Perfect definition! I'm standing up & cheering...
Posted By: Push Back on 2008-08-22
In Reply to: A religious wacko is... - sm
In applause. Excellent.
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 comes the cheering squad...
rah, rah, Taiga! Get'er! :-)
compassion is standing up
for the wronged and the weak. Your constant assaults on the truth deserve no compassion. We are standing up for the truth which will lead us out of the current darkness that has descended upon our country. As soon as the scoundrels are ejected, hopefully the veil will be lifted. Until then, we will yank out the roots of deception before it can take root and grow and spread.
STANDING OVATION!!!!
.
Thank you Kaydie for standing with me.
These obots need a wake up call!
Standing ovation!!!
Take a bow - best post I've read in a while!
Still standing by the original statement.
Google "population trends" using the quotes to get exact phrase matches and voila…2,240,000 hits emerge. Scroll on down through the first couple of pages and notice that the links do not take you to blogs and chat room forums. This is the language of academic research scholarship, government institutions, statistical databases, etc. Maybe they too need to be scolded and sent to the dictionary.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/invasion
1. An act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, esp. by an army
2. The entrance or advent of anything troublesome or harmful, as disease.
3. Entrance as if to take possession or overrun.
4. Infringement by intrusion
Invasion is what we did in Iraq and what Russia did in Georgia. Legal and illegal immigrants alike are not enemies. They do not arrive in armies, nor are they a disease. They do not come here with the express intent to cause trouble, inflict harm, possess, take over, infringe or intrude. These are living, breathing, impoverished human beings who come here looking for work in an attempt to feed themselves and their families.
The underlying causes, conditions and political circumstances have been examined and debated on this forum in excruciating detail and will not be repeated here because that was not the intent of the original post. An opinion was expressed and countered. Some choose to embrace diversity, others choose to fear, still others become outraged and even hateful. The population trend is what it is. The US is a developed country with low birth rates per capita with an aging boomer population. Mexico is a developing country with a much broader youth base with many fertile years in front of them and a much higher per capita birth rate. It is a difference in cultures.
It is quite natural in this circumstance (which also exists in other western developed counties) that the population growth in developing countries like Mexico outpaces that that in the developed countries and, yes, white folks will be outnumbered. It is a simple fact of life and one that we probably should be addressing realistically.
The issue is global, not national. The equalizing affect could be manifested in another "natural" progression…the evolution away from racial division and hatred. I only regret that I will probably not live long enough to see it.
My reasons for not standing behind Obama.......... sm
In no particular order of importance.
1. Lack of qualification, even by his own admission as recently as 2004 when he accepted his Senate seat and stated that he felt he would not be qualified for POTUS.
2. Past associations.
3. Current associations and financial backers.
4. His stance on abortion.
5. His stance on gay marriage.
6. His lack of knowledge of foreign policy. He thinks he can just "sit down and negotiate" with the biggest terrorist nations on earth.
7. Lack of proof of citizenship.
8. Questionable background in terms of religion, which lies deeper than just whether he is Protestant or Catholic or nondenomianational.
9. Issues with many of his campaign "promises" not limited to the Civil Defense Service.
None of my issues with Obama center on anything other than the above. Simply put, I don't trust him.
For me, being patriotic means standing up for your
nm
Cowards never understand standing up for anything....
@
Not standing up to the liberal Democratic party
That's for starters. Here's my short list:
1) Not a strong enough military operation in Iraq and Afhghanistan.
2) Too soft on immigration.
3) Witholding the known valid/verified intelligence that proves there were WMDs in Iraq. (I'll never for my life figure that out).
4) Not hiring Tony Snow sooner to show what absolute idiots are in the White House press corps.
5) Letting the U.N. change his stance on the Lebanon/Israel conflict.
I could go on, but I'm at work and I already know you will absolutely not agree with my perceived Bush mistakes, so I won't waste anymore of my time or breath.
And re not standing up to the liberal Democratic party:
Stand up to whom and why? The Congress is run by Republicans. Bush does whatever he wants, when he wants, regardless of what Congress or the courts deem to be legal or constitutional.
