Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues

Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

No, I didn't....it was in response to all the attacks about unwed mothers..

Posted By: sam on 2008-09-01
In Reply to: SO DID BUSH!!!!! - forget about that???

but i guess you feel that is okay, right?

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

The attacks didn't happen here

they happened in London, England and you don't see people London whining and acting like the world is coming to the end.  They got up and got on those darned buses and trains.  These terrorists made very little headway at all yesterday. 

You all don't get the point do you?   You really don't.  No matter where we are in the world you're going to find fault with it as long as it is done under conservative leadership.

I think I understood every word you said loud and clear. 

the response didn't come from an obama supporter
If you're referring to my response to the OP about scraping the bottom of the barrel. FYI I'm voting for McCain.
Didn't read your response before I wrote mine....
lol. Good post :)
I was an unwed mother with a republican mom.
I got accused of being promiscuous and my mother raled on and on about how much I had embarassed her and the family before I could get a word out of my mouth about being virgin when I was date raped and ended pregnant. Abortion was illegal then and BC had not shown up either. That issue was surronded with all kinds of shame and blame. I was wisked away to an unwed mother's home the day after I graduated from high school (age 17, 4 months along) in the middle of the night where I hid out for the remainder of the term (which was more like a prison term than a pregnancy term).

The Catholic religious establishment who ran the home never missed an opportnity to let me know what a slut I was and how I did not deserve to be a mother. That was the extent of the social support system in those days. I was then forced to sign my first-born son over to "fit parents," just 5 weeks shy of the legal age of 18. The paper said that I had "no parental rights" and that I would never be allowed to find my own son.

This was the reward I got for being a straight-A student and staying virgin until date rape happened. I was, shall we say, fairly outraged by the time I got to college and proceeded to live up to my mother's worst expectations of me. I became promiscuous for about 2 years or so, took drugs and drank my way through my freshman and sophomore year, but high, drunk or sober, I was ALWAYS front and center in the Women's rights rallies, supporting pre-Roe-Wade initiatives.

I stayed like that until my second son was born at age 26, a year into my marriage. I kicked my habits, straightened up and raised him, but to this day, whenever I entertain the idea of looking for my first son and my second son's big brother, those words, "No rights" and those "slut" attitudes echo in the back road of my memory, and I just remind myself how I have to learn to live with it (as if).

With that being said, my mother would have NEVER, NEVER, NEVER put me in the position SP has now thrust her daughter into. She has only ignited the fires of outrage smoldering inside of me for the past 42 years. We would not be having this conversation if SP had looked before she leaped. For me, there is nothing she can do to convince me that she is deserving of this office. If she had the guts some of the other posts say she has, she would refuse this nomination. So trying to stand back and be respectful of her family privacy...not as easy as it sounds, but for the sake of her daughter, and my own, I will be giving my best shot.

The unwed mother above whose life
OMG...an unwed teenage mother.

Ya know....since democrats generally leans towards minority voters....you would think they would be used to seeing unwed teenage mothers.  Surely Bristol Palin isn't the only unwed teenager mother in the US and yet some of you people seem to focus on her like she is the only one. 

I hope to God that Barry and Chelle's daughters never have premarital sex.  Although Barry and Chelle would probably just have them get an abortion so they wouldn't be "punished" by a baby.  However, just like everything else, I'm sure some of you will not even post something like that and the media would totally ignore it.

But since this is Bristol Palin we are talking about....of course it is a big deal and important to our country.  Whatever......

hope a lot of these posters are not mothers
because they would be horrible role models for the younger generation.
Men and woman and mothers and fathers are speaking now. sm
Many of whom have fought in Iraq.  They are on television right now. But you won't watch it. It would be too hard for you.  YOu would be screaming obscenities at them.  Do you know, they had to bleep out part of the antiwar march yesterday in DC because of the obscenities and vulgar language.  That is what you are, obscene and vulgar and unpatriotic.
Do you think all mothers would choose their life over their child's?
A serious question.
Obama values life of babies AND their mothers.
I am not in the habit of debating with brick walls, but I will address your issue directly just as soon as you come up with something that will convince me that McCain's air quotes demontrate high regard for human life. Kill the mom, save the baby, then watch while it pulls itself up by its bootstraps, lest we turn our beloved country into a welfare state. P-U.
Angry Mothers and Trembling Grizzlies: The Sheehan Effect

Angry Mothers and Trembling Grizzlies: The Sheehan Effect
by Dr. Teresa Whitehurst

"Sheehan has been involved in protests against Bush since last year. She founded Gold Star Families for Peace...She said she decided to seek another audience with Bush when she heard his comments about the war last week, after a spike in American deaths. The fallen men and women "died in a noble cause," Bush said Wednesday. "Their families can know that we will honor their loved ones' sacrifice by completing the mission."

