That’s all you got??? I was completely honest – you’re the one who did the assuming
Posted By: me on 2009-03-27
In Reply to: So, you weren't exactly being honest. - Shirley U. Jest
My words were “DH works in stocks/trading”. Which he does. Not everyone who works in stocks/trading goes into an office in Wall Street or a stockbrokers office. There are many people behind the scenes that research companies, and other jobs dealing with the markets, trading, buying, selling, foreign currencies, etc. Many of them write articles for the companies who have clientele with big $$$ to be trading and selling. Many of them attend meetings, sit in on conference calls, etc. Also, many people when dealing with portfolios whether they are your own or various clients know what is going on in the world of the markets/finance. I never said he buys or sells “just for ourselves” and I never once said he went into an office or even eluded to the fact that he went into an office, so there you go again “assuming”. I didn’t divulge any information about his clients or anything, and I never said what he did except that he works in stocks/trading, which he does. By the way… there are many people out there who buy/sell stocks and currencies for themselves and makes or loses $$$ a day. Tell them they “don’t work” in trading. Your too busy wanting to defend yourself and make excuses and you’re doing a poor job at it. Next time maybe you should read a post slowly before assuming anything.
One thing I do know is there is a lot more going on behind the scenes and if the markets go up or down it is not just because of who is the president. But you only like to point that out when the market goes up. You praise the enlightened one when the markets go up and claim he has now walked on water and the stock market has gone up just because of him and he along, and yet you remain as silent as the wind when the markets go down. Can’t have it both ways.
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
Thanks for being honest, I completely agree
It was totally political and this issue is a HUGE example of what happens in politics. Republicans wanted children to suffer and Democrats wanted to give goverment assistance to rich people. I was so shocked when I actually looked at the proposal and thought: what are these people talking about? I'm glad we were able to work together and cut through the bull! :) That's what it should be about.
And you also I am assuming? What would...
your reaction have been if Obama had announced he was suspending his campaign to return to Washington (his job actually, campaign not withstanding...he IS still a senator and we are still paying him)to deal with this crisis? Be honest. What would your reaction have been?
now who is assuming
talk about ass-u-me ...
Because I am a Jew I am pushing sex, violence, other "worldly" things on you? Are you saying a Jewish life is corrupt because we aren't christian? Never said you should put up with it. You should voice your feelings to the stores, television stations, magazines, etc.
I didn't say you shouldn't have your "christian things" out in public, I said, don't assume Ben Stein speaks for the Jewish community. Got your feathers a little ruffled there, didn't ya? LOL!
I'm assuming you mean....
that it would be a bad thing to be a Muslim? It's been proven for 2 years that he is not a Muslim but a Christian, but that's not the point. What exactly makes it bad to be a Muslim?
You know what they say about assuming don't you?
I'm originally from Florida, which is the melting pot of the US for race dear. I have black, white, asian, indian, hispanic, etc etc friends. My problem is with the fact that people still want to whine about "oh unequal treatment" when really all that has happened is a reversing of treatment. Now white people can't get any help or decent positions if there is a minority going for the same help or position.
But hey, you must know everything, so I digress.
There you go again. Assuming.
I spent many days writing and calling my reps.
McCain and what happened with his first wife has noting to do with voting.
You also do not know who I voted for.
O is rushing too fast in his decision making from my point of view. He's putting the cart before the horse. He's not thinking of consequences of closing Gitmo, the stimulus package, ending the war in Iraq too early, letting Geithner become head of IRS, and choosing Emanuel.
We shall see what happens, and I hope its for the best, but he should slow down and take his time before making decisions that will affect all of us in the coming years.
Wow, my post was totally and completely respectful and yours is totally and completely not. sm
what a surprise. Can't stand to be corrected or proven wrong, can you. Have to call everyone a liar, don't you. Got to tell people to stick things somewhere, don't you. TSK TSK TSK Anger management might be helpful.
Assuming that you are serious in your inquiry,
my response follows:
I have, thus far, seen no credible evidence to corroborate the notion that Bush willingly lied about the situation in Iraq. The information available at the time regarding WMD may or may not have been incorrect, but it was information that was accepted at that time by the world community, and I can no more condemn Bush for believing it than I can condemn Clinton or the UN for believing it. Given the state of the country in the aftermath of 9/11, it seems to me that allowing any country to disregard a 14th or 15th UN resolution with regard to accounting for WMDs would have been seen as insanity.
