No, not interesting. I followed the link to the source.
Posted By: penny on 2009-06-23
In Reply to: If you have such a problem with FOX, then why were u - watching it? Hmmm...interesting! nm
and watched the Fox clip. Oh, and I do watch Fox from time to time to watch the clowns Beck and O'Reilly constantly spouting their hate propaganda and to give me insight into some of the minds of the people who post on this forum, whereby, I can always tell where they get their info, because it is almost always word-for-word out of the Fox pieholes. It's really quite amusing and always gives me a good laugh for the day!! LOL
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
Might want to inspect the link source
check out the first "err" post above in this thread. Or better still, read the article again and cite one instance where Medicaid was mentioned in the context of raising AGE requirements.
See link below - source is from Obama's own book.
x
Why aren't you getting it - Snopes is not a credible source. They've been exposed - link inc
They are not credible for putting out truthful information. It is a site run by a couple from California, Barbara and David Mikkelson. They met at an alt.folklore.urban newsgroup. This by no means is a site to find out truth or fiction, especially since the couple is very liberal and choose to put their opinion up rather than fact, and site things as hoaxes when they are not. They are a very liberal couple and of course liberals love this as it always puts their viewpoint in a favorable light, but again this is in no way a credible source. It was recently found that snopes had many things listed as a hoax, when in fact they've been proven to be true. There is another site with better sources and it is called truth or fiction. Attached is an about.com link for info about snopes. But for your everyone's information, do not take snopes to be the truth. Research for yourself with many other links out there.
http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/internet/a/snopes_exposed.htm
Interesting link
This person has some interesting comments. Makes you think twice. Brings to light some issues about Obama.
http://www.pyrabang.com/contenteditor.php?pd=4057&ps=4121&org=3955&target=http://www.atlah.org/broadcast/ndnr10-17-08.html
Interesting link regarding what's really going on
Found this last night. It was written by someone in the Obama camp.
http://www.rense.com/general83/nrw.htm
A friend sent me this link...very interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NU6fuFrdCJY&feature=bz302
Please check out this video.
Interesting link inside
http://www.cnbc.com/id/27012038
thanks for the link. interesting stuff.
.
Interesting link - learned something new
I found a site that has an interesting interview with a historian. He wrote....
"Especially in politics it is of the utmost importance to try to look behind the facade: who makes up the team of the presidential candidate? The future president of the United States of America is for a large part dependent on and being fed by his team of advisors and future cabinet members."
Below is a link with his interview. Very interesting. There are two parts to the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MouUJNG8f2k&feature=related
Interesting that you provide a link
directly addresses and refutes your allegations that Snopes is steeped in liberal bias.
Quote:
Is TruthorFiction.com a more reliable source?
TruthorFiction.com has condemned this anonymous attack against Snopes.com and lauded the website as an "excellent" and "authoritative" resource.
What's ironic about the claim that TruthorFiction.com is more reliable than Snopes is that when you compare the contents of the two, their findings rarely diverge in any substantive way (does that mean TruthorFiction.com is biased too?).
Where the sites do differ is in the depth and quality of their coverage. On Snopes.com the Mikkelsons go to great lengths to address the finer details of each text. They supply critical analysis, as well as background and contextual information. They cite sources.
Not to disparage TruthorFiction.com owner Rich Buhler -- who does maintain an up-to-date and generally trustworthy resource -- but by comparison his analyses tend to be perfunctory, and his sourcing minimal at best.
Snopes.com boasts a 12-year record of providing accurate, dependable information and analysis, and in that time has earned the confidence of the media, government agencies, the business community, and the general public alike.
Given all of the above, Snopes is surely the preferable resource.
Hmmmmm, interesting. Also see link inside
It's quite long but worth reading. How many high-profile conservatives with ties to Reagan and Bush 1 have to jump ship for something meaningful to happen? javascript:editor_insertHTML('text',' ');
http://www.dallasobserver.com/Issues/2006-02-16/news/feature_full.html
Interesting article see link inside
Looks like the feminists are supporting Palin. Very interesting article and it explains why they are supporting her.
http://www.bizzyblog.com/2008/09/06/palin-punditry-you-wont-see-in-the-papers-or-on-the-tv-news/
Thanks for posting this. It is interesting...link inside for those interested.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/buckner_tripoli.html
post the link only, not the whole article and the link. See rules for posting.
x
What is the source for this?
.
source?
What is your source for this info? As in, how do you know this is true - did you see it, hear or, what? I really want to know. Where can it be verified or disproved?
There never will be a source on this
nm
Consider the source.
nm
Consider The Source
Sam, this is the same group of people who thought that what Bill did with all those women was okay, or simply a "private" matter.
So nobody in this bunch has ever had a pg teenager? And if any one of these women here would just throw (that's Demspeak for kill) away a DS baby? It's simply a continuation of what they do is okay and what those nasty conservatives do is just criminal!
Wow, that's just classy.
Source: About.com
su
And your source for this is? nm
.
Source please. nm
.
No source? Of course not.
x
what i the source for this??