"Sheehan said she wants to tell Bush not to use her son's death as a reason to continue the war, and to ask "why (Bush's twin daughters) Jenna and Barbara and the other children of the architects of this disastrous war are not in harm's way, if the cause is so noble." ArmyTimes.com, August 8, 2005

For some, Cindy Sheehan's lonely journey through the shock and sorrow of her son Casey's death in Iraq is of no interest. What, they ask, is the big deal? One soldier killed, one mother grieving – so what? Mothers have no business meddling in the manly business of war, or expressing inconvenient, disloyal, unpatriotic feelings like grief or anger. Get over it, critics command, and think about "the mission" instead, a mission that "we should see through" so that other people can't make fun of us for "cutting and running."

Instead of focusing on one poor misguided woman, or on how many more Americans and innocent Iraqi families will be killed in this war, we're told to think about how great it will be when other people admire us for killing every terrorist and future terrorist in the whole wide world. Instead of thinking about the new fundamentalist Islamic "democracy" that Bush's war has ushered in for the poor girls and women of Iraq, think about "the good news" way, way down the road when they get used to wearing the burqa and live happily ever after. In short, Americans should focus on "the big picture."

But for mothers – even those who've tried valiantly to believe the president when he exclaims that the war on Iraq is a "noble cause" – there IS no big picture. For mothers of slain soldiers, there are only little pictures: their lost child smiling at 10 months in his high chair; riding his first bike without training wheels; opening Christmas presents (Hot Wheels, Transformers, or GI Joe); and making silly faces for the camera.

The little picture encompasses all those times when parents stay up all night with their sick children, or protect them from bullies, or wipe away their tears after a friend's rejection. It's not just the happy times that mothers remember, it's the multitude of little moments, little pictures in a parent's mind, of time and love invested in one's offspring. When this enormous investment is squandered by reckless military adventures that zip kids into body bags, parents are owed great compensation. And they are owed the truth.

Do George and Laura Bush ever imagine how it would feel if all they had left of their beloved child was, as Cindy Sheehan has, a few snapshots and an abyss of sorrow in their hearts? Must they suppress their natural compassion in order to convince themselves of their own administration's spin – that it's "worth it" when American kids die far away from home for reasons that have consistently turned out to be false?

Do the Bushes feel the earth tremble beneath their feet at the mere thought that thousands of parents of slain soldiers are beginning to ask questions, to see the folly for which their children died…to find their voice?

Cindy remembers the little picture, which is why George has been hiding from her. She is his worst nightmare, for she is not just Cindy Sheehan, mother of Casey. She is Every Mother. And, no matter how uncomfortable it gets, she's not going to dishonor her son by saying, "Well okay, if you say so, I guess this war was worth my boy's life."

Support Our Wars or Else

What does it really mean to "honor" a soldier's death…and life? To say that he or she willingly died "to end terrorism" (impossible), or "make Iraq a democracy" (ditto)? Unless they were suicidal when they enlisted (I know one boy who was), dying in Iraq is not the soldier's "sacrifice" because by definition, a sacrifice is something that we choose and willingly make. Most young people never imagined when they enlisted – often for reasons their recruiters understood but their parents didn't, such as finding a sense of belonging, or escaping bad neighborhoods or dead-end jobs, or finding a way to afford college some day – that they'd be dead within a matter of months.

To swallow ridiculous, ever-changing reasons for the futile war that has killed over 1800 idealistic youths with their whole lives ahead of them is to take the easy, socially acceptable way out. Pro-war pundits and politicians constantly threaten parents with social disapproval and even hatred if they dare to question those reasons – and it's worked for a long time. Parents have felt pressured to mouth the hawks' lines, lest their love for their child be called into question.

What a devilishly mean but perfect system for subduing the parents of fallen soldiers! Politicians and talk show hosts threaten: "Support our troops (the war), or we'll accuse you of dishonoring your dead child." The last thing that worried or grieving parents can bear is the suggestion that they're "dishonoring" the memory of the one they love. And so they have acquiesced. They have submitted. Archie Bunker would be pleased: Like Edith, they've learned to stifle themselves.

