No, I challenge you to show me mean, narrow minded,
Posted By: ms on 2008-09-03
In Reply to: This week. Check archives back thru July - For hate landslide against Obama. sm
shallow, pure hatred from the reps to the dems on this board.
I think you libbies have it won down pat. Same on other boards, not just this one.
And for that matter, show me anywhere, that same degree of "hatred" toward Obama, that is now being shown to Gov. Palin.
I don't mean mere dislike, or spoof of his lack of anything, either. I mean the hatred.
Republicans don't act that way. But if they have, please give me an example, please.
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
Are you that narrow-minded?
Are you so stuck on being "anti-religious" or amti-Christian or whatever that you don't realize everyone that opposes abortion is not a Christian?
Why is it if someone opposes abortion they MUST be Christian. If someone opposes abortion that has no religious beliefs, what do you call them? Maybe they just know murder when they see it?
only the conservative, narrow-minded ones!
nm
That is the MOST narrow-minded post....
I have seen here. Got a mirror handy? :-)
narrow minded? yup that is the O lovers
P.S. - last time someone was called stupid they were banned.
You don't like what I have to say fine. Maybe you should keep your opinions to yourself. No need to be rude - oh wait! Your an O lover. Guess you do feel you have the right to be rude.
As Ben Franklin said, which fits perfectly about your post, .... "Better to keep silent and thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt".
More like narrow minded people
Without resorting to throwing out some silly retort.
Who says your way is the right way? That is why we live in AMERICA - we are FREE to make our own choices. It is not up to the government to watch your children. That is YOUR job. Their job is to uphold the Constitution OF the people BY the people...lest you forget!
Nor I with the cloistered and narrow-minded.
>>>>
That is so narrow-minded and not true. You are so judgemental (sm)
apparently, you are the only non-racist, good person in the United States, aren't you? Take yourself off your pedestal. Many of us are just as kind-hearted and see race as a nonissue as you claim to be. Get off your high horse.
You've got to be kidding! How narrow-minded
nm
Reply to pub challenge to show O's
This is posted in response to pub spin that would assert SP is better qualified to lead the country because of O's lack of experience. Of special note are the numerous foreign relations committee diplomatic initiatives listed below. Of course, I would be interested in any comparable experience SP may have that the pubs can produce. I have saved this post and will be using it in reply to any similar assertions made by pubs in the future whenever I encounter them. Hope format is not too seedy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_Senate_career_of_Barack_Obama
In Illinois senate O Worked to get BIPARTISAN support on legislation on:
1. Ethics reform.
2. Health care reform.
3. Sponsored bills for earned income tax credits for low-income workers.
4. Provisions for $100 million in tax cuts to families.
5. Provisions for early childhood education.
6. Welfare reform.
7. Childcare subsidies.
8. Funding for churches and community groups.
9. Chairman of the Health and Human Services Committee.
10. Instituted requirement for transparent videotaped police interrogations of suspects in capitol cases after a number of death row inmates were found innocent.
11. Measures against racial profiling.
12. Campaign finance reform.
13. Restrictions on lobbyists activities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_career_of_Barack_Obama
In US Senate:
1. Senate Committee (SC) on Foreign Relations.
2. SC on Health.
3. SC on Health.
4. SC on Labor and Pensions.
5. SC on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
6. SC on Veterans' Affairs.
7. Member of Congressional Black Caucus.
8. Chairman of the Subcommitte on European Affairs.
9. Border security and Immigration reform. Cosponsor "Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act introduced by JM.
10. Added 3 amendments to the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act.
11. Supported Secure Fence Act for security improvements along US-Mexico border.
12. Cosponsored Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006.
13. Introduced expansions to Cooperative Threat Reduction Program to secure and dismantle weapons of mass destruction and their associated infrastructure in former Soviet Union states.
14. Sponsor of Democratic Republic of Congo Relief, Security and Democracy Promotion Act, signed by Bush, to restore basic services like clinics and schools, train a professional, integrated and accountable police force and military, and otherwise support the Congolese in protecting their human rights and rebuilding their nation.