Another poster said something to the effect that the truth has not been presented, and I think this is true. We hear about the activities of the insurgency in Iraq, but we do not hear about the day-to-day successes there because bombings are more sensational and a better news story. A troop of soldiers building a road or delivering medical equipment or school supplies isn't a story. Iraqis working alongside American soldiers is not a news story. Suicide bombings and allegations of prisoner abuse are more sensational, and so that is what the public sees, and the Bush administration has done a really poor job of keeping the public updated on what the military is actually doing in Iraq and what advances are being made in the war on terror, thus allowing the media to be the only voice heard.
As far as prisoner abuses go, I don't think conservatives have their heads in the sand, but I think they (I) have a somewhat more cynical attitude toward such abuses. While such abuses should never be tolerated, they will always happen. There are bad eggs in any basket, whether it be a prison or any other community of people. When those people break rules and do bad things, they deserve to be investigated and appropriately punished, but allowing and encouraging the entire community/effort to be indicted by the actions of those few is counterproductive. In the instance of prison abuses, I consider it irresponsible and counterproductive for the mainstream media to engage in what seems to me to amount to broad-scale bashing of the administration on the basis of these incidents.
I also think conservatives are more inclined to weigh these incidents against the larger picture, whereas liberals seem more inclined to see the actions as unacceptable (and rightly so) and thus to condemn the entire system (not justified, IMO). In other words, the possibility that some Iraqi detainees are being mistreated is concerning, and the situation should be corrected, but it is not an indictment against the entire military or the entire administration. Such abuses must be minimized proactivly, and when they do occur, they must be dealt with, but it is unrealistic to expect that they will not happen at all or that they are any indication of acceptable behavior standards of the military or the administration.
As far as embryonic stem cell research, I personally believe that this is an area in which agreement is never going to be possible because the basic difference is more theological than anything else. I tried to explain my position on this on the conservative board, but I did it poorly. Most social conservatives/pro-life people approach the abortion and embryonic stem-cell research issues with the innate presumption that life - the presence of a new soul - begins at conception.
Regarding your above example of weighing the cells in the Petri dish versus helping the patient with Alzheimer's, the statement of the pastor you cited seems kind and loving IF one assumes that the Petri dish contains nothing more valuable than a few cells - in other words, if you assume that it does not contain a human soul. On the other hand, in the pro-life viewpoint, if I assume that the Petri dish contains a new human soul that is to be deliberately destroyed in order to help the woman with Alzheimers, I cannot be anything but horrified that one life, through no fault of its own and through no action on its part, is considered disposable for the benefit of the other.
Many conservatives find a puzzling dichotomy between the liberal abortion/stem-cell research position and the position regarding Iraq. The liberal position seems willing to accept the possibility of killing a human soul if we don't have firm proof that it exists, but the continuing US presence in Iraq in a situation in which premature withdrawal would almost certainly lead to chaos and, quite likely, the development of a Taliban or Iran-like theocracy is anathema.
Why do these divisions exist? I think that is probably a matter of who one listens to and believes, and what mindset one takes into their research. If you approach research with the mindset that America is at fault for most of her problems, that can be supported. If you take the position that America is basically just, that position can be supported. If your morality tends to focus most on social justice, that can be supported. If your morality focuses more on individual liberty, that can be supported. With the mainstream media being considered less reliable by both sides (considered a liberal mouthpiece by conservatives and a Bush puppet by liberals), I think more people are turning to online sources for their information. The danger of that, though, is that is very easy online to find sources that cater to one's preexisting position, thus widening the divide.
If I have said anything inflammatory or disrespectful above, my apologies.
You are stereotyping and assuming......
I believe you have never taken the time to reach out to gay people and see that the lifestyle is not any different from yours. Unfortunately, your bible thumping gets in the way.
You have a lot of nerve assuming these women
xoxoxo
I'm not assuming you are white. I simply
meant put yourself in the role that she was in, a minority in college. You are right though, I assumed that you weren't a minority for that scenario and I apologize. And, I didn't mention anywhere in my post about Wright, I was simply referring to her as a college student and the fact that I did not think her thesis was racist.
You people on the left are always assuming you
nm
I'm assuming you've never watched....(sm)
the full versions of his sermons, just the sensationalistic clips on Fox.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvMbeVQj6Lw
It's all about context.
I'm assuming you are quite young, am I correct in
that assumption?
I'm assuming that was supposed to be a picture sm
of an angry mob, but I was unable to view it, but I get it!! That's hilarious. But I will say the comment about "first they laughed and then they died" will haunt my nightmares -- not so funny.