Until now.

Protective Fury: The Tipping Point

One day, back when Americans lived in peace and we'd never even heard of the Bush dynasty or the plotting neocons whose reckless ambitions it would serve, I was watching a nature show about grizzly bears in their natural habitat. I will never forget one particularly electrifying scene that comes to mind whenever I hear about Cindy Sheehan's vigil outside Mr. Bush's gated compound.

A large male grizzly came upon two adorable little grizzly cubs, who looked up at him with wonder and naivete; clearly, they didn't realize the danger they were in. To my great surprise, however, the male grizzly stood bolt upright as though startled, then starting running away from those harmless little cubs. Why on earth did he do that, I wondered. The narrator explained that the male knew instinctively that there's nothing more dangerous than a mother grizzly who senses that her cubs may be harmed.

As the huge male ran off into the woods, the narrator continued: "While the male grizzly is larger and could probably kill the female, he knows that in the process, her protective fury would leave him seriously, if not mortally, wounded. Mother grizzly bears will fight to the death for their young, ripping the flesh of any animal, no matter how large, that threatens their cubs. Coming upon the youngsters frightened the adult male so badly that he ran and hid because the mother, unseen but without a doubt somewhere near by, could at any moment sniff his presence and roar into action."

Human males can also sense danger, and know very well the hazards of facing protective mothers – particularly when other mothers are watching, too. This explains why the mainstream media has worked so hard to make antiwar parents of fallen soldiers look pitiful, and why George Bush is hiding inside his compound, hoping that Ms. Sheehan will lose interest and go away.

But what the president doesn't understand is this: She's not going to lose interest, and furthermore it isn't just Cindy Sheehan anymore. Parents of servicemen and women all over the country are beginning to see the little picture again. This is the tipping point, a showdown fueled by motherly devotion that will embolden other families to start questioning the integrity and fitness of this administration and this president: It's what I call the Sheehan Effect.

And that's the worst news ever for a man who can only see the "the mission," the big picture, and how noble it will look under "Bush, George W." in the history books.

British Government Says Mothers With Babies New Terror Threat sm
British Government Says Mothers With Babies New Terror Threat
You're either with us, or you're with the babies.

British government security advisors and the national media are doing their level best to strike rampant irrational paranoid terror into the hearts of UK citizens by identifying the latest targets of the war on terror as pregnant women and toddlers.

Absurd delirious fearmongering continues in the British media with the Sun tabloid, Britain's most braindead and unfortunately also most popular newspaper screaming, HATE-filled mums willing to sacrifice themselves and their BABIES are being hunted in the war on terror.

Yes that's right you haven't slipped into an upside down parallel universe - pregnant women and mothers with young babies are the new Al-Qaeda.

The evidence?

The nightmare is that mums carrying tiny tots would provide “very good cover” and not raise suspicions among even the most alert security guards.

The Sun cited a senior Government security adviser as their source.

So let's ignore that guy with the turban who looks like Mohammed Atta and instead focus our magic screening wand on Mrs. Smith and her newborn infant.

Extra pat downs for young mums and making toddlers take their shoes off - boy do I feel safer now.

What's the next threat? Barney the purple dinosaur?

Of course we know what this is all designed to accomplish - it's about broadening the terrorist definition to the point where everyone's a suspect and everybody's behavior is under preposterous and suffocating scrutiny.

The implication that the most benign, harmless and innocent members of our society could in actuality be terrorist suicide bombers is a sick ploy crafted to ensure that absolutely no one is allowed to escape the self-regulating stench of being under suspicion.

It is also intended to brainwash the population that terrorists are potentially hiding under their beds, that they are everywhere and that only by a system of reporting suspicious behavior and unquestionably trusting the government will they too avoid the accusing finger.

This is classic Cold War style behavioral conditioning and the Neo-Fascist architects know exactly what they're doing.

Despite the status of alert returning to previous levels in both the US and the UK, ridiculous restrictions on travelers remain in place. Every time a new bout of fearmongering washes over a stupefied public, they are more pliable to new ways of being shoved around by government enforcers, even after the alleged plot has been foiled.

The fearmongering never subsides, it is always ratcheted up another peg in anticipation for future manufactured threats.
The future of airport security?