15. As member of Foreign Relations Committee, he made official trips to Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Africa. His 2005 trip to Russia, Ukraine and Azerbaijan focus on strategy planning for the control of world's supply of conventional weapons, biological weapons and WMDs and defense against potential terrorist attacks.
16. January 2006, met with US military in Kuwait and Iraq. Visited Jordan, Israel and Palestinian territories. Asserted preconditions that US will never recognize legitimacy of Hamas leadership until they renounce elimination of Israel.
17. August 2006, official trip to South Africa, Kenya, Djibouti, Ethiopia and Chad where he made televised appearance addressing ethnic rivalries and corruption in Kenya.
18. Worked on Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, signed into law, to eliminate gifts of travel on corporate jets by lobbyists to members of Congress and require disclosure of bundled campaign contributions.
19. Cosponsored bill to criminalize deceptive practices in federal elections to include fraudulent flyers and automated phone calls.
20. Cosponsored climate change bill to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by two-thirds by 2050.
21. Promoted liquefied coal production of gas and diesel.
22. Introduced Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007 to cap troop levels as prelude to phased troop withdrawal and removal of all combat brigades.
23. Cosponsored amendment to Defense Authorization Act safeguarding personality disorder military discharges.
24. Sponsored Iran Sanctions Enabling Act in support of divestment of state pensions funds from Iran's oil and gas industry.
25. Introduced legislation to reduce risks of nuclear terrorism., provisions of which were added as amendments to the State-Foreign Operations appropriations bill.
26. Sponsored a Senate amendment to the State Children's Health Insurance program providing one-year job protection for family members caring for soldiers with combat-related injuries, which passed both houses of Congress with bipartisan support but was ultimately vetoed by fearless George.
Just goes to show the j@ckas@es/crooks running the show!
nm
Must have. Guess my scope was too narrow.
Besides that, while comparing one to the other, some folks might make a few distinctions between the 2. Studds was openly gay US federal level politician, a seat he held for 24 years. In 1973 he had a legal, consensual relationship/affair with a 17-year-old minor congressional page (age of consent being 17), Dean T. Hara, who became his partner for life and who he later MARRIED in 2004 Evidently, they had to wait for gay marriage to become legal, or would have married much earlier. Hara had clearly stated "knew exactly what he was doing" when he had the affair with Studds. Since the act was legal, no charges were filed and Studds received a congressional censure for inappropriately engaging in a relationship with a subordinate, after which he was re-elected to 6 consecutive terms. Studds worked consistently for same-sex marriage, AIDS funding and civil rights for gays and lesbians. His behavior was entirely consistent with his politics. Studds was no hypocrite. He died 2 short years after he was finally allowed to marry the love of his life.
Fast forward to the current century. Mark Foley one of the foremost opponents of child porn, worked on behalf of missing and exploited children and worked to outlaw web sites featuring sexually explicit images of preteen children, which he considered as a "fix for pedophiles." He also worked for tougher sex offender laws. Upstanding guy, yes?
Enter the creep factor. Behind the scene, he was sending solicitous e-mails and IMs to former teenage male congressional pages OVER A PERIOD OF TEN YEARS. To his credit, I suppose, in at least 2 cases, he waited until after the boys turned 18 and 21 respectively, before having sex with them. He sent 5 emails to a former 16-year-old page in 2004, when among other things he requested the minor send his photo and remarked about the great physical attributes of another underage page to him. He reported this to a senior official and said he had been warned about other female pages who had been "hit on."
In 2002, he invited a 17-year-old over for oral sex, an offer the youth declined. He had asked another for a photo of his erect penis. That guy knew 4 or 5 other pages who had received similar sexually explicit emails. There were at least another half-dozen or so pages who received the sexually explicit IMs.