He has already stood up to them by spreading propaganda that anyone who doesn't agree with him is either on the terrorist's side or a fascist. If he gets really mad, he swiftboats them.
This is the reason people want him to get warrants before spying on Americans. A President with such a history of personal revenge can't be trusted to just go after the terrorists. He can't be trusted not to spy on innocent Americans who don't agree with his policies. He can't be trusted to have a good reason to spy. He just can't be trusted, period.
I hope you are right, that someone is standing up for the middle class (sm)
But I think what is more likely to happen is that we will ALL be taxed more and we will ALL have less money and it will be spread throughout the world. What you see as wealth and middle class will no longer be the same. Wealth will be being able to afford to feed your family. The jobs will go overseas alright, even more so than they are now. I wish I believed that you are right. That would be great! Unfortunately, I think it is a dream, far from the reality of the nightmare that is coming.
Eligibility case finds standing...
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=84966
I'm standing outside with my basket. Will it fall soon, I hope? sm
...and please, if you wish to be understood by the widest viewership, confine yourself to smaller words. I believe "irony" has three of them syllerbubble thingies, which is two over the limit.
Russo's film gets standing ovation in Cannes.sm
Cannes Premiere Gets Standing Ovation
Aaron Russo’s AMERICA: FREEDOM TO FASCISM
To Open Across America July 28
CANNES, FRANCE – Aaron Russo’s incendiary political documentary which exposes many of the governmental organizations and entities that have abridged the freedoms of U.S. citizens had its international premiere at Cannes and won a standing ovation. The event, which was held on the beach and filled to capacity, was open to the public and drew a crowd of people who stood along the boardwalk to watch the film.
Through interviews with U.S. Congressmen, as well the former IRS Commissioner, former IRS and FBI agents, tax attorneys and authors, Russo proves conclusively that there is no law requiring citizens to pay a direct tax on their labor. His film connects the dots between money creation, federal income tax, voter fraud, the national identity card (which becomes law in May 2008) and the implementation of Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) technology to track citizens. Neither left nor right-wing in perspective, the film concludes that the U.S. government is taking on the characteristics of a police state. Doc will open on multiple screens in cities across the U.S. beginning July 28.
The international audience at Cannes as well as the European media has been fascinated by Russo’s fiery diatribe against the direction America is heading. The discussion that followed the preview lasted for thirty minutes. Actor Nick Nolte, in Cannes for the premiere of “Over The Hedge,” joined Russo during the event. “The information in this film is something everybody has to know”, said Nolte, who was the lead actor in “Teachers,” a film produced by Russo.
Russo, who is best known as the producer of feature films including “The Rose” with Bette Midler and “Trading Places” with Eddie Murphy and Dan Aykroyd, wrote, produced, and directed the doc. “I am disgusted by the direction America was heading,” says Russo. “I made this movie because I want to live in a free country and I want my kids and grandkids to live in a free country. The American people must abandon the myth that America is still the land of liberty that it once was.”
Russo’s doc already has a tremendous grass root groundswell behind it. The film has previewed in over twenty-five cities with sold out theatres and standing ovations. The website, www.freedomtofascism.com has been had over five hundred thousand (500,000) streams of the video trailer. Additionally, through the website and from grassroots screenings, over $100,000 in non-deductible donations has been collected to help with the theatrical release.
EDITORS AND PRODUCERS:
For Press Inquiries contact press@cinemalibrestudio.com
****************************************************************
Primary Objectives
* Stop the polarization of America
* Stop the domination of the Democratic and Republican parties over our political system
* Shut down the Federal Reserve system
* Return America's gold to Fort Knox and have it audited
* Have Congress and the IRS, in a public forum, reveal the law that requires Americans to pay a direct, unapportioned tax on their labor.
* Make computerized voting illegal in all 50 states
* Keep the internet free and out of the control of large institutions
* Rescind the law called the Real ID Act so Americans never have to carry a National ID Card
* Make it illegal to implant RFID chips in human beings
* Educate juries to the fact that they have the right to determine the law as well as the facts of a case
* Educate juries to the fact that they are not obligated to follow the instructions of a judge
* Stop Globalization because it is the path to a one world government
* Protect our borders
* Restore the environment
* Put an end to the Patriot Act
* Sign up millions of Americans so we can accomplish our objectives
There is a difference between courts agreeing and denying based on standing...
