Stop getting your info from the history channel....
Posted By: LOL.................... NM on 2009-05-07
In Reply to: You don't remember those pesky crusades, do you? NM - AnnuderMT
--
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
You must not watch much on the History channel. sm
When Eisenhower liberated the Jews in the concentration camps in Germany, he made the surrounding townspeople walk through to see what they had done. Many of them worked in the camps. Do you think that only Hitler was behind killing all the Jews? I want to live in your world! But of course, not all Germans were in on the killing. However, most of them knew and that makes them complicit in my book. I won't address the bigotry remark because it's just silly. How about joining in some debate instead of getting all emotional?
The History Channel programs are
often very factual. I watch it a lot.
I would love to see the John Adams program but I gave up HBO. They didn't seem to have very good programming for a long time, movie-wise, and a lot of the series were on too late for me, so I gave HBO up (after 15 years).
The history channel lies? Really?....LOL (nm)
On 2/16 on history channel a program about Lincoln
Think its called Stealing Lincolns body. Looks interesting.
I'll be sure to watch this one tonight. I saw it advertised the other night when I was watching Sense and Sensibility.
Stop watching TV or googling, and please pick up a REAL history text without bias, it is not a parti
even I bet George Bush is looking for authors to do so....perhaps he will get out his crayons and try it himself, after he masters "See spot run. See VP Cheney run with his Halliburton $$$$$$$."
I will not stop trying to stop the slaughter of the unborn in this country...
I never said you were a stupid wretch. What I said was, if you can watch that video below and not feel something, your heart must be seared over. If you can watch that video and advocate what you advocate, yes, I'm sorry, I find that cold. I am entitled to my opinion and all your ranting and name calling and belitting is not going to change that. Someone needs to speak for the child. You certainly aren't allowing it any rights, including the right to live. You are okay with that, I'm not.
Who is *they*, where did you see it, what channel? NM
...
What channel does SNL come on?
I don't think I can watch it, I don't get any local channels :(
Stupid Directv! LOL
He DID? What channel was it on?
PROOF, please.
Really? What channel? nm
x
the are a NEWS channel
it's kinda to pre-record live news coverage. Probably nothing major will happen today, but who knows? Your scraping the bottom by criticizing a live news channel for having live coverage.
SP is not on every channel, watch
BTW, hope you and your loved ones will be safe. I am sure I would be terrified. I just saw the latest news, though, and it states the hurricane is currently aimed more south... Brownsville, Corpus Christi. When did it change direction??
I just watched whatever channel it is that has
channel working on my TV tonight. (No cable). Coverage seemed pretty unbiased, each person had their say, no eye-rolling by commentators or anything along those lines. I thought it was pretty good for a first debate. Not enough nuts 'n' bolts for me on either side, but ah, well. Hopefully that'll come later.
Do you only have 1 channel in your home?
Do you live out in the sticks? Nothing but just the local channels? Why cant you change the channel that you have or just turn the frik… television off. If I don’t like a program off it goes. So simple.
Hannity is just one person on the channel...
not the whole channel. Keith Olbermann rants like a loon sometimes, almost to the point of drooling, but as long as he is bashing a conservative people love him. Every channel has their talking over obnoxious commentator. It is all about what Keith thinks, what his opinion is, and rarely is there a point. It could be said about any commentator. Still, if I want to see a Dem and a Repub in a split screen where the commentator says OUT of it and lets them have their say and does not allow them to talk over one another...Fox is my only choice. I have seen Fox cut the mikes on both sides if the pundit would not stop talking over the other. I have NEVER seen anyone cut Olbermann's mike. He does not even try to hide his contempt for anyone who does not share his view. You don't like Hannity, i don't like Olbermann. The difference is...if I want to hear a conservative viewpoint at ALL, Fox is my only choice. That is a fact. And why people are so against letting both sides have their say, and want to tear the hide of Fox in strips because they lean conservative when all the other outlets fall off the slide to the left...what does that say about those people? What kind of people want to silence all opposition? What is happening to this country?