There's more, but it is pretty sordid and would be quite time-consuming to get into on this forum. Suffice to say that these "advances" were unwanted and unsolicited. They occurred over a decade with so many pages one loses count and were reflective of a pattern of sick, sick behavior. There was the spectre of stalking underpinning the episodes. All of this was occurring while the HYPOCRITE was doing the above described "good works" legislation.
Studds and Foley were both indiscrete, to be sure, but beyond that, there is no real comparison. Call me crazy here, but somehow, I do not see these 2 behaviors as being the same thing by any stretch of the imagination.
Must have. Guess my scope was too narrow.
Besides that, while comparing one to the other, some folks might make a few distinctions between the 2. Studds was openly gay US federal level politician, a seat he held for 24 years. In 1973 he had a legal, consensual relationship/affair with a 17-year-old minor congressional page (age of consent being 17), Dean T. Hara, who became his partner for life and who he later MARRIED in 2004 Evidently, they had to wait for gay marriage to become legal, or would have married much earlier. Hara had clearly stated "knew exactly what he was doing" when he had the affair with Studds. Since the act was legal, no charges were filed and Studds received a congressional censure for inappropriately engaging in a relationship with a subordinate, after which he was re-elected to 6 consecutive terms. Studds worked consistently for same-sex marriage, AIDS funding and civil rights for gays and lesbians. His behavior was entirely consistent with his politics. Studds was no hypocrite. He died 2 short years after he was finally allowed to marry the love of his life.
Fast forward to the current century. Mark Foley one of the foremost opponents of child porn, worked on behalf of missing and exploited children and worked to outlaw web sites featuring sexually explicit images of preteen children, which he considered as a "fix for pedophiles." He also worked for tougher sex offender laws. Upstanding guy, yes?
Enter the creep factor. Behind the scene, he was sending solicitous e-mails and IMs to former teenage male congressional pages OVER A PERIOD OF TEN YEARS. To his credit, I suppose, in at least 2 cases, he waited until after the boys turned 18 and 21 respectively, before having sex with them. He sent 5 emails to a former 16-year-old page in 2004, when among other things he requested the minor send his photo and remarked about the great physical attributes of another underage page to him. He reported this to a senior official and said he had been warned about other female pages who had been "hit on."
In 2002, he invited a 17-year-old over for oral sex, an offer the youth declined. He had asked another for a photo of his erect penis. That guy knew 4 or 5 other pages who had received similar sexually explicit emails. There were at least another half-dozen or so pages who received the sexually explicit IMs.
There's more, but it is pretty sordid and would be quite time-consuming to get into on this forum. Suffice to say that these "advances" were unwanted and unsolicited. They occurred over a decade with so many pages one loses count and were reflective of a pattern of sick, sick behavior. There was the spectre of stalking underpinning the episodes. All of this was occurring while the HYPOCRITE was doing the above described "good works" legislation.
Studds and Foley were both indiscrete, to be sure, but beyond that, there is no real comparison. Call me crazy here, but somehow, I do not see these 2 behaviors as being the same thing by any stretch of the imagination.
Perhaps your narrow world, not mine.
Trying to figure out exactly what a community organizer does (besides having dinner with terrorists, listening to - but never actually hearing - hate speech in church, rallying fraudulent votes, etc.).
Perhaps you could enighten me, o wise one?
It doesn't narrow our view of the world,
it expands it.
we could challenge them
Since we have history on our side and the #s to accompany it, we could make a friendly bet with these utopians as to how the tax rate will change, etc. It'll all play out (perish that thought)!
Did you hear Rush today on his show or when he was on with Greta? He pointed out some very valid things about O and his desire to hold up the war in Iraq until Jan. What he's proposing is unconstitutional. He wrote an op-ed in the WSJ (Friday), which is no doubt on his w/s. I got the link for it when I got my "Rush In A Hurry" for the day, which gets sent out after his show and before his site gets completely updated to reflect the contents of his show.
BTW, I purposely put Rush into this mix. He just makes the libs crazy! All I can say to them is "temper, temper!"