Why don't they just ban any luggage, clothing or personal accessories whatsoever and have done with it? Better yet - why not strap every passenger into a straight jacket from the moment they enter the airport?

In Knoxville, TSA officials are testing a biometric scanner device which interrogates passengers about their 'hostile intent' by asking a barrage of questions. If you thought the current delays and blanket 'everybody's a criminal terrorist' attitude were annoying enough, you ain't seen nothing yet.

In a similar example to the mothers and babies mindlessness, the London Guardian reports that located in the tranquil and peaceful rural surroundings of the British Lake District and Yorkshire Dales are terrorist training camps where Al-Qaeda devotees are preparing for their next big attack.

What's next? Bomb making factories under the Atlantic Ocean? Islamo Fascist brainwashing schools at the North Pole?

The sheer stupidity implicit in the Guardian article is bewildering. If the police haven't even questioned the alleged terrorists, allowing them to gather evidence of terrorist activity, because they're conducting covert surveillance of the group then why in God's name have they told a national newspaper, who in turn have splashed the story all over their front page?

If these supposed terrorists didn't know they were under surveillance before then they sure do now!

I live on the edge of the Peak District nearby the kind of areas being fingered as terrorist training areas. The closest thing to Al-Qaeda like activity up here is when a discourteous rambler leaves a farm gate open.

Again, it's about people who live in the country being smothered with the same raving paranoia and cockamamie fearmongering city-dwellers are subjected to. Woe betide anyone living in a converted barn house in the middle of miles and miles of wilderness think they can escape the war on terror - it applies to anything!

Baby formula, lip gloss, mothers and toddlers included.

If we are going to rule abortion wrong, then we must support these babies and mothers who cannot do
Everyone says that there is no circumstance where an abortion would be validated, and that may well be very true, but....if we then say no to social programs to pay for food, clothing, lodging, education, warmth, etc. that the baby and mother will be needing for years, money for daycare if the mom needs to work, money for work programs for more jobs, money for educational programs like CETA for job training so the mommy, and then her child, can affod to be trained in something they can use to be employable, and of course the money it takes to give prenatal care, postnatal care, hospititalization, NICU if needed, and pediatric and well care, ...... if a woman is not in the circumstance to do this and she has no family that can provide for her and the baby, then where is the money to come from, if we are not going to put our $$$ where our collective "mouths" are and find judicious, accountable social programs to fund this all???????
Just look at statistics on infant mortality rate for mothers without prenatal care - nm
Another classy response. I won't say liberal response,
because I don't think you and these pile-on posters are indicative of liberals as a whole. Don't know why they let you speak for them...but that is up to them. Obviously you don't think compassion is a personality trait...obviously you feel that it can be turned on and off to suit your agenda. So be it.
need more attacks
More liberals need to start attacking back at the neocons.  For too long we have remained quiet while the republicans have been in full attack mode, especially during last year's election, smearing a true Vietnam hero, Kerry, whereas Bush never even finished his National Guard duty and Cheney and Rumsfield never went into the military but they find it is quite alright to send our sons and daughters to war for nothing.  We need more liberals to start screaming out about the terrible people in the WH. 
No Attacks?
No need for attacks
he got what he wanted which was the Iraq War and taking out Sudam.  Show me bin Laden and maybe I'll be willing to give Bush some credit.  Something mighty strange that we with the mightiest miliary in the world can't get him.  But I guess Cheney would say, "SO??????"  What a couple of crooks!
How many terrorists attacks have we had since 911
Thx - the attacks are really getting out of hand
Reminds me of that line in the movie where the guy says "I'm mad as he!! and I'm not going to take it anymore". Really though, I've read back through all the posts and not one post about something positive about Obama's plans. Just attacks to the other side and other posters. I feel if I'm going to get this I might as well just turn on MSNBC, and now I get my MIL who has such hatred for Bush is coming out saying that today market failure (whatever you call it- that 300 or so point drop) she's saying that is McCain and Palin' fault. I don't even get into political arguments with her anymore. It's just mind numbing how closed their minds are. Glad you liked my post.
we don;t need personal attacks.



personal attacks are

not allowed on this board. Stop immediately.


personal attacks are

not allowed on this board.  Stop attacking me personally with your imagining what I have or don't have in my work area.  Stick to the issues.


Why the personal attacks?

This has nothing to do with this conversation.  What this person makes and why they make that is none of our business.  The point was that she didn't live beyond her means and doesn't want a handout and that right there makes her a heck of a lot better than a lot of people. 

