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




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

The real meaning of happy holidays.

Posted By: Lurker on 2005-12-21
In Reply to: WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO SPOUT? - American Woman

Ever since I can remember, and I am 50, everyone said Merry Christmas AND/OR Happy Holidays and no one gave a flip either way. However, in my youthful naivete, little did I realize what happy holidays REALLY means. It is a code. It means that anyone who says it is really saying, I want to take Christ out of Christmas, and by the way, I hate America and I want the communists/terrorists to win.  So if you hear someone say happy holidays and the other person answers back happy holidays you know you have 2 people of interest who require, at the very least, a wiretap or two and surveillance for an indeterminate amount of time. They should be reported immediately to the FBI. Happy Holidays is a serious threat and a Code Orange.


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

happy holidays

No evictions or sale of foreclosed homes November 26 through January 9th.


That is really sad.


I say Happy Holidays but
absolutely
Happy Holidays indeed. Actually
Happy Holidays, indeed! “Holiday” comes from shortening the English words “holy” and “day.” Yes. The Twelve Days of Christmas (December 25th through January 5th) are Holy Days for Christians. But given most people’s lack of knowledge about this, we boldly proclaim, “Merry Christmas!”


Happy Holidays everyone & be safe.nm
z
Now we have the holidays
Now all you nasty, nasty people with excrement dripping from your lips can cook Thanksgiving dinner for your families and let them know what you really think! Because you will be in blog withdrawal...And I am so happy it is over!!!!
wow the holidays must not be kind to you
yikes
I'm far from home but nothing's going to stop the holidays...
I love it all too gt! Have a chance this year to really dig deep and find out what the holidays are all about, since I'll be far from friends and most family throughout it all. Learning experience! I love tradition though...can't wait for it all.
Hi, gourdpainter, where were you? Did you paint gourds for the holidays? .....nm
nm
private pilots laid off just before the holidays!?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081121/bs_nm/us_gm
No, goofy. Republicans are REAL people, real
nm
If the real folks, with real hope, faith, and
and for our country's future who participate here on this forum were just a tad as healthy, wealthy and wise as this poster considers herself, we probably wouldn't be sitting in front of these silly computers trying to make a living!! Can't figure why she is here other than tell us how healthy, wealthy and wise she is and we are not!
Meaning what?
is this a veiled suggestion I move to France?

If so, I got a hot news bulletin for ya, pal: THE FRENCH WERE RIGHT!

Vive la France!
The meaning -
the woman said it was the shadow of death behind Obama...
Is there a meaning in there somewhere? nm
nm
I said *over there* meaning the C board
and you all definitely need to grow some skin. We we question you about ANYTHING you accuse us of stalking and attacking. We are talking with adult liberals over there (the C-board) who understand that true debate is about giving opposite opinions and hashing things out.. a concept which is evidently lost on most of you here.
*The bill is about when and not now, meaning NOW* HUH??

Then let's get out of there and let them control their government.  Let's take off the *training wheels* (like Murtha has been saying) and let them learn to ride their *bike* while we observe from the periphery, there if they need us to *catch* them.  As long as we are there doing it for them, they will never do it on their own.  And by agreeing to amnesty, we're publicly telling the world that the lives of our soldiers aren't important, regardless of how you try to spin it. 


And, yes, the media is eerily silent about this.  The last article I read last week indicated that the Iraqi Prime Minister was AGAINST amnesty for anyone who kills an IRAQI but was in FAVOR of amnesty for anyone who kills AMERICANS.  What a wonderful plan. 


There is more than one meaning for jihad...nm

I didn't come away with that meaning......sm
I read it to mean that if a woman wants an abortion and goes to a doctor or hospital to have it performed, the doctor or hospital cannot not refuse to perform it based on their own religious beliefs.

Very hypocritical, if you ask me (and not direted at you in particular), to say "keep the government out of my uterus because I can do with my body what I want" and then demand a doctor who does not believe in abortion to perform an abortion on you, in essence dragging him into your uterus where he does not want to be doing something he does not want to do.
If this is truly the meaning of the whole thing

fine.  I could never have an abortion because I personally believe it is wrong.  However, if people are bound and determined to terminate their pregnancy, I'd much rather it be done by a professional instead of these girls having babies in bathrooms and throwing them away, going to some whack job who does permanent damage or have some girl take poisonous things into their body to try and get rid of the pregnancy. 