Comcast has it as "HN" channel 25 (sm)
I wrote down what I could fast!
The Arrows: Wieden and Smith from Oregon wanted this.
Film & TV Production: $10M. Sherman and Schiff from (where else?) California.
Exxon Valdez earmark: Young Alaska
Mental Health: Ramstad.
Rum: Businesses - Baccardi and others.
Racing: NASCAR
The Samoa debacle: WHO ELSE BUT PELOSI!!!!
What a ripoff. These were put in to sway the votes. Politics as usual.
I did change the channel -seeing the dislike
on all the channels except on the Communist News Network who's too busy commenting on what M.O. is wearing, and I turned MSLSD off totally along time ago when they were only showing the love affair many Americans have with him. No news found there.
You should go to the other channels and you too would see the people of other countries telling of their dislike for the annointed one.
channel 2 reported on recruiters tactics
Channel 2 did a bit on their nightly news. I believe it was a college paper reporter who went undercover and told the recruiters he had done drugs and other things that would have disqualified him and the recruiters were salivating at the thought of signing him up and told him ways to get into the service even though. These recruiters would take a dead man if his body was still warm, for pete sake. I say, you need people in the military, check out the people in the administration, ask if their children will join for the *better good of all to bring democracy to the world*.
Has Fox News Channel declared a War on Christmas?
Let's see.....
MSNBC stopped live broadcasting early, as did CNN. (They must want the majority of their employees to celebrate CHRISTMAS at HOME with their families.)
Fox News Channel, on the other hand, is broadcasting LIVE on Christmas Day and continuing to spread their Bush is wonderful and broke no laws gospel.
I wonder if Gibson and O'Liely will expose Fox's blatant war on Christmas!!
AHAAAAAA HAAAAA - Foot channel - my bad
Gosh that was way too funny. I'm about peeing my pants laughing.
Good to have a cat fight again. Waaarrrrr (or as my cat says when she sees other cats - hsssss.....hssssss....hssssss)
He was on the weather channel (his speeches were) constantly on the weekend. BUT SM
I am probably lying.
mmmm....and in 4 years I'll have to subscribe to the weight watcher channel
If they have one.
History is history and opinion is opinion. You need to learn the difference.
x
Here's a little info for you.
You brandish the name of your saviour like it was a badge of honor.
Did it ever occur to you that some people don't believe in your religion/saviour? Perhaps it never occurred to you that there are OTHER RELIGIONS out there in this world that other people believe in. Your salvation might be another person's idea of mythology.
It's kind of sad that your religious philosophy is to shove your crap down everyone else's throat.
Bush is a nutcase. This country is going down the tubes. And, after reading the blurb above about how he said God told him to clean up the mess in Iraq and God told him to declare war on the mideast, I fear that this country is really in deep doo-doo. I shudder to think what the next three years will be like under this administration. A president has to please ALL THE PEOPLE, not just one segment of the population.
As far as the supreme court and the abortion issue, well let's put it like this. If abortion becomes a crime AGAIN - women will be like third world citizens - AGAIN. Abortion will not stop, it will go back to the alleys, backrooms and other dirty places where it used to be done and women will DIE. And to use a worn-out phase - If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one.
Here is more info. sm
The term New World Order (NWO) has been used by numerous politicians through the ages, and is a generic term used to refer to a worldwide conspiracy being orchestrated by an extremely powerful and influential group of genetically-related individuals (at least at the highest echelons) which include many of the world's wealthiest people, top political leaders, and corporate elite, as well as members of the so-called Black Nobility of Europe (dominated by the British Crown) whose goal is to create a One World (fascist) Government, stripped of nationalistic and regional boundaries, that is obedient to their agenda.
Listen to the Zionist* banker, Paul Warburg:
We will have a world government whether you like it or not. The only question is whether that government will be achieved by conquest or consent. (February 17, 1950, as he testified before the US Senate).