Let's talk about attacks....




There are plenty more, those are just a few.
It is called more attacks like the one we went through
Do you actually believe the govt is telling us about each and every plot they help dismantle to make the country safer. Oooh- can I be in your fantasy movie.

People may hate GW - You know our "President of the United States", but Americans (the patriotic ones that is) are grateful for the policies that have been put in place that enable them to find out when things are happening so we will not endure another 911. Sorry you don't like the fact, but that's what they are.

I for one am very grateful we have not been attacked again.

"And I'm proud to be an American where at least I know I'm free. And I won't forget the men who died who gave that right to me. And I'll gladly stand up next to you and defend her still today. Cos there ain't no doubt I love this land. God bless the USA!"
and the personal attacks continue

Occurs to me there's no basis in any of your attacks.
Name one thing I made up and we'll see what the truth is. Go ahead, poser - explain what you mean.
Foiled Terror Attacks...sm
Fox Attacks Barack Obama..sm
(see link)
We were told by moderator -no more attacks on
And now we revert to personal attacks
on posters when you can't them to agree with you.  What a waste.
Stop the personal attacks. SM

Stop with personal attacks, the vile name-calling, grammar policing and foul language.

Debate the issues.  Respect opinions. 

I'm not moderating for niceness but there is some troll behavior going on and it has to go. 



Of course it's the fault of the terrorists for carrying out attacks.

And it's the fault of this president for obsessing about Saddam Hussein (since he's been doing since the early 1990s) and not doing enough to protect his own people from future attacks.

The terrorists have all the power here.  They're holding all the cards.  They once again managed to scare a large part of the world.  They also know something that American soldiers DON'T know.  The know what the outcome of their plan is going to be.  They use the element of surprise, and when they wake up in the morning, they don't wonder if they're still going to be alive the next day.  They already KNOW they won't be because they've planned it that way.  They control their own fate, as well as the fate of everyone who gets in their way.

Our soldiers have to deal with that every single day.  A car bomb here.  A suicide bomber there.  Every single day is 9/11 for them.  It sounds real nice to pretend to respect and honor them when participating in a photo op on an aircraft carrier.  Why doesn't he care enough about their lives to provide adequate body armor and Humvees for them?  He has no problem giving big tax breaks to his rich base (and YES, they are his REAL base, not the Christian right; just wait till he betrays you all with his moderate Supreme Court nominees). He has no problem giving free healthcare to all Iraqis. Forget about the American people for a minute. Why can't he care about our troops -- our CHILDREN -- enough to supply them with adequate equipment?  Of course, he personally would not know what constitutes adequate equipment because HE WAS TOO MUCH OF A COWARD TO EVER SERVE IN COMBAT.

As far as giving this President too much credit, you obviously didn't comprehend one word of my post.


can we just debate and stop with the personal attacks?
I know, Democrat, I know, and if I come across as harsh sometimes, that is just me..however, the post below that I condone terrorism really cut me..I have never condoned terrorism..to protest, of course, that is part of America, long live protests, but to say I condone terrorism..OMG..I have tried to debate logically, of course, not what conservatives believe but that is what debating is all about..two different ideas..I have not attacked personally  yet these neocons continue to post on the liberal board and attack the liberals for what they have posted and they have attacked me non stop..I thought a few weeks ago we made a deal that we would post respectfully  but the minute I started posting once again, there has been nothing but attacks, not logical insightful debate..If a neocon does not agree with me that Chavez is a good man or that I agree with protesting in Argentina (not breaking the law, just protesting), well then lets debate it..dont attack me and call me a terrorist..which I take very seriously and it is an affront to me, it is like cursing at me..Oh geez..I do have to say, Democrat, you have always posted above and beyond board..I have always enjoyed reading your posts..
Reminder: Watch the personal attacks. sm

Debate opinions, argue conflicting viewpoints.  Steer clear of personal attacks.




It may be hard to credit Bush with no attacks when there is...sm
nothing tangible to show for it, right?

But then, that's the whole point.

No attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11.

There's the proof.

I'll be a believer and give President Bush the credit for this one.
Draft Dodger Cheney attacks War Hero
The words President Murtha are sounding pretty good!



White House plays chicken with a war hero

THE WHITE House is so deluded, it actually believes it can turn a soaring hawk into a scrounging chicken. Stung by the call by US Representative John Murtha of Pennsylvania to pull out of Iraq, Scott McClellan, President Bush's press secretary, said this week, ''It is baffling that he is endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic Party.