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 is your definition of..
winning the war, Iraq and Viet Nam. What exactly does that mean, that there will democracy, an industrialized, technologically adept population? that we will overthrow the **terrorists** (where will they go??) and peace will be restored to the kingdom? I don't get what you think is going to be achieved by staying in Iraq. There has never been peace in the region and there never will be, NEVER unless Himself comes down here and changes things. And another question Islamofascists, who on God's green earth came up with that moniker? It is really quite bizarre, and a mouthful.
Where did you copy the chickenhawk piece from, just curious.
Thanks for the definition!
That is me..liberal to the core and so proud of it. Watching the debate last night I was shaking my head watching those old men with old ideas, so out of touch. Made me so happy that Im a liberal democrat.
Okay but by your definition
His BROTHER is in need! And if not him, definitely his aunt who is living in public housing, illegally at that (unless it's been refuted and I missed that part)
All I'm saying is you have to start at home. Family should come first. I would believe him a lot more about taking care of others if I saw him doing that, instead of just trying to tax us to take care of others.
On a side note, why in the heck does someone who makes almost 1M in 2006 get to claim a child care credit? Like they need that.
By definition it is...
a servile (submissive) self-seeking flatterer
Definition of NWO from wikipedia
The term new world order has been used to refer to a new period of history evidencing a dramatic change in world political thought and the balance of power. The first usages of the term surrounded Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points and call for a League of Nations following the devastation of World War I. The phrase was used sparingly at the end of the Second World War when describing the plans for the United Nations and Bretton Woods system, in part because of the negative association the phrase would bring to the failed League of Nations. In retrospect however, many commentators have applied the term retroactively to the order put in place by the WWII victors as a new world order. The most recent, and most widely discussed, application of the phrase came at the end of the Cold War. Presidents Mikhail Gorbachev and George H.W. Bush used the term to try and define the nature of the post Cold War era, and the spirit of great power cooperation that they hoped might materialize. Gorbachev's initial formulation was wide ranging and idealistic, but his ability to press for it was severely limited by the internal crisis of the Soviet system. Bush's vision was, in comparison, much more circumscribed and pragmatic, perhaps even instrumental at times, and closely linked to the First Gulf War. Perhaps not surprisingly, the perception of what the new world order entailed in the press and in the public imagination far outstripped what either Gorbachev or Bush had outlined, and was characterized by nearly comprehensive optimism.
If your definition is accurate
which I highly dobut then I guess I'm a liberal because I don't pledge blind loyalty to Bush. On the other hand I don't think every word he says is a lie either. I think he is a human capable of human mistakes, but I don't think every problem in the world at this moment is Bush's fault like many on this board do. I think many people are obsessed with the fact there's a conservative in office. It wouldn't matter what their name was Bush or Smith, the obsession would be the same. There are many wacko theories out there on all sorts of issues, but some I have read here take the cake. You don't talk about any other issues other than Bush is fault of everything wrong in this world. To me, liberal or conservative, is a little off the deep end no matter what political ideology you come from.
Do we have a different definition for the word lie?nm
z
If you want a definition of racism...
read the creed for Obama's church...and read some of his pastor mentor's sermons...and some of the speeches and quotes of their friend Louis Farrakhan. That, my friend, is the very definition of racism. When you read the creed of the church, substitute the word "white" everywhere the word "black" is used and tell me it is not racist. We do NOT need a racist in the White House.
Liberal: A definition.
1. A person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties. 2. A person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets.
What is the definition of "wind bag"?
Once again, I just skimmed your post. You are much too fond of your own words.
I am pretty succint in my posts. There is no flip flop. I am stating history in black and white. It doesn't come from Common Dreams. I am explicit in sending the links for those to read them if they wish. I don't quote it. I think you got the market cornered on that maneuver.
Not much of value has come out of the coservative sector, from my point of view. All the sustainable social movements have been on a liberal front. It just so happens that we are a small faction and can get very little leverage, but when we do, it is for the benefit of all not just a few. Can the conservative sector say that? I don't think so.
