with McCain. I didn't vote for Obama because of his plans because I knew it was just campaigning and all a bunch of garbage. No president yet to this date has ever fulfilled their campaign promises. But I voted for Obama because I believed he would unite the two parties together and maybe something could get done in Washington to help the people. What I have seen so far is just too sad beyond words. More failed promises. I was truly hoping for some "class", but I don't see it happening and I'm not sure if it's worse than it was before. Granted it's only been a couple weeks and I keep hoping things will turn around, but seems like all the people Obama is picking for his cabinet members are democrats (and crooked ones at that) with maybe one or two republicans to give the illusion that he is giving fairness to both sides. As for the congress, all I see on the news is they are acting like a bunch of spoiled children. They are blatantly ignoring republicans as thought they are children saying "we won and you didn't nana nana na na. We don't have to listen to you now nana nana na na" (remember that little song you used to do as kids). There many great republicans and many great democrats. My husband keeps telling me we have to have check and balance. He said these republicans represent part of the country too. Not every person in this country is a democrat and if we give full reign to them that is when you have a dictatorship (tyranny or whatever you want to call it) and they will pass anything they want to paying back all the people who bought them and they promised favors to.
The last administration was certainly not one of the best, but neither was the Clinton or Carter either. DH and I were talking about it last night and he said during Carter administration it was so bad that the only thing out there was the military to join, and that it what I am seeing starting to happen here.
I don't think anything should be "given" to either one side or the other, but the republicans deserve to be treated with the same respect that people are demanding they treat the democrats with. There are good ideas on both sides and if congress is filled with people lining their own pockets then maybe they need to be fired now so we can start again with people who care about the American people and what is happening to the country.
I believe that congress should be filled with people from outside of washington. There are so many good politicians in each state (ones we have never heard of yet), who do good things. Maybe it's time to get rid of people like Pelosi, Reid, Kerry, and all the "stable" washington crowd and replace with people who have a proven record of doing good for our country.
Fairness Doctrine, cont.
Did Pelosi write or sponsor or introduce a bill regarding the Fairness Doctrine? Is it on the Democratic Party platform? Is there pending legislation in the House or the Senate?
The Fairness Doctrine was started in 1949 when media outlets were very limited. It was stopped in 1987 and is unenforceable. Again, the right-wing noise machine takes a remark out of context and tries to build an issue where none exists.
It's ridiculous that the president actually had to announce the fact that Democrats have no intention of trying to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=68d07041-7dbc-451d-a18a-752567145610
Fairness Doctrine is Alive and Well
DH told me it's in our paper today, that Schumer is promoting it, but I couldn't find anything on line.
I did find a few articles and the one posted below is the most recent (by Sen. Inhofe) that I could find:
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/93765
In all fairness, your posts were attacking and unkind. sm
And may have even been unfounded. I believe both of you were off base with the posts. I have once again posted a reminder at the top of the board.
You lefties are so fair....the fairness is staggering...
attack him for not paying attention to hurricane and then attack him for paying attention to hurricane. Just proves that all you want to do is attack, attack, attack.
In all fairness, the O rarely voted at all since his campain started
Go check his record on the government site, but in all fairness, McCain didn't vote much either since this campaign. Still I think he voted more than the O. Correct me if I'm wrong.
AND NO BASHING. Serious question here. I don't have time to count every vote and I did try to do that a month ago and posted my results.
Obama opposes Reinstating Fairness Doctrine
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/18/white-house-opposes-fairness-doctrine/
Why is fairness in taxation considered a handout? This isn't welfare... it's paying the right
o
Pelosi Erases Gingrich's Long-Standing Fairness Rules....sm
Pelosi Erases Gingrich's Long-Standing Fairness Rules
by Connie Hair
01/05/2009
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi plans to re-write House rules today to ensure that the Republican minority is unable to have any influence on legislation. Pelosi’s proposals are so draconian, and will so polarize the Capitol, that any thought President-elect Obama has of bipartisan cooperation will be rendered impossible before he even takes office.
Pelosi’s rule changes -- which may be voted on today -- will reverse the fairness rules that were written around Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America.”
In reaction, the House Republican leadership is sending a letter today to Pelosi to object to changes to House Rules this week that would bar Republicans from offering alternative bills, amendments to Democrat bills or even the guarantee of open debate accessible by motions to recommit for any piece of legislation during the entire 111th Congress. These procedural abuses, as outlined in the below letter obtained by HUMAN EVENTS, would also include the repeal of six-year limit for committee chairmen and other House Rules reform measures enacted in 1995 as part of the Contract with America.