There are pros and cons to abortion whether people want to see it or not.  Abortion will not be stopped and so I have to look at it like population control and just go on about my business.


I think it's the meaning of "more" that evades you. SM
*No more of a radical than Jesus* IS a comparison.
True meaning of Christmas...sm
I have been watching the discussion on the conservative board about Christmas, it's origin and how it is celebrated. While there are a lot of charitable things that go on during the holiday season that are commendable, like Toys for Tots and food drives, I think it is sad how materialistic this season is. If you have kids it is hard to explain to them why one of their classmates got a Playstation 3 (600 dollars), games for the PS3 (200 dollars), laptop (1300 dollars), namebrand shoes and clothes (500 dollars), jewelry (200 dollars), etc, etc, when you can not, or have better sense than to spoil your child (and finances) like this.

My children know the value of a dollar. They also know that this season is about the birth of Christ, the spirit of giving, whether that be love or gifts.

I said all of that to ask this question. Do you think the majority of people who celebrate Christmas know the true meaning of Christmas or are they caught up in the hype of the latest best technology, the best decorations, the most expensive tree?
"present", meaning he showed up, but could not
nm
Hate to say it, but they aren't well-meaning at all s/m

They're blatantly peddling socialism..."spreading the wealth around?"  So if you make more than I do, Obtama will take from you & give some to me.  How can people NOT see this? 


As far asa I'm concerned, these Obama fanatics can move to Canada, Cuba, etc.  Look how well that's workin' for them.


Some believe O stated 57 states meaning
x
I'm not understanding the meaning of your post
Actually it almost sounds like something Hemmingway would write. HA HA. Anyway...just confused by the post. Are you talking about the record breaking snowfalls and bone chilling cold spells all over the world (oh so not global warming), or are you refering to the incoming president, and the last part of the post just lost me. Please explain.
Do you understand the meaning of the word...(sm)
racisim?  Dictionaries are printed for a reason.
Do you understand the meaning of the word...(sm)
racisim?  Dictionaries are printed for a reason.
Kruschev said they (meaning, their philosophy) would take us over from within.
One only has to imagine: Would Kruschev be laughing or crying over the direction the current administration is taking?

Not a tough question to answer, so there's no prize offered.
God save us from well-meaning people as my mother
.
Plus - does the Republican party understand the meaning of MAVERICK?
Agree with you - what did they expect with her zero experience (in foreign policy) AND the fact that she's under investigation?

Re: maverick. There are subtle variations of this word like "eccentric" that could apply to just about anyone, but the central meaning is 'nonconformist'

When you look at someone who has VOTED WITH GEORGE BUSH 90% OF THE time, where do you see 'nonconformist'?

And this from a man who was hammered by Bush when they went toe to toe. Please sir can I have another?

I see REPACKAGED MATERIAL, not 'maverick.'

That said, I have TONS of respect for his POW experience - all the MORE reason for him to NEVER ALLOW AMERICA TO ENGAGE IN WARS BASED ON LIES!!!

What's nonconformist about his support for our current fake war?

He should under the banner of HYPOCRITE, not maverick.
Meaning, I read and try to find informative sites
xx
Taking it to a new level meaning posting a whole new thread
I still say no response is the best response.
A 9-letter word meaning "Thinking 'Everyone's out to get me'" 'Paranoiac.'? Nop
The security aid package the United States has refused to give Israel for the past few months out of concern that Israel would use it to attack nuclear facilities in Iran included a large number of “bunker-buster” bombs, permission to use an air corridor to Iran, an advanced technological system and refueling planes.

Officials from both countries have been discussing the Israeli requests over the past few months. Their rejection would make it very difficult for Israel to attack Iran, if such a decision is made.