Their intention is to effect complete and total control over every human being on the planet and to dramatically reduce the world's population by two thirds. While the name New World Order is the term most frequently used today to loosely refer to anyone involved in this conspiracy, the study of exactly who makes up this group is a complex and intricate one.
The corporate portion of the NWO is dominated by international bankers, oil barons and pharmaceutical cartels, as well as other major multinational corporations. The Royal Family of England, namely Queen Elizabeth II and the House of Windsor, (who are, in fact, descendants of the German arm of European Royalty - the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha family - changed the name to Windsor in 1914), are high level players in the oligarchy which controls the upper strata of the NWO. The decision making nerve centers of this effort are in London (especially the City of London), Basel Switzerland, and Brussels (NATO headquarters).
Would welcome info.
I would like to hear both your thoughts on stem cell research. I know little about it, really.
don't know where you get your info from
Probably some whack-job radio show who spew only one side (their side). The hatred those shows put out I still don't understand why people listen - or believe it! Guess they all feed off of "hate". And its on both sides! I've voted both. I voted for Clinton the first term. Two weeks later got a rude awakening on what he was about. Voted republican the next time. Then voted against Gore cos I didn't want a third term Clinton, but I wasn't voting for Bush, I was voting against and it has been like that ever since. You said McCain has more insight into the real world? Are you kidding? He is like Bush - exactly alike! He does not have insight into the real world and everytime he says something he has to be corrected by his closest peers. It reminds me of when I was watching Regan and Nancy Regan had to help him along. McCains wife is a billionairess. I have seen nothing to show that McCain will help the people. All he's interested in is keeping the war going for the next hundred years. Then somewhere along the line someone must have told him its popular among the people and they'll vote for you if you tell them you have a plan for bringing the troops home, so he started saying that. The truth is he has no intention of bringing troops home. And if the war ends in Iraq/Afganistan he'll send them somewhere else. He refuses to sit down and talk to leaders of other countries. Just "take-em-out". As for new world order. Take another look ....they are all for it. This is nothing new with leaders - Hillary especially. What she has in her sights is creating one world government and she wants to rule over it. But I've been listing to Obama talk and I hear nothing of that (I'm still not voting for him, but I haven't heard any of what you seem to be hearing). As for him changing the Seal of the US President - I sure don't know where your getting your info but that is just plain wrong. Sounds like something Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or some other nut case republican radio show host is saying. And as for his church. I have heard other people talk about the church and it is not all hate. So they take a sound bite from one sermon and blow it up. Let's talk about Hague (a supporter of McCain), or how about Fallwell when he was alive (another supporter of the republicans). They are the most hateful and biggotted people. They don't talk about love (unless you happen to be their religion). You can keep religion. I want to be closer to God so therefore I am staying away from all churches. So go ahead and vote republican, I myself will be thinking for myself and deciding for myself, not what someone else tells me I should do.
Info
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26496189/
Here is some info...
In the middle of this blog's home page is a section called "Seriously?" in which someone's comments are quoted incredulously. It currently features John McCain and his reply at Saturday's Saddleback Forum when asked to define "rich": "I think if you're just talking about income," McCain said, "how about $5 million?"
To be fair to McCain, his answer was more nuanced than that.
As soon as he said it, he gave the following qualification (note, too, his own use of the word "seriously"):
I don't think, seriously that—the point is that I'm trying to make here seriously—and I'm sure that comment will be distorted, but the point is...that we want to keep people's taxes low and increase revenues.
...So it doesn't matter really what my definition of "rich" is because I don't want to raise anybody's taxes. I really don't. In fact, I want to give working Americans a better shot at having a better life. And we all know the challenges, my friends.
McCain's answer was a good one. He refused to play the game of defining "rich," because the premise of that game is that "rich" people aren't taxed enough. The percentage of one's income forked over to the federal government is hardly the best indicator of one's contributions to the American economy—not least because it assumes lawmakers spend the money wisely. Allow individuals to retain their earnings and they invest in companies, buy new cars, or remodel their houses—all of which keeps the economy humming. As hard as it is to imagine, even nitwitted Paris Hilton has her benefits. Her spending sprees keep shops open, salespeople employed, and importers, manufacturers, marketers, and a whole host of others in business.