After decades of Democrat control of the House of Representatives, gross abuses to the legislative process and several high-profile scandals contributed to an overwhelming Republican House Congressional landslide victory in 1994. Reforms to the House Rules as part of the Contract with America were designed to open up to public scrutiny what had become under this decades-long Democrat majority a dangerously secretive House legislative process. The Republican reform of the way the House did business included opening committee meetings to the public and media, making Congress actually subject to federal law, term limits for committee chairmen ending decades-long committee fiefdoms, truth in budgeting, elimination of the committee proxy vote, authorization of a House audit, specific requirements for blanket rules waivers, and guarantees to the then-Democrat minority party to offer amendments to pieces of legislation.
Pelosi’s proposed repeal of decades-long House accountability reforms exposes a tyrannical Democrat leadership poised to assemble legislation in secret, then goose-step it through Congress by the elimination of debate and amendment procedures as part of America’s governing legislative process.
Below is the text of the letter on which the House Republican leadership has signed off.
January 5, 2009
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker of the House
H-232, U.S. Capitol
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Madame Speaker,
We hope you and your family had a joyful holiday season, and as we begin a new year and a new Congress, we look forward to working with you, our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and President-elect Obama in tackling the many challenges facing our nation.
President Obama has pledged to lead a government that is open and transparent. With that in mind, we are deeply troubled by media reports indicating that the Democratic leadership is poised to repeal reforms put in place in 1995 that were intended to help restore Americans’ trust and confidence in the People’s House. Specifically, these reports note that the Majority, as part of its rules package governing the new Congress, will end six-year term limits for Committee chairs and further restrict the opportunity for all members to offer alternative legislation. This does not represent change; it is reverting back to the undemocratic one-party rule and backroom deals that the American people rejected more than a decade ago. And it has grave implications for the American people and their freedom, coming at a time when an unprecedented expansion of federal power and spending is being hastily planned by a single party behind closed doors. Republicans will vigorously oppose repealing these reforms if they are brought to a vote on the House floor.
As you know, after Republicans gained the majority in the House in 1995, our chamber adopted rules to limit the terms of all committee chairs to three terms in order to reward new ideas, innovation, and merit rather than the strict longevity that determined chairmanships in the past. This reform was intended to help restore the faith and trust of the American people in their government – a theme central to President-elect Obama’s campaign last year. He promoted a message of “change,” but Madame Speaker, abolishing term limit reform is the opposite of “change.” Instead, it will entrench a handful of Members of the House in positions of permanent power, with little regard for its impact on the American people.
The American people also stand to pay a price if the Majority further shuts down free and open debate on the House floor by refusing to allow all members the opportunity to offer substantive alternatives to important legislation -- the same opportunities that Republicans guaranteed to Democrats as motions to recommit during their 12 years in the Minority. The Majority’s record in the last Congress was the worst in history when it came to having a free and open debate on the issues.
This proposed change also would prevent Members from exposing and offering proposals to eliminate tax increases hidden by the Democratic Majority in larger pieces of legislation. This is not the kind of openness and transparency that President-elect Obama promised. This change would deprive tens of millions of Americans the opportunity to have a voice in the most important policy decisions facing our country.
Madame Speaker, we urge you to reconsider the decision to repeal these reforms, which could come up for a vote as early as tomorrow. Just as a new year brings fresh feelings of optimism and renewal for the American people, so too should a new Congress. Changing the House rules in the manner highlighted by recent media reports would have the opposite effect: further breaching the trust between our nation’s elected representatives and the men and women who send them to Washington to serve their interests and protect their freedom.
Sincerely,
Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio), Republican Leader
Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), Republican Whip
Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), Conference Chairman
Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.), Policy Committee Chairman
Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wyo.), Conference Vice-Chair
Rep. John Carter (R-Texas), Conference Secretary
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas), NRCC Chairman
Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), Chief Deputy Whip
Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.), Rules Committee Ranking Republican
(Click here for a pdf copy of the letter with signatures.)
What's the matter?
Hit a nerve? Did I offend? Good.