I would like to challenge you
Tell me which one of my posts below comments on Obama's race, and that I'm not voting for him because he's black. Where have I called him a black man or made any reference to his race? Prove it to me and I'll admit I was wrong. Yes, I have said he plays the race card because he does play it. That is not a racist remark, that is just a fact. I've said insistently over and over I don't care what color he is. I never compared him to Adolf Hitler. I posted articles of people who have, but I have never compared him to Hitler and I challenge you again to show me the post where I said he was like Adolf Hitler.
How can you be a racist against a black if you are black???? I don't need to explain my ethnicity to you. Are you assuming because I don't write like a black person I am white. That right there is racist to me. Know someone else who doesn't talk like a black person? Michelle Obama. And tell me are all the other blacks who aren't voting for Obama racists because they aren't voting for him. There are plenty out there.
I don't "hate" McCain. I just am not happy we didn't get a different republican in there to run. And I don't "hate" Obama. I just think he is not qualified and is the worst possible candidate on the democrats side. If the right qualified person was running on the democratic side I'd vote for them (I voted for B. Clinton the first time), and if the right republican person had won I'd consider voting for them. But I don't like either and I'm not voting.
I've said before and I'll say it again. I think Obama is okay, he's a good looking man, dresses nicely, has a beautiful wife and 2 cute daughters, but then again I don't vote for someone because of the way they look or dress or their fancy talk, I vote for them because of their policies and experience.
So please, be my guest and tell me which one of my posts did I make any remark about Obama being black. If I said something derogatory against him because of his race I'll eat my words. I highly doubt it though (as my mama says "I'll slap the snot out of you")
And as for Casper the Friendly Ghost. No I wouldn't vote for him but am sure he has been registered as a democrat.
I believe the challenge was to ask someone....(sm)
who lives in a place with universal health care what they think of it. Michael Moore did this. What republican has ever done this? Wonder why.....
I believe the challenge was for you to ask someone...
I am a republican and I have. The answer was not favorable. Of course, I'm no Michael Moore (thank God). For people who demand that references used are not conservative, I sure see a lot of liberal citations.
Beck says - almost every show - that he is NOT doing a news show.
He does an opinion show - meaning HIS opinion. As such, he's entitled to stick pins in little Obama dolls for all I care.
I can hear Chris Wallace laughing at you folks from here because it's pretty obvious whoever wrote that knows zip about Beck, or Wallace for that matter. In fact, I can't think what Wallace has to do with Beck anyway. Everyone of INTELLIGENCE who watches Beck and Wallace is perfectly aware that one does one type of show and the other does another.
But what do you expect from one of George Soros' puppet sites like Media Matters and Move Bowels.org?
You really should delete your Favorites list and start over.
Isn't google wonderful? For expanding your narrow scope? sm
I also remember them comparing the two a while back, especially since Studds passed away recently. I guess it does depend on whose imagination you're stretching, doesn't it.
Nice of you to be so graphic about it.
Your views are so narrow. Blind religious fanatacism
Sad.
I responded to the challenge in the OP.
I have responded to this by adding comments to each item. Don't need to check my facts. I already researched my points the first time around. I put them out there the way I see it. Items 1 through 8 occurred prior to 1995 under a democratic majority Congress. Number 9 was a cooperative international initiative that played out in UN International Tribunal and did not involve direct participation by the US congress. A lengthy explanation by way of disclaimer appears in #10. Numbers 11 and 13 have no comment as I am certain the republicans would like to take all the credit for those. Bill Clinton went against his own party's best efforts to oppose numbers 11 and 13 and did employ line vetoes to them or otherwise obstruct these laws. He signed them into law. That's all I was trying to say, in response to the challenge from the original poster
1. Family and Medical Leave Act.
2. Established web-based information and communication systems in the White House, federal agencies, US Courts and military.
3. Brady Bill requiring background checks on handgun purchase.
4. Expansion of earned income credit.
5. Balanced the budget.
6. Cut taxes for low-income families.
7. Cut taxes for small business.
8. Restricted government spending.
9. In cooperation with NATO, Slobodan Milosevic convicted for crimes against humanity for ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavian Republic.