I have never seen this before. Where does it come from?
And your source is?....nm
x
One source............sm
is the NYT, but you can Google the quote and find it in several articles and blogs.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/26/international/americas/26canada.html
And what source exactly would it take
to satisfy you as being reliable?
SM, you have to consider the source,
this is the network that is fair and balanced, only if you are a democrat. These folks have an Obamachip embedded in their brain. Besides, this is a way to get let the guys and gals on here who are so enamored by their high priest a chance to get their minds off the fact that he could even come close to screwing up something or changing a campaign promise. Don't worry about double standards, they don't apply to Obama.
And your source is????? nm
x
And your source is???? (nm)
x
Well, consider the source............
The majority of those voting for Obama pay NO taxes, never paid a tax in their life, and rarely if ever held down a job...........
So why in the world do they see tax as a bad thing..... they've never paid a tax and will continue to NOT pay taxes and think Obama will just take care of all their needs. This is why they think "rich" is a bad word; they have no ambition, no drive, and never will, so for those that do, they must be punished for succeeding!!??
The lazy and ignorant are running this country through votes they really have no right having.......... IMHO
And your source is????????????? NM
.
And this is a source of pride? nm
The source of your post
I'm not sure why you cut and paste far-right-wing-biased sources as the "truth" in your posts on a liberal forum. In your above post you copied an article from frontpagemag.com and for those who know little about it:
FrontPage Magazine's main focus is on issues pertaining to foreign policy, war, and Islamist terrorism. It regularly condemns official enemies of the U.S. and is a strong proponent of the war on terror, the Iraq War, and Israel's military actions.[citation needed] It has also published articles condemning what it perceives as left-wing organizations and causes, such as the Democratic party, the media, the environmental movement, affirmative action, reparations for slavery, left-wing interpretations of feminism, Islamism, socialism, communism, anarchism, anti-war groups, the United Nations, and other matters.[
consider the source. MM is the sicko....
.
no source listed for this
chart. No footnotes. No data to support numbers. Not enough information to verify veracity - disregarded.
also, moderators have instructed us more than once NOT to copy other websites into posts. Must use links. Please abide by the rules.
Now there's a reputable source--NOT
Huffington Post? Daily Kos (Kooks)? Moveon? Media Matters?
This isn't surprising, just disturbing.
Where is your source? You should not spread
nm
Please cite source........
x
WIKI?? THAT is your source?? lol
edited, changed, and added to by ANYONE, right? You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself as an MT to cite Wikipedia as your authority for ANYthing. I don't even necessarily like SP but you're making the case to side with her if that's how Barack's followers think/act.
We are still waiting for that source
nm
You're only source is obviously your TV set
xx
Once source we can look forward to where
the war chest. It's time to stop rebuilding Iraq and enricing their surplus coffers, get out of dodge, bring our troops back home and start rebuilding our own country. I would look for that from Obama sooner rather than later and certainly he is not on that 100-year time line of McCain's. The Iraqis gets their country back and get to govern themselves, we get our troops back, the direction of the tax dollars gets reversed and we stop one of the unspoken, yet most significant economic hemorrhages of W's administration.
We then turn our attention toward reversing the power and economic stranglehold the corporations hold over us by instituting taxpayer-friendly policies that put corporate welfare behind the welfare of our citizens. We build an economy from the ground up instead of the top down. Sound familiar? We've done it before and we can do it again. Once we do that, W's legacy of fear and division will takes its rightful place in annals of history and seem like just another bad dream we all had.
Well sure, look at the source of her income or
!!
This is a laughable source of
.
Not exactly an unbiased source!
Charles Krauthammer isn't someone whose judgment I would trust. He's been 100% pro-war policy all the way. Not surprising at all that he'd opt for McCain. What we really see is a lot of former Bush policy supporters abandoning that destructive policy and endorsing Obama instead. Can anyone cite an instance of a well-known real Democrat opting for McCain over Obama? I've been keeping my eye out (fair is fair), but have yet to see one endorsement of that type.
reliable source for this please. nm
.
Not a reliable source - sm
The Huffington post is not a reliable source. It's radical left-wing propaganda. It's even less credible than MSNBC.
The source is not the issue
the voting record is.
I just did and cited my source.....sm
so what are you speaking of?
Not a credible source
Can you point me to somewhere on Obama website that gets anywhere close to what this guy is talking about? The youtube was made by some obscure person, NOT showing the alleged speaker at any time. I have found no credible source for "barracks and uniforms" anywhere.
Personally I would support an addition to school curriculums that required community service as part of social studies. A local 4-H club leader called me the other day and asked if I could help her find community service opportunities for her 22 kids. I could and I did. I think before this economic mess is done we'll all help each other or we won't survive. There are a lot of opportunities for input on the Obama website. Time might be better spent flooding that site with your thoughts and concerns rather than posting here. I can promise you that I'm doing my part to flood the suggestion boxs, are you?
I worry more about the Clintons continued involvement in the government....like Ole Bill's "Foundation." .
|