What's the matter? No one is
week.....Camelot is coming apart! Actually, glad to see the pubs are big enough not to be saying *told you so.* Does all the questions about past associations make more sense now? It just keeps getting deeper and deeper and dirtier and dirtier. But, of course, if you have drank enough of the Obama kool-aid all of this too shall be whisked away. I know, I know, let's just give him time. He's going to make things better, yes he can!
What's the matter?
su
It won't matter which one. sm
Both are beholden to special interests and the ruling class. A lot of people are oblivious to it, but there is a ruling class. The candidate I supported did confirm this, and so do a few of the candidates running on the third party tickets. Ever wonder why things never change and get worse, this is why.
There is a diary by a blogger on Daily Kos that explains it very well. It is very informative and worth the read.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/27/65732/1557/694/557641
what does that matter?
My nieces and nephews are raised by their white mothers... my grandson is being raised by a white mother and a white grandmother and a white great-grandmother, my stepchildren are being raised by their white mothers - that does not change the situation of how the world views these kids... and it does not change how they view themselves. Every one of the mixed kids in my family has a different answer for whether they are white, black, or biracial, and their answer does not necessarily go along with the color of their own skin.
I also think that being raised by a "white" grandmother was part of Obama's problem. She was an older generation, still scared of black people, and she was teaching Obama to be "white" and when he got older he realized that he was not "white". Because he looks like a black man, he obviously feels what a black man feels because he is treated in the world as a black man.
Yes, mixed children are beautiful - but they are "different" than us in that they are neither white or black and they are treated differently for that reason. I hope that changes before my grandchildren get older, but so far, they are still expected to conform to being white or being black...
If a mixed child acts white, he is accepted by the white kids and taunted by the black kids, if he acts black, he is taunted by the white kids and accepted by the black kids. The mixed children have to be taught from birth that they are a mixture of 2 heritages and to embrace both of them; but at this point, they still choose one or the other.
you can think all you want.....it just won't matter with him
!!
It does not matter! It is just that a man has sex with
a woman and a woman has sex with a man.
This is it! And this is right and normal !
Anything else isn't.
How can the government legalize it when it is morally wrong.
Again: I wished Miss California had won.
Would it matter?
Would it really change your mind? Or would you dismiss it away?
Have you ever read the Bible from start to finish with an open mind? Or even just the book of John if you don't want to devote that much time to it.
If you really want proof, try that. Seriously.
No matter how you try to say it, it's still
Since you're so concerned about teaching children right from wrong, it would be perfectly acceptable and should always be taught to children to never EVER call names, make fun of, or bully anyone! There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to even bring up the word 'homosexual' now is there?
If you teach a child not to bully or pick at anyone then you are teaching tolerance aren't you..... without even bringing up the word.
How hard is that to understand!?
What do you mean it does not matter?
Of course it matters. There isn't a draft registration if the intent isn't to SOME DAY have a draft!! Otherwise, what's the point in it? Use your head! It's to have a pool of young males to pull into govt wars!!!!
Just because we at this moment have a volunteer armed forces doesn't mean it will HAVE to stay that way.....
it can change on a whim!
What the heck does it matter to you
what happens on the conservative board. Like most liberals you feel an innate desire to police everything everywhere as you and your uppity ilk are a lot better than everyone else...You have a board, stay on it, and have your nice little liberal tea parties over here. I for one couldn't give a rat's ass what you think about the conservative board...you elitist control freaks...now can you TAKE that!
It's a matter of priorities.
Some people think taking people's lives in Iraq is more important than saving lives in America. It's nothing new with this administration.
I believe every single person in this country is going to be negatively affected by this disaster, while Bush sits by and watches and just flashes that moronic grin of his, and Cheney and his Halliburton buddies get richer and richer. Don't look for his followers to wake up and see this idiot administration for what it is. Instead, look for them to become frustrated because their own lives will be falling apart, and look for the anger, hatred and rage on their part to increase. Look at this board. It's happening already, and it's only going to get worse. Just wait.
Wussies? Why should it matter if someone is
a wussy or not on a political message board? Is that your way of admitting that you're a bully?
It's a real shame that your mother didn't take the time to teach you how to treat people, didn't take the time to teach you manners. She let a vicious animal loose on society, and that's really sad....for society.
It wouldn't matter what we said.