10. Communications Decency Act to regulate pornography on the Internet.
11. Welfare reform.
12. Increased minimum wage.
Defense of Marriage Act (right-wingers ought to love that one).
13. Maintained high approval ratings throughout his presidency, leaving office with record-breaking 73% approval ratings IN SPITE OF unsuccessful impeachment proceedings.
14. Booming economy.
15. Creation of $559 billion budget surplus.
So what exactly are you trying to say…that Bill Clinton had absolutely nothing to do with any legislative initiatives that transpired after the so-called Republican revolution in 1995? Looks like trying to hog the spotlight to me.
Why is it such a challenge for conservatives to
and take personal responsibility for their actions and their consequences? This has nothing to do with libs. It has everything to do with the connections between racial, bigoted hate speech, violence, crime and cold-blooded murder.
Not bashing, not going to challenge, just have question...
you say Obama talks about the things that mean the most to your family...what are those things? You say he has what it takes to bring the country together...can you be more specific? What is it that he has that makes you believe he can bring the country together? Thanks.
Obama has been told this challenge will not
--
I challenge you to find any reference in any of
my posts referring to Barack Obama as a messiah. Just one more example of the vicious twisting of words done by your ilk to suit your own agenda.
Lamont Says He'll Challenge Lieberman..sm
March 13, 2006
Saying voters deserve a choice and reiterating his opposition to the Iraq war, Ned Lamont (D) formally said today that he will challenge Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) for the Democratic nomination this year, the AP reports. Lamont will be Lieberman's first opponent from within the party during his three terms in the Senate. Lamont hopes to garner support from Connecticut Democrats dissatisfied with Lieberman's pro-war stance and his perceived closeness with President Bush's administration.
Chicago Annenberg Challenge Shutdown...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/23/AR2008102302081.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
This is NOT true - I challenge you to prove it- see message
You show me one post by republicans that are "despicable racial slurs". Are you that same person that acused me of being a racist and told me I posted racist things and when I challenged you to show me one post that I made that was racist, you just kept screaming at me I was a racist then when I pointed out I was black you stopped? So I will challenge you again. You show us. Everytime a conservative, independent, or republican posts an article they want to share that does not favor Obama they are immediately bashed and called names (I should know!). I've seen too many of it. There have even been posts by democrats trying to stir the pot and calling us rabid and just posting negative posts against republican, conservative and independent posters for absolutely no reason. If your going to say we post despicable racial slurs I hope your going to back it up and prove it.
Duo take Obama birth challenge to Court
Wow, I believe we have some sore losers!
From NBC’s Pete Williams
When the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court meet on Dec. 5th, in their regular private conference to decide which cases to hear, two lawsuits that have captivated a segment of the blogosphere will be up for discussion.
Both urge the court to consider claims that President-elect Obama is not qualified to be president, because he is not a natural-born American citizen.
Persistent concerns about the qualifications of both major party candidates rank among the oddest aspects of 2008's historic campaign.
Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution provides that "No person except a natural born citizen" is eligible to be president. John McCain's status was questioned because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone and various theories have been advanced to cast doubt on Obama's.
Lawsuits over the inclusion of their names on state general-election ballots popped up around the country and were quickly dispensed with by local courts. But two challengers have pursued their cases to the Supreme Court.
Pennsylvania lawyer Philip Berg claims that the circumstances of Obama's birth are vague and that he may have been born in Kenya. Obama's mother, Berg asserts, later flew to Hawaii to register the birth.
Leo Donofrio, a New Jersey lawyer, contends that election officials in his state failed to ensure that only legally qualified candidates were placed on the ballot. Obama may have been born in the United States, Donofrio argues, but "natural born" status depends on both parents being American citizens. Obama's father was Kenyan.
The justices are unlikely to take up these cases for a host of reasons, not the least of which is the invitation to overturn the results of an election in which more than 66 million Americans voted for Obama. An equally high hurdle is the issue of whether Berg or Donofrio have the legal right to sue claiming a violation of the Constitution.