JTBB, I have to admire your tenacity dealing with these people. Tell me, what is it like being a pariah? I know this won't jive with your atheist beliefs, but you know that Jesus was the most famous pariah, so your're in good company!! LOL
Assuming I am the nameless one....and also for the umpteenth time...
not a Republican...I call Barack Obama a socialist because he is one, not because he supports social programs (the accused Republicans do also, to a point, otherwise there would be none), but because he wants to practice redistribution of wealth...taaxing one group of people and redistributing that money to people who did nothing to earn it...including people who already do not pay taxes.
I never said Obama was a communist. He has had communist influences in his life, that is proven, he mentions the man in his book Dreams of My Father. But I have never said Barack Obama was a communist. I don't know if he is or not. I do know he is a socialist.
There you go again assuming everyone who marries is are christian heterosexuals
The middle east people don't marry according to our bible. The jews have their version, and so do all other religions. Even the bush people from Africa and Australia marry, and they don't marry based on the bible of christianity.
Talk about being screwed up! Trying to make a point with nonsense.
I sure can't want for all the states to follow suit and make marriage legal for homosexuals.
If you believe in christianity and the bible that's fine and good, but don't push your beliefs on everyone else, because we believe you are wrong.
Correction - I meant wait before assuming, not "want"
x
Can I be honest here? sm
I keep hearing here and there that O will be assassinated, won't live out his term, etc. That grieves me. I am a registered Republican, live in the south, in a small, rural town FULL of white, racist people. I don't know who they voted for, but I honestly don't think that "white" America is ready for a black president. There are too many racist people (I know tons of them) who refer to O as the N word (yes, you heard me right) and this is in small, rural America. I truly believe he probably won't last.
It wasn't that long ago that Rosa Parks sat on that bus and it wasn't that long ago when those precious girls from that black Montgomery church were blown up (during church) and remember Jenna 6 and all of the white people who stood up for the boys.
It's hateful and sickening, yes, but America is still prejudiced as sad as it is to say that. Too many white hate groups. I am in my mid 30s and when I was in college there were very large sects of "skinheads." They are everywhere. They are very prideful. They hate blacks. I am half Hispanic and my family doesn't look white. I've been the subject of racism in the past. People are awful.
Whether you believe in God or not as a liberal, pray for O's safety because I think he is going to need it.
I have to be honest, DW....
when we were debating it I honestly did not realize that some states already provided coverage for all kids no matter what the income level, which seemed to be the sticking point for most of the debaters. The fact that MA and PA could do it, even on the unexpanded program, leads me to believe other states could do it too, if their priorities were in place. Washington is such a goofy place, really...if the Democrats had prefaced it differently and had not used the implicit words to extend it "higher up the income ladder" and just stated they wanted to dole more out to the states so it would be easier for them to insure all the state's kids...I don't think there would have been such an issue. They purposely sent a bill they knew Bush would veto, which is a ridiculous exercise...I think it was purely political election time posturing and misleading to both Democrat and Republican voters. It did what it was intended to do, and that is make a headline that Bush did not want to insure kids, when that is not at all a true statement. That being said...PA and MA DO show that it is possible under current funding, and I am entirely FOR putting it at the discretion of the states how to use the money for their CHIP programs without the interference of the feds other than funding. Now if the states want to impose some kind of taxes to support it, like a penny sales tax or something, to supplement the program in order to do so, I am all in favor of that, if they tailor it to the needs of their state...and who knows better than the state government what that would take? They know their populations, they know their income levels...and they can come up with a better plan. I am 100% on board for that!! It would be interesting to know how MA and PA funded those programs at the current level...because they did. PA's has been around for quite awhile. :-)
Just being honest...
Certainly this poster is entitled to his/her point of view, even if he/she is completely intolerant of anyone else's point of view. The poster speaks of an open mind, yet has a very closed mind himself/herself.
For all the talk that liberals make about freedoms, apparently that only extends to those who agree with them. Sounds more like a fascist state than America.
Condescencion, intolerance...are these the hallmarks of liberalism?
come on, be honest
you laughed at the mental image that statement conjured up also.
Look....if you are going to be honest about this...
just read up on it from start to finish. It was not a big deal, the same guy who is screaming for her head now was saying the governor's office is fully cooperating and subpoenas will not be necessary...and she was, and that was the truth. Now that the Obama lawyers descended it is a whole new ballgame, has been politicized when it should not have been. It should be stopped, it has become a 3-ring circus. THere are pictures now of the two Dems yelling the loudest with Obama yucking it up at a support rally. The investigation is tainted now. The investigator they hired is personal friends with the guy who was fired. Come on now....hatchet job. They need to put in the hands of someone truly independent, don't you think that is fair? Or no?
to be honest...