Talk about playing the chicken-hawk card. A White House where most of the architects of war avoided combat in their own lives dared to associate two people who are worlds apart in world views. Moore made the anti-Bush ''Fahrenheit 9/11, which infuriated the right wing by breaking box office records for a documentary film. Moore was booed at the 2004 Republican National Convention.

Murtha is the 73-year-old recipient of two Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star for combat duty in Vietnam. He is a Democrat whose three decades in office are marked by support of President Reagan's policies in Nicaragua and El Salvador. Murtha was a top Democratic supporter of the 1991 Gulf War. He wants a constitutional ban on burning the American flag.

In a 2002 press briefing, former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz termed the support of politicians like Murtha for the Pentagon as ''wonderful. In the 2004 vice presidential debate, incumbent Dick Cheney said, ''One of my strongest allies in Congress when I was secretary of defense was Jack Murtha.

For all those shows of patriotism, Murtha was skeptical about the rush to invade Iraq in 2003 of Iraq even though he voted to give President Bush the authorization to go to war. He publicly said Bush beat the war drums before building an international coalition. Murtha said he had not seen anything in intelligence reports that indicated an imminent threat. Murtha said Bush ''has put the country in such a box. He can say, 'You'll undercut me if you don't vote for this resolution.'

One month after the invasion, when no weapons of mass destruction had yet been found, Murtha warned that American credibility was at risk. By the September, the absence of weapons of mass destruction made him join the much more liberal House minority leader, Nancy Pelosi, in calling for Bush to fire the planners of the invasion. Despite the proclamation that ''we achieved a marvelous military victory, Murtha became increasingly frustrated with the chaos of the occupation. This summer, Murtha said administration officials were ''not honest in their assessment that they were winning the ongoing battle.

Finally, this week, Murtha unleased a scathing attack on Bush's Iraq policy. He called it ''a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. He said he believed military officials when he visited Kuwait just before the war and they showed him where American forces would be attacked by weapons of mass destruction when they approach Baghdad. But now, with no end to the killing in sight, he said, ''The US cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It's time to bring the troops home. . .They have become the enemy.

Murtha talked about soldier after soldier he has visited in hospitals, wounded and maimed by the invasion. Yet, there's more terrorism now than there ever was and it's because of what? Is it because of our policy? I would say it's a big part.

In perhaps the most humble admission of his press conference, Murtha said, ''The American public is way ahead of the members of Congress.

This came the day after Cheney threw mud in the direction of critics who gave Bush his war authorization. Cheney accused them of making ''irresponsible comments. He accused them issuing ''cynical and pernicious falsehoods to make ''a play for political advantage.

He said, ''The President and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory -- or their backbone.

This was the same Cheney who gave us some of the greatest falsehoods of this generation with ''There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction . . . We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons, and that we would be ''welcomed as liberators.

Murtha clobbered Cheney's words the next day, saying, ''I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done.

This hawk still soars, above the scrounging chicken hawks.

Derrick Z. Jackson's e-mail address is jackson@globe.com.  src=http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/File-Based_Image_Resource/dingbat_story_end_icon.gif

© Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

Senior moments on the trail: Mc attacks O ties to

For the slur that was dead on arrival, go here:



Missile attacks targeted Al Qaeda strongholds.
President Obama is targeting the terrorists who are responsible for 9/11 and who may be planning future terrorist attacks against the United States. That is what he said he would do before he was elected, and that is exactly what he has done during his first week in office. President Obama has already done more to keep our country safe in the past 4 days than Georgie Porgie did in the past 8 years.
Shocking personal attacks after you just called people empty headed?
the hypocrisy is mind boggling and humorous at the same time.
Evil constant attacks on Palin are about to bring the biggest backlash
I believe you may have cost yourselves the election with the horrendous extent this was taken to.
I didn't miss any part and didn't say...
anything either way. I just posted a link.
no response ....

No response

We are not supposed to cross post, so I am respecting the administrator's request. 