But what was Barack Obama's answer to what constitutes rich? A family earning $250,000. Given that he proposes raising the top marginal rate to 39.6 percent, that would mean the family is left with $151,000—and that's before local, state, property, and sales taxes.
So for Obama, leaving a family with $151,000 means they're rich? Er, "Seriously?"
Really...SERIOUSLY???
Some info for you on the ads
Said I wouldn't be back because of all the bickering and fighting going on, but I came here today to let you know about the following information. I think everyone will find it interesting.
WGAL-TV reporter Matt Belanger will be looking at the ads of both candidates in the coming weeks and break them down so we can be INFORMED voters. Here are his first investigations. He will be doing this every week until election day. It may help some people on this board make up their minds without going to the trash sites for garbage news. Enjoy and PLEASE STOP FIGHTING!!!!
If the links don’t work, go to www.wgal.com and in the search box at the top left, put in “Video 8: On Your Side.”
http://www.wgal.com/video/17508920/index.html
http://www.wgal.com/video/17491060/index.html
Thanks for this info. I would like to see it, too. nm
x
A little info on this......
http://www.waronfreedom.org/dox/BONoUsCitizen.htm
More info here....
http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/08/did_il_abortion.html
August 22, 2008
Did IL abortion law protect babies aborted alive?
Sean Hannity has done a fabulous job covering the Barack Obama/Born Alive scandal.
For the past 2 nights his liberal counterpart, Alan Colmes, has proposed rationale far and away from Obama's original reason for opposing the IL Born Alive Infants Protection Act, which he stated on the IL State Senate floor in 2001, at the genesis of this debate:
I just want to suggest ... that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny....
I mean, it - it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.
Colmes has maintained, quoting from last night's show, "there was already a law in place that said that in the unlikely case that an abortion would be - cause a live birth, a doctor should provide immediate medical care for any child born alive."
Here are Hannity and Colmes segments from August 20 and August 21, debating Obama's opposition to Born Alive:
Was there a law in place? As National Review Online's Ramesh Ponnuru explained in a column August 20...
IL law has rules - loophole-ridden rules, but rules - requiring treatment of babies who have "sustainable survivability." If an attempted abortion of a pre-viable fetus results in a live birth, the law did not protect the infant. Nurse Jill Stanek said that at her hospital "abortions" were repeatedly performed by inducing the live birth of a pre-viable fetus and then leaving it to die. When she made her report, the attorney general said that no law had been broken. That's why legislators proposed a bill to fill the gap.
National Right to Life adds:
Obama's defenders... fail to mention that the law covered only situations where an abortionist decided before the abortion that there was "a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb."...
Moreover, as [liberal columnist] Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune notes (August 20, 2008), "Prosecutors in IL entered into a consent decree in 1993 agreeing not to prosecute doctors for apparent or alleged violations of this law based on 'born alive' definitions or other definitions." To read or download the consent decree to which Mr. Zorn refers, click here.
Also see this letter we received from Republican pro-life IL Attorney General Jim Ryan in July 2000 stating he could find no law Christ Hospital was violating (click to enlarge):
![Jim](http://www.jillstanek.com/Jim%20Ryan%20letter%20page%201-thumb-500x822.jpg")
info about AP
They are now free to put opinions in their so-called news. Check it out if you don't believe me. It's not like it wasn't that way previously, but now it's out in the open.
Thanks for the info....(sm)
I hadn't really thought that much about how much manipulation Israel itself does with these groups. I've always looked more from the aspect of US intervention and backing. I'll have to read up on that. Thanks.
More info...........
This lady did give birth prematurely to the child (only 3 to 4 months pregnant) with several severe conditions and, of course, it still is in critical condition, and this was in January she gave birth.