I'm just going to be honest with you - there is not a whole lot of incentive for those that are on the welfare rolls to get off. Unless you are educated anymore then those low paying minimum wage jobs do not pay what has to be paid for someone to live - even at 2 and 3 jobs.
And most people cannot afford to go to college - even if they have the aptitude for it. Not everybody in this world is cut out for school. It is not just because they are dumb. I have a son who is above average smart, but just cannot handle school - does that make him dumb? No, it means he is going to have to work his butt off though to even barely get by.
And yes, I do think that the richer people of this world should pay more taxes. I don't necessarily know about a higher percentage, but I know that the darn loop holes that exist that keep them from paying as much as I do should be done away with...
I don't want anybody to give me anything, I am doing it all by myself however I have to, and I am luckier than most that I can make a good living, but I can see that some people need help to survive now.
It is not like it used to be - prices have gone up, up, and up, but wages are staying the same and ya'll all know that. You talk about how you did this, or you did that to get by, and you know what, I did too 20 years ago, but 20 years ago I was not paying $5.00 a gallon for milk and $2.69 for a loaf of bread and making $7.50 or $8.00 an hour. I was not paying $3-4 a gallon for gasoline to get to my $7.50 or $8.00 an hour job. I was not paying $600 a month for a 1 bedroom apartment that legally I was not supposed to have my children living in together...
I feel sorry for the young people today that are starting out on their own and I feel sorry for the people that ya'll are all calling stupid and lazy and worthless just because they are not up to your standards. I am so glad that I am not that judgmental of people that I cannot see that people right now need help... and it is getting worse right in front of our eyes.
I sincerely hope that not a one of you who are so down on people that need help in putting their lives together find yourselves in the position of needing help in the future.
He was not honest.
Obama is a socialist. His record and ideals are proof enough of that. All of you lemmings are convinced he handled himself well and are crying out about how unfair he was treated in that interview.....yet if this were Palin....you would be crying how dumb she is and didn't handle things well. Talk about double standards. You people sicken me. I'm so tired of this crap. I will be glad when this election is over and McCain kicks Obama's @ss. I'm so sick and tired of hearing about Change......that is ALL you people friggin hear!.
Well.....you better be prepared because God help us if Obama wins.....that is all we will have left in our banks accounts......some change. Get a clue!
Actually no....not get better ones...just be HONEST...
about the ones he HAS. That would be a terrific start. The truth is always a good place to start.
Sam, to be honest, I don't think about it much at all either -
I do not think about abortion because in my life it was/is not an option. That being said, I think it is something that people should have the right to choose if they want to.
Why do you think government should get to meddle in one part of a woman's life and not be able to meddle in every part of a person's life? That is the underlying question here...
I just wish they ALL could be honest
without worrying about offending SOMEONE. It's ridiculous.
To be quite honest
even though I am against gay marriage due to my faith, I understand the fact that not everyone goes by the rules of God. Although it is unfortunate given the eternal consequences.
However, I feel that opening the door for gay marriage does in the end open the door for ANY marriage. The argument will still be "if traditional marriage and gay marriage are okay, why not polygamy?" I think that is the next step in the progression. Maybe I am wrong, we will just have to wait and see I guess.
Guys, I'm going to be honest...sm
I don't see what the major deal is about the wire tapping. Maybe there's something I'm missing, but as a child I've always been told that the government tapped phone lines warrantlessly (seeing as how they could probably get a warrant anyway).
So tell me in laymen's terms, what is the big problem with this for the average law abiding citizen?
Nope, just honest...get over it!
Thanks for being honest, Kaydie. :)
It is fine to support whoever you want to support, and it is fine to change your mind about who you support. It should be who YOU want and feel will do the best for the country, whoever that is. And to have the guts to say so. Good for you, Kaydie!
I just got back from Gettysburg, and read the words "so that government of the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE, and for the PEOPLE shall not perish from this earth." It does not say government of the PARTY, by the PARTY, and for the PARTY, shall not perish from this earth. It is about us, as individuals, and I wish every individual this election cycle would vote their individual conscience, what they really feel is right for the country, not what the DNC or RNC tells them they should.