About a month ago, Haaretz reported that the Bush administration had turned down an Israeli request for certain security items that could upgrade Israel’s capability to attack Iran. The U.S. administration reportedly saw the request as a sign preparations were moving ahead for an Israeli attack on Iran.
Advertisement
Diplomatic and security sources indicated to Haaretz that the list of components Israel included:

Bunker-buster GBU-28 bombs: In 2005, the U.S. said it was supplying these bombs to Israel. In August 2006, The New York Times reported that the U.S. had expedited the dispatch of additional bombs at the height of the Second Lebanon War. The bombs, which weigh 2.2 tons each, can penetrate six meters of reinforced concrete. Israel appears to have asked for a relatively large number of additional bunker-busters, and was turned down.

Air-space authorization: An attack on Iran would apparently require passage through Iraqi air space. For this to occur, an air corridor would be needed that Israeli fighter jets could cross without being targeted by American planes or anti-aircraft missiles. The Americans also turned down this request. According to one account, to avoid the issue, the Americans told the Israelis to ask Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki for permission, along the lines of “If you want, coordinate with him.”

Refueling planes. An air attack on Iran would require refueling of fighter jets on the way back. According to a report on Channel 10 a few weeks ago, the U.S. rejected an Israeli request for more advanced refueling tankers, of the Boeing 767 model.

The refueling craft the Israel Air Force now uses are very outmoded, something that make it difficult to operate at long distances from Israel. Even if the Americans were to respond favorably to such a request, the process could take a few years.

The IDF recently reported that it is overhauling a Boeing 707 that previously served as the prime minister’s plane to serve as a refueling aircraft.

Advanced technological systems. The Israeli sources declined to give any details on this point.

The Israeli requests were discussed during President George W. Bush’s visit to Israel in May, as well as during Defense Minister Ehud Barak’s visit to Washington in July. In a series of meetings at a very senior level, following Bush’s visit, the Americans made clear to the Israelis that for now they are sticking to the diplomatic option to halt the Iranian nuclear project and that Jerusalem does not have a green light from Washington for an attack on Iran.

However, it appears that in compensation for turning down Israel’s “offensive” requests, the U.S. has agreed to strengthen its defensive systems.

During the Barak visit, it was agreed that an advanced U.S. radar system would be stationed in the Negev, and the order to send it was made at that time. The system would double to 2,000 kilometers the range of identification of missiles launched from the direction of Iran, and would be connected to an American early warning system.

The system is to be operated by American civilians as well as two American soldiers. This would be the first permanent U.S. force on Israeli soil.

A senior security official said the Americans were preparing “with the greatest speed” to make good on their promise, and the systems could be installed within a month.

The Israeli security source said he believed Washington was moving ahead quickly on the request because it considered it very important to restrain Israel at this time.

At the beginning of the year, the Israeli leadership still considered it a reasonable possibility that Bush would decide to attack Iran before the end of his term.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, in private discussions, even raised the possibility that the U.S. was considering an attack in the transition period between the election in November and the inauguration of the new president in January 2009.

However, Jerusalem now assumes that likelihood of this possibility is close to nil, and that Bush will use the rest of his time in office to strengthen what he defines as the Iraqi achievement, following the relative success of American efforts there over the past year and a half.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1019989.html


Hmmm...Gives new meaning to "He's an empty suit", doesn't it?
x
meaning=history repeats...the PRESIDENTIAL OFFICE will be tested...no matter which one wins...nm
=)
Happy 4th to you too MT -
...and to everyone! I feel it an appropriate time to remember...I LOVE AMERICA...sappy but true:)Not even THEY can spoil that, ya know.

Happy comet watching! Here's a link for anyone interested in seeing the collision:

http://www.space.com/deepimpact/


http://www.space.com/deepimpact/
So happy here
Bunch of corrupt individuals..Frist is waiting in the wings.
Oh Happy Day






Sunday, Oct. 02, 2005
Power Outage
House leader Tom DeLay's indictment upends the Republicans' to-do list and their outlook for next year's elections. Can they recover in time?