So if the child is living and in critical condition, the mother is now in custody and in jail and could face 20 years in prison, why is it our precious president thinks it's no big deal to allow late term abortions, allow a STILL living aborted baby to lie in a bucket until dies an agonizing death because Obama says it doesn't deserve medical care even though the child is still alive and abortion didn't kill it, and the doctors and nurses present aren't put in jail and the mother who chose to have this sick procedure isn't put in jail?
This country is going to he!! in a handbasket fast!!!
thanks for the info
Thanks for the nice reply - I was a little hesitant to post, thought I might get blasted as I realize this can be a sensitive topic.
I just posted because I believe there were misconceptions about what a universal sytem might entail. And obviously any attempt so have something similar in the United States would be a massive undertaking and probably would be a different model than what we have. Just want to mention a couple of things. Someone mentioned government interference, not specifically referring to Canada, but more to the US. There really isn't much here - everyone has a health card and wherever we go we use it. Within your own province and going to most other provinces (excluding Quebec, where they always like to be different) most of the time there is no government-related paperwork, no permission for tests/surgeries/etc., and everything is between the patient and doc.
I realize some doctors would no longer be involved in direct patient care, but some here are not as well, although I would think universal coverage would mean fewer doctors needed as legal consultants, people wouldn't need to sue to cover their medical bills?
Another bonus. I've been working as an MT for 29 years, for many different places, have never been employed at a place where our work is sent offshore (probably happens, but not to such a degree). Maybe combination of health care not being run by private interests and I believe we have stricter privacy laws covering all personal information, including health-related.
Thanks
Where did you get your info?
I saw nothing in the bill that included all you included in your statement. As I read it, it just allows for stiffer penalties for hate crimes.
I would definitely like to check this out more.
So when the terrorists come, you'll just say STOP or I'll say STOP again? nm
Actually, thanks for posting this....appreciate the info.
Not sure what all the rants are all about. You were simply echoing what Santorum said in a tongue-in-cheek kind of way. Thanks for sharing this article.
A little info PK, or should I say *Stephen*
Your...his post was deleted because they were accompanied by profanity. The usual left spin machine is in full swing here.
If you simply follow the rules and don't curse people you will find your posts have true staying power.
This is interesting info, but does not add anything to...sm
THIS debate. Not buying it...Clinton can not be used as a scapegoat here.
If you believe the allegations and conspiracy theories against Clinton, why turn a deaf ear to Bush? That is partison ignorance.
and I too had to pass on this info
http://share.triangle.com/node/13576
The questions remain :
What is Barack Husein Obama - a Senator from Illinois - doing when he is interacting with a violent rebel, muslim leader in Kenya who may have been responsible for the murder of dozens of innocent people burned to death simply because they took refuge in a church?
What is Barack Husein Obama doing when he interferes in the internal operations of a foreign nation like Kenya?
Are you going to let a well organized and well financed representative of a foreign government push his way any further into your national government?
How many more people have to die before Americans come to understand that Barack Husein Obama is not a product of the land of Lincoln?
Born in Hawaii he spent most of his life in the violent and backward nation of Indonesia – where not too long ago the Australians had to stop the Muslims from killing all the Christians in East Timor.
When will this blood soaked travesty of our national political system come to an end? When will the mocking smirk of our enemies be wiped from our television screens?
Change they want? With the gun? With the torch?
Would like to respond, but need more info....
I have been a bit out of touch the past week or so (looking for a job) and have not heard about Obama's latest remarks regarding sanctions, coalitions and the like. Could you please cite your sources for this information? It sounds like spin to me, but I like to keep open mind. You are right about much food for thought and I would like to enter this discussion once I know where this is coming from.
IMO, the sanctions against Iraq have very little to do with "punishing" Sadaam and more to do with serving US interests in destabilizing the region as a whole, thus facilitating US ambitions of securing and maintaining "oil"igarchy in the Middle East. We have been doing that ever since the late 1940s. Examples abound. Don't get me started.