THAT is what I like about Sarah Palin. She has bucked her party, she has faced down good ol' boy politics in her own party and cleaned them out...and most of all...she says that elected officials should serve with a servant's heart. GOOD FOR HER!! What a breath of FRESH AIR and how much further could you get from Washington politics as usual than that?? GO MCCAIN-PALIN!!
Now that would be an honest Democrat...lol
nm
No, I will be honest, I waffled between he and two others at first...
as I researched it and the debates started, it came down to he and one other, and by the end of the primaries I was hoping he would be the candidate. Reader's Digest, it was not him alone at the start.
And I have no buyer's remorse. I still feel he is the guy for the job.
Honest answer
I'm sorry I can't answer your question with any first hand knowledge but IF the not so friendly countries support Obama and I don't know that they do......that's what the McCain campaign says...maybe it's because they are sick and tired of George W. Bush and his saber rattling. Can't wait to get some of those Indian mangoes he traded nuclear technology for.
Well, to be honest poster really has no
Always wants facts but when you give them, all you get is a bunch of junk back!
Argument would be if they had something substantial to say in the first place.
And you think republicans are all honest?
Oops - yes I am one in the same - just want to be honest
I used grim reaper above cos that's what I thought of when I read the article I posted. Guess I should have put Grim Reaper/Just me as my name so there wouldn't have been any confusion.
At least be honest about your source
"...those who have contacts on Capitol Hill..."
Your post is taken virtually verbatim from a blog comment at freerepublic.com, from an email from Roy Beck, not from "those who have contacts on Capitol Hill."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2173288/posts
Do you even know what E-Verify is and what it entails?
And I resent your implication that if I disagree with you, I'm not loyal to my country and don't "care anything about this country or [our] jobs."
So, you weren't exactly being honest.
If your husband is sitting at home buying and selling stocks for your own portfolio, he does not "work" in stocks/trading. I am not assuming anything, I am just going by what you say, which apparently is not true.
It seems that you are the one who is assuming much more about what I am thinking than I have actually said. I thin it's time you visit the "real world."
to be honest, I liked a lot of his answers -
I do not want all the illegals here - they should be sent home, but if it is going to be as expensive as they say, then the plan Obama put forth of fining them for being here illegally and making them then go back to the process of trying to be come legal is a good one. They are not going to send them home whoever is President, so why not fine them? His plan is as good as any I have seen. When he is talking about helping, my thoughts are that he is talking about the legal immigrants.
The one time Bush was probably actually HONEST!!
Bob Woodward asked him how history would judge the war in Iraq, Bush replied: "History. We don't know. We'll all be dead."
That pretty much sums up the depth of this man.
If you would be as honest in your postings to opposition..
as you are in postings to those who agree with you, and post in a civil manner the same way you post to Lurker...i.e., you state above (I know we TRY to take care of our poor)...but you certainly did not say that to me. You made it sound like we do nothing to take care of our poor. I personally think it should the be responsibility of individual Americans through private donations to take care of our poor, not the responsibility of the government through taxation. The reason that does not work is that while many pay lip service to the poor, they are not willing unless forced to do just that. And that happens on both sides of the aisle. It is not a political party thing. It is a human nature thing. In a perfect world, if you could trust exactly what people say is what they would do, then the Democrats in this country alone could take care of the poor through personal donations. I do not mean they should do it alone...I am trying to make a point here. It should not be necessary to tax people in order to take care of the less fortunate. We should also not put in place, in my opinion, a welfare system that keeps people impoverished and beholden to the government for everything. I believe every program ought to have a job and responsibility attached to it...in other words, no freebies. If there is no incentive to better yourself, why should you? That is in full obvious view to anyone in this country who cares to actually go visit the poor neighborhoods and actually talk to those involved. If you want some real enlightenment, you should work in the welfare offices for awhile. You would get a much better picture of the real story out there.
I do not say this to be hateful, but I think it would behoove you to, along with reading your books and doing your research, that you try to talk to someone other than me, because obviously you think I am a demon from the nether world, but perhaps someone without a political agenda who has worked for years in welfare (as I have) and get a real picture of how it works. To use your words, it is a great disservice to people to keep them in poverty through programs instead of trying to help them to a better life off a check. The problem is Teddy...there are thousands if not millions who prefer the life on the check. And that is no one's fault but yours and mine and everyone else's who has not sought to really help them...to provide the checks and balances you described.
As I pointed out before...that fellow is not entirely honest either...
and Bush did not lie. While the bill does not explicitly state it will cover families to $83,000, it opens a loophole that will allow New York to again ask for the $82,600 raise and under the new bill would probably get it, because the stipulation preventing it was being removed. So basically what Bush said is true...he should have worded it differently.