This is not childish. It's political fact. If you makes you feel better to place the blame everywhere, well that's your right.
If you don't like my liberal thoughts or progressive ideas, don't read my posts. Continue to be a sheep.
Thanks, but I did not want a dictionary definition....
I wanted a *liberal* to define what that means to them...what are their views...what is the *platform* so to speak...what makes a *liberal* different from a *leftist?* Why is Obama not a liberal? That is the information I am seeking...not a dictionary definition. In a liberal's own words, so to speak.
I think that might be a stretch in the definition of
socialism.
Definition of choice
Choice consists of the mental process of thinking involved with the process of judging the merits of multiple options and selecting one of them for action. Some simple examples include deciding whether to get up in the morning or go back to sleep, or selecting a given route for a journey. More complex examples (often decisions that affect what a person thinks or their core beliefs) include choosing a lifestyle, religious affiliation, or political position.
You choose your path, I'll choose mine.
In the United States, the Bill of Rights is the name by which the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution are known.[1] They were introduced by James Madison to the First United States Congress in 1789 as a series of constitutional amendments, and came into effect on December 15, 1791, when they had been ratified by three-fourths of the States. The Bill of Rights limits the powers of the federal government of the United States, protecting the rights of all citizens, residents and visitors on United States territory.
The Bill of Rights protects freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to keep and bear arms, the freedom of assembly, and the freedom to petition. It also prohibits unreasonable search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishment, and compelled self-incrimination. The Bill of Rights also prohibits Congress from making any law respecting establishment of religion and prohibits the federal government from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. In federal criminal cases, it requires indictment by grand jury for any capital or "infamous crime", guarantees a speedy public trial with an impartial jury composed of members of the state or judicial district in which the crime occurred, and prohibits double jeopardy. In addition, the Bill of Rights states that "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people,"[2] and reserves all powers not granted to the federal government to the citizenry or States. Most of these restrictions were later applied to the states by a series of decisions applying the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1868, after the American Civil War.
FYI...Here is the definition of stalking.
Fundamentally, stalking is a series of actions that puts a person in fear for their safety. The stalker may follow you, harass you, call you on the telephone, watch your house, send you mail you don't want, or act in some other way that frightens you.
The exact legal definition varies from state to state, but all states now have some kind of law against stalking. Virtually any unwanted contact between a stalker and their victim which directly or indirectly communicates a threat or places the victim in fear can generally be referred to as stalking, whether or not it meets a state's exact legal definition.
Stalkers use a wide variety of methods to harass their targets. The inventiveness, persistence, and obsessive nature of stalkers is almost unimaginable, until you have experienced being the target.
Stalking is a serious, potentially life-threatening crime. Even in its less severe forms, it permanently changes the lives of the people who are victimized by this crime, as well as affecting their friends, families, and co-workers. Law enforcement is only beginning to understand how to deal with this relatively new crime.
What's the definition of pubic?
.
Quick definition..sm
Marxist-Socialist
A philosophy-turned-governmental-ideology, usually mistaken for Stalinist/Leninist-Communist. This philosophy, although greatly misunderstood, is nothing more that the belief that the strong, the capable, and the powerful should support those too weak to support themselves. This philosophy, created by Karl Marx, was meant to be the fundamental building block for a utopian society, but was later taken up by a man named Lenin, who twisted and warped the pure isea of Socialism and turned it into Leninist-Communism. Later adopted by Joseph Stalin, who made the idea of Socialism a cruel cycle of death, hatred, and intolerence.
I know what the definition of socialism is
xx
the definition of Christian
would be one that "follows" Christ -- by his example, his commands, etc. these creeps are NOT Christians by any way of measure.
Definition of cult
All you have to do is read the Faith board to see the similarities.
1.
a. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
b. The followers of such a religion or sect.
2. A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
3. The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual.
4. A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease.
5.
a. Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.
b. The object of such devotion.
6. An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or intellectual interest.
Definition of a TOOL, taken from the
TOOL (tewl):
(n.) Someone who is used for the benefit of others. A person who lacks any real quality of life, because they reduce themselves to arbitrary and meaningless activity which wastes their existence and entirely eliminates who they are as an individual.