Their reaction would be the same. I suppose I could have raged against a thousand perceived wrongs, assumed that everyone knew my history, and called a poster who dared to question -what makes you think we haven't- as some kind of insensitive heartless slam. The real truth is much deeper and darker than that. I am not quite sure why people choose to tell their deepest darkest secrets on chat boards. Is it so that later on, someone might forget something they never knew, in order to attack that person with out of control fury, as some on this board are wont to do. Of course, my sympathy goes out ot anyone who loses a loved one NO MATTER WHERE THEY WERE WHEN THEY DIED. But perhaps my sympathy should be more reserved for those who feel the need to constantly attack, denigrate, misinterpret (deliberately?), hound, and judge those who challenge an ideal. Having said that, I find some on here who post disturbed. Merry Christmas to all. My last post here. If anyone cares to respond, I will not see it.
That's a matter of opinion.
No a matter of opinion is
the fact that you don't like the president, but overly demonizing him and lumping him in with an evil person bent on destroying Israel and the United States is blatant over dramatization.
It doesn't matter when. sm
The bill is about when and not now, meaning NOW, prisoners taken in war are dealt with by us. The bill is about when Iraq becomes a full democracy and has nothing to do with who cares most about the soldiers. This just caught my eye on the menu because it is wrong headed. And, if it were true, the media would be headlining it. They aren't.
Here is the crux of the matter.
Embryonic stem cell research has been misrepresented. To the gullible public, who will believe ads like the one Michael J. Fox put out there, ESC has become the panacea and cure-all for all time. But it just isn't true. This quote from the article you posted, Brunson, is very important.
Reckless Hype and Overselling
Most of the campaign’s other ads have focused on “cures.” One shows a doctor saying that far from endangering women stem-cell research “could lead to cures for diseases that concern women like ovarian cancer.” Presumably the stem-cell treatment in question is bone marrow transplantation, an adult stem-cell technique widely in use for decades, and one in no way threatened by any legal barriers or related to embryonic stem cells or cloning. Another ad shows a pediatrician saying stem cells could help his patients, but offering no details. Another shows an Alzheimer’s researcher saying “stem cell research offers the promise of cures” for “so many devastating diseases like Alzheimer’s disease,” but offers no evidence to counter the near consensus in the field that this simply is not so. Many of these disingenuous ads repeat the claim that the initiative would ban human cloning, and none of the ads mention that all stem-cell research is already legal in Missouri and there are no prospects for that changing, or that the referendum would not support any new research.
******
We simply must educate ourselves and maybe, in the end, examine what our belief system is about life. Morally and ethically I believe ESC research to be wrong. It will be the crowning touch down the long downward spiral we started on when we legalized abortion.
I will end with a quote from President Bush from the same speech I referenced in another post, where he was speaking to parents of adopted children.
(quote)The children here today remind us that there is no such thing as a spare embryo. Every embryo is unique and genetically complete, like every other human being. And each of us started out our life this way. These lives are not raw material to be exploited, but gifts. And I commend each of the families here today for accepting the gift of these children and offering them the gift of your love.(unquote)
In the end, it comes down to respecting life and God. The decision lies with each of us. I choose life.
It does not matter who votes for it or against it....
it is morally wrong. Because it is legal does not make it right. While I will obey the law of the land, as my faith teaches me to do, I will continue to speak out against a procedure that is murder, no matter who chooses it. See link if you do not believe that life begins at conception. View that and tell me that abortion is not killing a living baby and then defend it as right because someone chooses it. That choice is choosing to kill a child. The one portion of this. If you feel that a woman needs a choice of whether or not to kill a baby, so be it, that is your right and I respect your right to say it. I do not and will continue to speak against it, and I hope that you believe it is my right to do that as well. Some of us must speak for the most innocent who cannot speak for themselves.
http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=76c82299-9a7a-4656-8ec4-0f6fc1fd6ae0&f=06/64&fg=copy
It's a matter of opinion.
You were lying about your information being non-partisan.
As far as Plame being covert or not before the "leak" -- that is a matter of opinion. Please do not state it as unassailable fact that was already outed. Because something is listed as fact in a far right-wing publication does not make it true. That's common sense lesson #1 for today....just as I would say because Michael Moore states something as fact also does not make it so.
Like I said, no matter how you try to twist it,
xx
doesn't matter to me
I think my candidate could hold his own against either one of those, but everyone has to protect "poor Sarah." Frankly, I don't want a leader that has to be handled with kid gloves. Geez.
Doesn't matter. I will NOT be in ANY way...
responsible for putting Barack Obama in the White House. NO WAY. NO HOW.
|