The news that House Majority Leader Tom DeLay had been dreading for months was brought by an aide, who interrupted DeLay's weekly lunch with Dennis Hastert in the House Speaker's office. DeLay absorbed it, and then the man widely called the Hammer on Capitol Hill (though rarely to his face) did what he does best: he hit back. All right, DeLay replied. Let's go. Let's go fight. Less than three hours later, before a roomful of reporters, DeLay addressed a Texas grand jury's charge that he and two political associates conspired to funnel $155,000 in illegal corporate campaign contributions into Texas legislative races. He called it one of the weakest, most baseless indictments in American history and the prosecutor who brought the case a partisan fanatic. That night, anxious to show he's not a recluse, he introduced Rudy Giuliani at a Friends of Israel banquet. DeLay even made an uncharacteristic round of the cable shows, hinting darkly on cnn that he would soon produce very good evidence that his nemesis, Travis County district attorney Ronnie Earle, had engaged in a conspiracy of his own--with the Democratic leadership here in Washington.

Combativeness has seen Tom DeLay through near-death experiences before, but on the Hill late last week, it was hard to miss the signs that his foot soldiers and allies had begun positioning themselves in anticipation of his demise. G.O.P. rules require that DeLay, 58, majority leader since 2003, relinquish his post while he fights the conspiracy charge, and speculation is rife that even if he is acquitted his days as one of the most powerful men in the House could be over. You leave a job like this, there is no coming back, says a top Republican official who likes DeLay and thinks he will be cleared. Politics abhors a vacuum more than anything else, and it's going to move past him too quickly.

Almost immediately, it did. A plan engineered by DeLay and Hastert to install complaisant Rules Committee chairman David Dreier as temporary majority leader was nixed by conservatives who dislike Dreier's moderate positions on stem-cell research and gay marriage. Instead the brain trust installed ambitious whip Roy Blunt, who will share some of the majority leader's duties with Dreier. The setup is so shaky that some House Republicans are pressing for the election of a new leadership team as early as January.

Meanwhile, lobbying shops that had traded on the access to DeLay were desperately dialing House aides to forge new relationships. Those not tied to DeLay were calling the same staff members to gloat. There's millions of dollars on the table, said an aide who had heard from both camps. These guys are going to slaughter each other. What's left of the G.O.P. leadership, already beset by a raft of other political problems, was trying to figure out how to salvage the ambitious legislative agenda of more tax cuts, hurricane help and gas-price relief that they want to carry them to next year's midterm elections--a more difficult challenge with the sidelining of the man who had so determinedly pulled off many of their close victories.

DeLay may not have seen the worst of it yet. Sources tell TIME that while Earle was closing in on DeLay from Austin, Texas, a federal investigation into the spreading scandal around disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, accused with Michael Scanlon (a former press secretary of DeLay's) of bilking their Indian-tribe clients out of $66 million, has begun lapping at the edges of the former majority leader's operation. A former Abramoff associate who was questioned by the FBI in August says, They had a lot of e-mails, a lot of traffic between our office and DeLay's office. Many of those exchanges involved lavish travel by DeLay arranged by the lobbyist but requested, the e-mails suggest, by aides in DeLay's office. (House members are allowed to accept gifts under limited circumstances but not to solicit them.) Says the source: There was nothing I saw that hit DeLay personally, but there was a lot of questionable stuff that was going on with his staff. 'Tom wants this. Tom wants that.' Was it really him or just the staff that was being aggressive? DeLay's office wouldn't comment on the Justice Department investigation, and neither would the FBI.

Republicans had plenty of problems even before the latest blow to DeLay. Voters are angry about gas prices, the war in Iraq and the botched response to Hurricane Katrina. Polls show President George W. Bush at or near the lowest public-approval ratings of his presidency. On the other side of the Capitol, Senate majority leader Bill Frist faces an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission into the circumstances surrounding his decision to sell all of his stock in the hospital chain founded by his family, Hospital Corporation of America, in June, just before the share price dropped following a bad earnings report.

So dispirited are Republicans that some worry about losing control of the House--a danger that once seemed remote. We're looking in the crystal ball. We're moving into an area where we don't know what will happen, says deputy whip Tom Cole, a conservative from Oklahoma. With a switch of only 15 seats required to end their majority, Cole is anxious that the party may have to contest as many as 100 tight races if the winds arraying against it turn into a national backlash like the one that ended the Democrats' 40-year reign in 1994. Having seen how the Democrats failed to galvanize their voters in that campaign, Republicans say the chief goal in rewriting their strategy for the fall will be to re-energize their base. The plan taking shape calls for a robust conservative agenda through next spring, including a tax-reform package. That move would allow Republicans to pivot back to issues like education tax credits that would appeal more to moderates as the elections approach.