In dismissing Berg's complaint, a federal judge in Pennsylvania found that he failed to meet the basic test required for sustaining a lawsuit, because he couldn't show how the inclusion of Obama's name on the ballot would cause him -- apart from others -- some particular harm. Berg's stake, the judge said, "is no greater and his status no more differentiated than that of millions of other voters."
Other courts presented with similar challenges have reached the same conclusion, ruling that there is no general legal right to sue over the Constitution's eligibility requirements. Federal courts typically reject claims of legal standing based simply on a litigant's status as a voter or taxpayer.
The Obama campaign had hoped to end the controversy last spring by releasing his actual Hawaii birth certificate. But that prompted further questions about its authenticity, which were compounded when state authorities in Hawaii said they could not vouch for it, because they were constrained by the privacy laws.
Then, on Oct. 31st, the director of Hawaii's Department of Health issued a statement, proclaiming that he had personally seen and verified that the state has "Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record," which shows that he was born there.
The most daunting challenge this country has ever faced? LOL!!!
Wow. You apparently know nothing about US History, do you?
But thanks for the laugh, Chicken Little.
Obama's just another dude in the chair, no matter how much 'celebrity' status you want to endow him with. He'll face challenges like all the other presidents. He'll succeed at some things and fail miserably at others, like all other presidents.
Why is everyone so quick to knight this guy, who hasn't done anything yet but flash his pearly whites at the camera and pump out a bunch of campaign promises?
Here's an idea. Let's let the dude take office before we award him the title of saviour of the planet?
He may be great. He may stink. But you simply can't tell yet. The countdown on this forum just shows how desperate people are to believe their problems are not their fault.
Somewhere in the past century, America went from being the Land of Opportunity to being the Land of the Big Handout. And now Brother Obama is gonna save us from ourselves. Is that right?
Time will tell, Chicken Little.
Time will tell.
simple minded? Nah.
Nah, the simple minded and hateful are on the conservative board..you got the wrong board..sorry, sweet cakes..
I am open minded
but I'm also not gullible to anything that floats down the river either.
If you are as open-minded as you say you are
why does a countdown that millions of people are doing, whether its openly on a forum, or under their breath, nauseate you so much? Just like the 10-paragraph diatribe above someone launched in reply to the 2930 post, me thinks you doest protest too much. I mean, really, what is the harm in someone being excited and happy at the idea of a changing of the guard?
Wow, you don't even know me and you have labeled me. How fair-minded of you.
Can you even see how silly you are? Probably not.
You aren't even open-minded enough to think about this...
He has already said he wants to practice redistribution of wealth (tax oil companies and give it back to people who did not earn it). That is Marxist theory. And now we have son of Alinsky high-fiving him in the Boston Globe. I am seeing stuff that I am still confirming that he taught the Alinsky theory. One thing alone, maybe not so alarming...but the preponderance of evidence....the jury is still out, but it does not look good.
comment from your like-minded friend
You know there are some who believe that this is not like the Great Depression, not like the civil war (with the hyperinflation) but actually more like the revolutionary war because of the violations of our constitution. I think it will be very interesting to see how many people will want to preserve it, sacrifice to preserve it, once they realize how threatened it is.
Yes, that is close minded' and 'ignorant'..
Don't you see?
Typical closed-minded, my-way-or-the-highway,
(which means, "Waste of Our Time").
This poster is obviously simple minded and likes to
stir up trouble. Probably has never voted.
I hope you are not that small minded. You may quit your job
any time you like and apply for welfare and see if you get it. Maybe, Bush will let you draw it now.
Actually, I find YOUR post closed-minded
nm
Only the open minded and forward thinking
There isn't anything he can do about narrow-minded, self-righteous divisionists. Obama has won over the educated majority of the entire world.