Here are some things that were not brought forward that are also bad things about the bill:
Bush had good reason to veto SCHIP
By Grace-Marie Turner
Article Launched: 10/14/2007 01:33:38 AM PDT
Is President Bush a liar who hates children? That's what many of his critics now are asking in the opinion pages of major newspapers across the country. Why else, they say, would he refuse to sign a bill providing health insurance to poor kids?
Specifically, the president has vetoed a bill expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program designed to provide health coverage to lower-income children. One nationally syndicated columnist went so far as to call Bush's rationale in vetoing the bill a "pack of flat-out lies."
This kind of rhetoric is wrong and misleads readers about the facts of this important issue.
There is no debate over whether to reauthorize the SCHIP program so it can continue to provide insurance to needy children. That's a given. The debate is about whether children in middle-income families should be added.
The president is absolutely right in insisting that SCHIP focus on its core mission of needy children. When SCHIP was created in 1997, the target population was children whose parents earned too much for them to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford private insurance. The president wants the program to focus on children whose families earn less than 200 percent of the federal poverty level. In today's dollars, that's $41,300 a year.
About two-thirds of the nation's uninsured children already are eligible for either Medicaid or SCHIP, but aren't enrolled. Raising the income threshold won't solve this core problem. Congress should require states to focus on the 689,000 children whom the Urban Institute says are uninsured and would be eligible for SCHIP if eligibility were limited to the $41,300 income level.
The other big problem is that, across the country, states are using SCHIP dollars to insure adults.
Fourteen states cover adults through SCHIP, and at least six of them are spending more of their SCHIP dollars on adults than on children. For example, 78 percent of SCHIP enrollees in Minnesota are adults, 79 percent in New Mexico, and 72 percent in Michigan.
With these statistics in mind, the Bush administration issued a ruling in August requiring states to demonstrate that they had enrolled 95 percent of eligible needy children before expanding the program.
Yet the bill that Congress passed, and which the president vetoed, nullifies that ruling and effectively refuses to agree that needy kids should get first preference. Instead, the congressional measure would give $60 billion to the states over five years to enroll millions more "children" - although many of them will, in fact, be adults. Others will be from higher-income families.
New York, for instance, could submit a plan that would add children in families earning up to $83,000 a year to SCHIP. New Jersey could continue to cover kids whose parents make up to $72,000. All the other states would be allowed to cover kids in families with incomes up to $61,000.
Most children in these higher income families are already covered by private insurance. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 77 percent of children in families earning more than twice the poverty line have private health insurance now.
No one doubts that SCHIP is a vitally important program for needy children, and that our nation needs to do a better job of helping working families afford health insurance. But giving the states incentives to add middle-income kids to their SCHIP rolls will prompt families to replace private insurance with taxpayer-provided coverage.
This is completely backward. The goal of SCHIP should be to provide private coverage to uninsured children. If Congress would send the president a bill that does that, he says he would sign it in a minute.
Honest? I can't read this post.
Too windy, not enough time. I got as far as hippocracy, not true. Just waiting for our day in court that's all. Quite frankly, their crimes, if given the chance to be brought to light, and hopefully proven, will be far worse than anything Clinton did.
We don't need a hero. Waiting for the savior on the white horse? Doesn't exist. WE are the heroes.
So much for honest no bashing answers....LOL
nm
A very honest and realistic statement. sm
Oh my! My father-in-law, god rest his soul, was a wonderful but misguided man until I came along. LOL!. He routinely used the N word in conversation, but it was that only thing he had ever known. BAM! Do not use that word in front of your grandchildren! NEVER! He heard me, respected me, and I respected him. He was not a bigot and was just repeating what he had heard all his life.
How did we get from O gave an honest answer
to this incoherent whatever it is?
Honest? HA!. Obama cant even appont someone
nm
You do not speak for anyone here. There was nothing wrong with her posts. They were honest.nm
12
The volunteers are crucial for honest counts sm.
By throwing them out, there were no witnesses. I read they were also harrassed and intimidated by the lawyers in the Hillary camp. Hillary had a 7% swing in the vote only in precincts using Diebold electronic voting machines, and not anywhere using hand counts. Diebold is very hackable. Perhaps, Obama should not have conceded so quickly. There are people keeping very detailed data on this as they put the information up I will post it here. One is Bev Harris. Vote fraud has been confirmed from last night in Sutton, NH.
|