The Iran sanctions discussion is a moot point. We have imposed sanctions against Iran ever since the Islamic revolution in 1979. Over the years, these have been extended and have become so harsh, there really is nothing left to sanction. This has succeeded in fueling the hatred Islamic extremists hold toward the West and emboldened their leaders, who have been quite resourcesful in bypassing US sanctions by forming alliances with other western and eastern countries.
With regard to "international coalitions" against Iran, I would be more worried about the Bush Administration covert operations as described recently by Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/04/17/060417fa_fact) than anything Obama may come up with.
Still, I would be interested in learning more about these remarks you find so troubling.
THanks for the info. I think others here could benefit from it also.
Thank you for sharing. I really didn't know that.
Got this info on Kilkenny...
According to Ann Kilkenny, a Democrat who observed City Council, Palin also brought up the idea of banning some books at one meeting, but did not follow through with the idea.[18]
This is the Kilkenny who wrote the email. Obviously the story has changed.
I cannot find anything to verify the size of the deficit other than heresay. I guess the only way you would know is fly up there and look at the city records. Out of curiousity I did Google average city budget deficits, and when I saw all the cities here and all the deficits...
And I would also need to know if that "surplus" was an actual surplus or another one of those phantom "projected" surplusses. I cannot find anything concrete on that either.
I'm sure reliable info is out there somewhere...... sm
but it would be hard to find. Any national coverage for the UAW would be the same, I would think, as the national coverage that Obama wants to put in place for all Americans.
one of many places for this info
And plenty more will be posted here. I hadn't even heard of Democratic Underground. Classy!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,419964,00.html
Your info is wrong
Show me the link that shows McCain is blaming Obama. I keep searching and am not finding it. Everything I am finding says "McCain is blaming Obama allies" (not Obama himself as you stated).
I did find an article that says "McCain all but blames Obama for the crisis". The article then goes on to state that two years ago McCain called for reform of the curruption at FM/FM and congress did nothing (I believe we have a democratic congress). Senator Obama did nothing and actually profited from this system of abuse and scandel.
The fact of the matter is that Obama was taking the money and he received more than anyone in congress except for the democratic chairman of the committee that overseas them. If you want to talk about corrupt you should start first with Obama and find out why he kept accepting money and why he isn't paying any of it back.
Here's the article in full so you can read it for yourself. Another lame try from the liberals at trying to take the focus off of what Obama has done (or not done).
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/McCain_pitchfork_in_hand_blames_Obama_allies_for_crisis.html
More info on Obama
OBAMA/AYERS PUSHED RADICALISM ON SCHOOLS
Turns out their relationship runs much deeper than Obama's campaign lets on. |
Permalink | ShareShare | E-Mail
visiting www.spectator.org has sent you a link to the following story:
You can read this story in its entirety on the web at:
http://www.Spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13459
Freedom and the View From Obamaland
By Jeffrey Lord
From talk radio to oil and guns, the left’s chilling vision of the future emerges.
FYI: Many Dems do NOT want passage of The Fairness Doctrine, knowing full well that it'll come right around to bite them. That's not even considering the obvious fact about silencing freedom of speech. Also, think how irate 60 Minutes, etc. would be when the conservative view would have to be instilled into their shows. It's the goose/gander thing.
|
So many assumptions......so little info
Here ya go again. If there is info that doesn't look great about Obama, then one must be a McCain supporter. Look, I can't help it if the person you want in office is disliked by his own VP and his own VP choice has already said Obama is NOT the man for the job. He has no experience. It's fact....deal with it. It just goes to show ya what strange bed fellas get together. All Biden wants is to get his foot in the door 4 years from now. He has no faith in Obama and probably also took the job to keep an eye on his disasters while in office.
Biden actually is a McCain lover, sorry to pop your bubble on that. He sings nothing but praises for John McCain BUT he can't do that for Obama. Even Biden can't stoop to lying about a man he doesn't care for, even if he is of his own party.
|