As for DeLay, his struggles appear likely to consume him for many months. He has launched what amounts to a major political campaign to convince supporters that the indictment is flimsy and he is a victim of a political smear. DeLay pointed to Democrats' vow to use G.O.P. ethics as a campaign issue, and supporters noted criticism of Earle in Texas for speaking in May to a $100,000 fund raiser for a Democratic political action committee (PAC). But DeLay has produced no evidence Earle conspired with Democrats in Washington.

While it's true that Earle and DeLay have been locked in a complicated war of Texas-size egos for years, the charges against DeLay are fairly simple. During the 2002 elections, a committee DeLay founded to support conservative politicians--Texans for a Republican Majority, or TRMPAC--allegedly accepted $155,000 in corporate donations and then included that in a check for $190,000 to the Republican National Committee, which then routed a similar amount to seven Texas legislative candidates. DeLay's lawyers say the transactions were separate and that the PAC accepted money from both individuals and corporations. The contribution helped produce six wins that were crucial to DeLay's political ambitions in Washington because they resulted in a Republican majority in the state legislature, which redrew congressional district lines and helped add five more Republicans to the state's congressional delegation. If convicted, DeLay faces up to two years in prison and a maximum fine of $100,000.

DeLay has done his best to paint the D.A. as a Democratic loose cannon. But Earle, 63, points out that of the 15 public officials he has prosecuted, 12 have been fellow Democrats. Texas law makes it a felony for corporations and labor unions to contribute money to political campaigns, Earle tells TIME. My job is to prosecute felonies. I'm doing my job. The grand jury foreman, William Gibson, 76, insists that this was not one of those rubber-stamp deals. Ronnie Earle did not indict Mr. DeLay. Twelve people on that grand jury voted to indict.

If DeLay has cause for hope, it may be that Earle has been more successful convicting minor figures than major ones. The majority leader has put together a legal team headed by Dick DeGuerin, who handed Earle the most spectacular failure of his career: a 1994 misconduct case against former state treasurer Kay Bailey Hutchison that Earle was forced to drop on the first day of trial. Hutchison is now the state's senior Senator.

There are those who predict that DeLay will be able to balance mounting a defense with pulling strings behind the scenes in the House. But whereas he had been accustomed to just stepping downstairs to the majority leader's spacious suite of Capitol offices after a House vote, dusk last Thursday afternoon found DeLay outside on the Capitol Plaza, waiting at a traffic light to return to his office in the Cannon House Office Building across the street. Just like any other Congressman.


Happy day
I have been a vegetarian for more than 30 years and am also pro Native American.  I have not celebrated Thanksgiving for many years.  However, I do celebrate a day of getting together with family and friends and a day of appreciation..So, to all my liberal friends/co-posters..**Happy Day**..There are truly better days coming..
Happy 4th to Everyone!

I hope we never forget that brave American soldiers fought and died for our freedom to post on this very board!  Here's hoping that we all still have the same freedoms in the USA next year this time as we have today. 


My flag is hanging proudly.  I hope you all have a wonderful day.


Happy 4th to you and everyone!

She sure does not seem happy about it.sm
JMHO but to me it is hands off unless invited.
I'm happy s/m

To see that a couple of people will stand up with me.  This nation was founded on the principals of Christianity.  We kicked God out of our schools, courthouses and everywhere else a few thought He should go and look where we are now.  Kids killing each other in the schools, etc. etc. Now I hear they want to take "In God We trust" off of our money.  And my further opinion.........these radical evangelicals who think that anyone who says, "Lord, Lord" must be a Bible thumping Christian, have done more to turn people away from God than the other way around.   No wonder we're in such a mess. 


For anyone who wants to jump on this as "religion"....well don't.  I don't propose that anyone who doesn't want to turn to God be forced to do so but I do believe that it is high time that Christians.....or those who follow Christ (or try to)... stand up and be heard.  AND I believe when enough of us do that, God will lead us.  Again....this is my opinion and I'm not talking about "religion," I'm talking about those of us who have accepted Jesus Christ as our Savoir.  He gave us a choice to accept Him or reject Him and I don't believe he would want us to cram him down anyone's throat who does not want to be a believer.