Great Britain has been so "open minded" they now
have an out of control Muslim population. The neighborhoods have become so violent, the police won't even venture into the neighborhoods! They're trying to run the european contry.... GB is now trying to curtail anymore Muslims from coming into the country and that is why the "black list" started in the first place. I say GOOD FOR THEM! They are sick and tired of others trying to control their govt and people....same thing is happening in this country!
My mistake...I thought you only tolerated like-minded people....
hence Berkeley.
LOL! Ain't that the truth! "Fair minded"..."well-researched"...
I haven't seen one scintilla of anything that could properly be called 'research' in any of Just Terribly Bad Breath's posts.
Question....you tout yourself as open-minded and tolerant....
when are you going to start posting as such? Just curious. Not exactly tolerant and open-minded to make blanket statements about "pubs" when you certainly cannot POSSIBLY know or have talked to every single registered Republican in this country. And how do you know what political affiliation someone is? Do you decide based on how they feel about Barry from Chicago? I myself am registered Independent, and to quote from a post I have seen on this board before but which sums it up...because you have to register as something in this country to vote. I was a Republican once, but they have become Democrats lite. Yes, my politics would be considered conservative. I don't believe the Constitution is a "living" document. I believe is fine as the founders wrote it and not as the ACLU would like it to be re-written. I believe in God. I believe in a free country. I believe in capitalism. I believe in more power at the state level than the federal government level. To name a few. I certainly don't believe in socialism, in making people dependent upon the government for their every need. I believe in hard work as a means to bettering your situation, not handouts from the government paid for on the backs of those willing to work hard. To name just a few. What do YOU believe in besides Barry from Chicago?
Saw the show. It was a guest on the show....
not a commentator. Why don't you post the link to the clip so everyone can decide?
Show me who your friends are and I’ll show you who you are.’
This subject is not old, and is very, very relevant.
Obama's friends/associates (supposedly former friends and associates, only since this campaign):
Ayers
Wright
Dorhn
Michelle
Khalidi
The company he keeps:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YThjYTU1ZDBjNmQ2YzcwNzU1MmYwN2JiMWY0ZGI0NDA=
I find it very, very troubling, that this man has no visible friends, other than the ones above (not Michelle, although she has been kept under lock and key out of public sight for some time now, so as to keep her from embarrassing herself again).
Does this man not have any other friends/associates, other than the ones above?
Glad to see you are so open-minded and tolerant of diversity, as your party proclaims.
I am not set in my ways, I have embrace some of the liberal notions although not enough to vote that way say far, and welcome INTELLIGENT debate and discussion. And I'm suppose to be from the party of intolerance and racism. I think you should reread some of your posts and see who is intolerant. I don't come here to poke fun at anybody on either side, I come here because I don't get much out of just agreeing with everybody, I like to hear different ideas and to debate the issues. But, I guess I could find another liberal board where some mature people hang out and I might be welcome to do that, instead of just reading stupid childish jokes and laughing with each other.
Bush aides challenge Biden's boasts of Bush slapdowns.
Aides to former President George W. Bush are challenging the veracity of Vice President Joe Biden's claim this week of having privately castigated Bush, who does not remember the incident or an earlier episode in which Biden claims to have similarly rebuked Bush.
Biden spokesman Jay Carney declined to specify the dates of his boss's purported Oval Office scoldings of Bush. Nor would he provide witnesses or notes to corroborate the episodes.
"The vice president stands by his remarks," Carney told FOX News without elaboration.
Those remarks include a shot that Biden took at Bush on Tuesday.
"I remember President Bush saying to me one time in the Oval Office," Biden told CNN, "'Well, Joe,' he said, 'I'm a leader.' And I said: 'Mr. President, turn and around look behind you. No one is following.'"
That exchange never took place, according to numerous Bush aides who also dispute a similar assertion by Biden in 2004, when the former senator from Delaware told scores of Democratic colleagues that he had challenged Bush's moral certitude about the Iraq war during a private meeting in the Oval Office. Two years later, Biden repeated his story about dressing down the president.