____________________________
Face it. If we're MT's, then we're ALL pathetic 'tools'.
What is YOUR definition of a terrorist? nm
x
Definition of terrorism.
Perhaps I can speak to this as someone who is both trained and educated in the subject.
The FBI, State Department, DHS, United Nations and numerous other agencies and experts have defined terrorism in somewhat different ways, but most definitions agree on some common elements with respect to terrorism:
1. Instilling fear...
2. ...in a civilian population...
3. ...by violence or threat of violence...
4. ...to advance social, political or religious objectives...
5. ...outside the context of lawful means of change or the conduct of war.
Although it is frequently said (usually in the popular press) that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", implying that the term is entirely subjective, this is only true when one of the "men" in question is intellectually dishonest. Terrorism has been defined with sufficient clarity that we can say with a high degree of specificity what is, and what is not, terrorism and who are, and who are not, terrorists.
When people seek to strike a moral equivalency between actions that are fundamentally terrorist and those that merely share certain common elements (for instance, both terrorists and nations at war use bombs), they are confusing superficial similarity with equivalency. This inevitably leads them into errors in thinking and the consequences of such errors - bad judgments, bad decisions, and wrong actions.
You might find a mouse in your cookie jar, but that doesn't make it a cookie.
You have an odd definition of insult.
Michelle Obama was roundly hooted when she suggested that racism is anything that a person perceives to be racist, and here you are offering the same sort of definition. "Insult is anything someone considers to be insulting."
If you can't figure out the problems with definitions like these, I'll be happy to tell you - but I wouldn't want to insult your intelligence.
Now that we have your definition of "insult"...
...there's nothing more to say. You're going to be insulted whenever your sensibilities are offended and I certainly can't stop you, nor will I try.
Follow the logical flow of the conversation (rather than posting non sequiturs or responding to things I don't say), and stay on topic (rather than wandering off into personalities), and I won't have to repeat the request.
Here is a perfect example. sm
You might want to step back, take a deep breath and ask yourself why one simple question *why did you post this*, would bring on such a tirade from you. It was a question. That was all it was.
Perfect....
The world (in my opinion) would be a better place if people didn't take themselves so seriously.
Great statement, TT! Says it all.
I am not saying that he is perfect -
I never said anything about transparency - I am saying that even when I read the articles you all are quoting it never says that Obama lied about anything.
Maybe his aides misspoke, maybe Bush's aides misspoke, I don't know - but you all are calling Obama a liar and I just don't see where he lied.
At the same time, I don't think that telling what he and President Bush talked about is really all that bad a thing - yes, I really would like some transparency in knowing what is going on in my country - they are both elected officials and in fact are answerable to "we the people". I don't think any sensitive information was leaked out concerning our enemies - I think what we read was about our economy, which at this point we are all concerned about and should have as much information as possible.
Now for the part about admitting that he is wrong, if he is wrong or does something bad, I will be the first to stand up and say it, and I will be the first to admit I was wrong in supporting him, but at this point, I do not see anything he has done wrong.
This is a perfect example....(sm)
of why dems are so critical of the right. You just throw stuff out there that has no basis. Given that I have looked at all available text that would fall into the category you speak of and have found nothing to back up your claim, the fact that Obama typically meticulously chooses his words before he says them, and your obvious unwillingness or inability to provide some kind of documentation to support your claim, I have to come to the conclusion that what you have said is false. If this is incorrect, then by all means, please feel free to prove me wrong.
The dems were just recently accused of character assassination after stating facts. And then here you come along with this garbage, which is basically the same thing that has been done by the pubs since before the election. At least you're consistent.
That is a perfect example of
how helping people sometimes isn't helping.....it is enabling them to continue mooching. This is what the current administration fails to understand.
Never said he was perfect...
just said he wasn't a socialist! Where do air traffic controllers come in?
Yes, that was so right on .... so perfect.
nm
How perfect.. thanks.
nm
perfect
" . . .no obligation to think logically, represent facts accurately or to be an honest broker in the public arena of ideas." Thank you for that perfect description of Fox News. 
PERFECT!!!
x
|