I'm off my stump now.


Am I happy?

I must admit that I am not happy about Barrack Obama winning.  I do still have some fear because it seems like there is so much about him that we do not know.  I still worry about his inexperience as well.


However, I hope he is successful as president.  I don't wish him to fail because if he fails.....we all fail.  I hope he is a wonderful president who can bring us out of our crisis.  We will just have to wait and see. 


Just because I'm worried and scared of what is to come....doesn't mean I won't give him a chance.  I will give him a chance and hope and pray that I was wrong about him all along, but until he proves to me that I am wrong....I'm still naturally going to be worried, nervous, scared, etc.  That doesn't make me unpatriotic or a radical republican.  It makes me human.


I'm not happy
I'm not happy about any assassination talk about anyone. I would be MORE upset if McCain/Palin had been LYING about Obama, but they were not.

The original article talks about there always being a surge in this type of activity after every election. There is more of a surge this time because Obama is African-American. I'm pretty sure they saw that coming. I'm also pretty sure the Secret Service can deal with it.

End of discussion.


Hey, I'm happy to have someone
else munching on crow alongside me.  LOL  Have a Happy Crow Eating Day!
Why are you happy about this? Why would be want
nm
What I'm happy about is
not to be living in such a black and white world. This is not a question of whether or not you respect Obama. This is about the knee-jerk hatred expressed by sore losers. Just because W has earned such deep and broad disapproval (the kindest word I can think of) and has taught us all that we cannot trust government, does not mean that we have the right to assume that Obama cannot and will not take us to a higher level and get us back in touch with who we really are.

He may not have earned your respect, but he DOES deserve to have his chance. You don't want to come out of the darkness and into the light? Fine. Hunker on down in that dark damp dungeonof yours, but please stop trying to drag te rest of us down there with you.
Not happy, but if I were, I would not act like a
nm
Don't be so happy.

"To be sure, Obama and his staff have long insisted that they are not measuring their progress on the whims of the markets. One day's gains can be tomorrow's losses. But for those in the commentariat who are down on what has happened under the current president's watch, it's worthwhile putting recent developments in historical context." Your input, not mine.


At lunch time, it was down, but by the end of the day, it was up. The market is not "ready" to rebound yet. Too much still up in the air. I don't get where you think 1 or 2 days gain is the greatest thing that happend since apple pie.  If I had a bunch of money to throw away, I might be throwing some into the stock market now and taking it out tomorrow, but I don't, so I won't. Those that do have the money are doing just that, putting in and taking out the same day. That's not a very reliable way to judge the stock market.


Granted, if it would keep going up, I might move my 401K into a more aggressive portfolio, but after losing more than $7K, I'd rather wait. I only had triple that in a pension plan, so I would rather be safe than sorry.


This does not mean the plan is working yet and I'd rather be safe with what's left of my piddling 401K than sorry.


Don't jump on the bandwagon  yet. There's still a lot left to be desired in the plans and/or laws that they are trying to put in place.


How can anyone be happy with

a president who spends more in a few months than Bush did in 8 years?  How can you be happy with a man who said he would sign no bill with pork in it and then turn around and not even read a bill and sign it loaded with pork?  How can a man who campaigns on pulling troops out of Iraq be praised for what he is doing when he has extended the time line to keep troops in Iraq and is sending more to Afgan?  How can you praise a man for giving rights to people who wish to have an abortion but at the same time take away the rights of those who might refuse to perform it because they don't believe in it?  How about the fact that he would appoint no lobbyists and turned around and did just that?  A man who obviously bows to the Saudi King and then lies about it when it is on video tape!! 


This isn't prejudging someone.  It is seeing a politician for what he is.....a liar. 


It never ceases to amaze me that just because someone doesn't agree with Obama that they are instantly categorized as racist or prejudice.  Doesn't it occur to you people that maybe I don't like Obama because he is a liar and it has nothing to do with his race.  A liar is a liar no matter what race or sex a person is.


I'm so sick and tired of the race card.  Obama is the president and each president deals with criticism.  It isn't like this is a new fad of criticizing the president just because he is of mixed race.  If McCain had won, he would have been criticized for every little thing he did too.  Deal with it!