My response
There is no sound byte answer about Rev. Wright. I'll give you a hint. It has to do with the fact that men of his generation experienced life in America differently than the whites did. Historically, many black churches have been and are political forums, stemming from the days of slavery, when the churches provided a refuge where freedom of speech was possible. I don't know what Obama did or did not hear, and neither do you. What I do know is that he has written extensively about the confusion he had over the "black" part of his identity and part of his search for meaning, purpose and belonging in his younger days was played out in South Chicago. If you have read anything about the church at all, you will know that they have been engaged in many extensive and successful outeach programs in their community and I suspect his "association" with Trinity was focused and centered around that. Too bad a person cannot be judged but his deeds, rather than wild speculation, innuendo and smear campaigns about the company he keeps.
A response from.....sm
To the first 4 paragraphs decrying the decay of black leadership while attempting to lay the blame at the feet of the democratic party, encouraging blacks to bail and proclaiming the dawn of a new day for black conservatism, all that needs to be said is yeah, right. The proof is in the pudding. Black voters are backing Obama 94-1, according to this random poll citation: http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1192 …6% stampede, and we have not even made it through the convention. Great big whoop.

The abortion graphics let us know that the minister is pro-life. OK. Fine. Next, we have this twisted accusation that Obama supports partial birth abortion. That is not his position on abortion, and it is laid out in no uncertain terms on his website and countless times in his speeches and townhall meetings. What he said is that he supports the notion that things should stay as they have been and that those issues should be determined on a state-by-state basis at the local level. Same thing with regard to same-sex marriage and the federal government not being in the business of defining the meaning of marriage, which he clearly believes is a union between a man and a woman (not exactly the most popular position in the gay community).

Yet despite this, the pastor insists he is champion of the gay agenda and the abortion "industry." Never mind that the democratic party platform includes many pro-active initiatives that conservatives will continue to obstruct regarding abortion prevention through sex education, birth control, encouraging and enabling single parents to keep their children with parenting education, job skills training and making adoption laws more user friendly. Most democrats perceive the conservative views on abortion as caring about unborn right from conception to the moment of birth. Beyond that, the babies kind of fall off the radar screen.

For this radical stance (i.e., preserving status quo), the pastor evokes the Barack HUSSEIN Obama slur and is all indignant that Obama puts himself out there as a Christian. Champion of the dead horse drumbeat. This guy is not looking real credible at this point. Performer, he calls him, doubting Obama's sincerity. The "God's on our side" mantra rings hollow as well, considering the conservative pathologic disdain for poverty and conflicts over notions such as the measure of a nation's moral character is only as strong as it's care for the least among us.

He then proceeds to twist the words of THE greatest black leader of modern times…MLK. The infanticide he referred to was the practice of killing female infants/gender selection in biblical patriarchal societies.…a practice emphatically condemned by the Islamic Prophet Mohammed in the Quran back in the day. Twist, turn, spin.

Lets see. Obama is evil incarnate because homophobic interpretations of the Bible do not impress him as much as the Sermon on the Mount? That would be the moral teachings of Jesus, to include the Lord's Prayer, the injunctions to "resist not evil" and "turn the other cheek", as well as Jesus' version of the Golden Rule. Other lines often quoted are the references to "salt of the Earth," "light of the world," and "JUDGE NOT, LEST YE BE JUDGED." These are the core beliefs of the Christian doctrine. Drag out the tar and feathers and hang him high for that sacrilege.

Then another call to arms for those 6% black conservatives, a 2nd reference to Barack HUSSEIN Obama. As for the upcoming black conservative youth, it is the youth vote from the remaining 94% blacks and whites alike that just might boost Obama over the top, last I heard.

Then of course, there are a few paragraphs of closing prayers. If this is what it means to be "right," this guy ends up making the Obama nation look better and better.


So you are saying all other media outlets except Fox are liberal and therefore cannot be trusted to provide accurate information.  Therefore, you can only get true information from their network, because they tell you that is so.  I see where you are coming from.



All the examples you use about being make to hate, if the individuals mentioned being indoctrinated resisted by using their minds to seek broader or alternative information could simply resist the information being forced on them and resist hating.  Poor sentence structure, I admit.



McCain did the same thing when he was defeated in N. Caroline because Rove used dirty tactics like push polls calling people and asking if they would vote for McCain if they knew he had a biracial baby.  McCain had to suck it up and stand next to Bush and announce that he would support him.  I thought he was ethical enough to resist using such tactics when he the chance to campaign. but I was wrong.


Of course I believe they can.  Luckily you tacked on white supremacists right there at the end or I would have been appalled at the assumption that non-caucasian, non-christian people are incapable of thinking for themselves.