"When I speak to the president - and I have had plenty of opportunity to be with the president, at least prior to the last election, a lot of hours alone with him. I mean, meaning me and his staff," Biden said on HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher" in April 2006. "And the president will say things to me, and I'll literally turn to the president, say: 'Mr. President, how can you say that, knowing you don't know the facts?' And he'll look at me and he'll say - my word - he'll look at me and he'll say: 'My instincts.' He said: 'I have good instincts.' I said: 'Mr. President, your instincts aren't good enough.'"
Bush aides now dispute the veracity of both assertions by Biden.
"I never recall Biden saying any of that," former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said after reviewing detailed notes of Bush's White House meetings with Biden, which include numerous direct quotes from Biden. "I find it odd that he said he met with him alone all the time. I don't think that's true."
Fleischer said that whenever Bush met with Sen. Biden, the meeting also included a congressional counterpart so as to not "antagonize" the House.
Karl Rove, former White House political adviser, also was skeptical of Biden's claim to have spent "a lot of hours alone" with Bush.
"I remember checking on such a Biden exaggeration while at the White House and no one witnessed the meeting and his comments in remotely the same way," Rove said.
Candida P. Wolff, Bush's White House liaison to Capitol Hill, said the only meetings she remembered between Bush and Biden also included other lawmakers. She said such meetings were held in the Cabinet Room or the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, not the Oval Office, and certainly did not last for "hours."
"The president would never sit through two hours of Joe Biden," Wolff said. "I don't ever remember Biden being in the Oval. He was such a blowhard on all that stuff - there wasn't a reason to bring him in."
Andy Card, former White House chief of staff, reviewed the two Biden claims and said: "This does not ring true to me. I doubt that it happened."
A spokesman for Bush declined comment, although a person close to the former president said Bush does not remember either episode.
This is not the first time the veracity of Biden's assertions has been challenged. In 1988, he dropped out of the presidential race after being accused of plagiarizing British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock. The Washington Post also cited "the senator's boastful exaggerations of his academic record."
Last year, liberal Slate magazine recalled that "Biden's misdeeds encompassed numerous self-aggrandizing thefts, misstatements, and exaggerations that seemed to point to a serious character defect."
Also last year, Biden came under fire for telling a questionable story about being "shot at" in Iraq.
"Let's start telling the truth," Biden said during a presidential primary debate sponsored by YouTube in July. "Number one, you take all the troops out -- you better have helicopters ready to take those 3,000 civilians inside the Green Zone, where I have been seven times and shot at. You better make sure you have protection for them, or let them die."
But when questioned about the episode afterward by the Hill newspaper, Biden backpedaled from his claim of being "shot at" and instead allowed: "I was near where a shot landed."
Biden went on to say that some sort of projectile "landed" outside a building in the Green Zone where he and another senator had spent the night during a visit in December 2005. The lawmakers were shaving in the morning when they felt the building shake, Biden said.
"No one got up and ran from the room-it wasn't that kind of thing," he told the Hill. "It's not like I had someone holding a gun to my head."
Seven weeks after claiming to have been "shot at" in Iraq, Biden again raised eyebrows with another story about his exploits in war zones -- this time on "the superhighway of terror between Pakistan and Afghanistan, where my helicopter was forced down."
"If you want to know where AL Qaeda lives, you want to know where bin Laden is, come back to Afghanistan with me," Biden bragged to the National Guard Association. "Come back to the area where my helicopter was forced down, with a three-star general and three senators at 10,500 feet in the middle of those mountains. I can tell you where they are."
But it turns out that inclement weather, not terrorists, prompted the chopper to land in an open field during Biden's visit to Afghanistan in February 2008. Fighter jets kept watch overhead while a convoy of security vehicles was dispatched to retrieve Biden and fellow Sens. Chuck Hagel and John Kerry.
"We were going to send Biden out to fight the Taliban with snowballs, but we didn't have to," joked Kerry, a Democrat, to the AP. "Other than getting a little cold, it was fine."
|
