This is the reason repubs are trying to bash Acorn sm
Posted By: you probably voted for BUSH on 2008-10-16
In Reply to: obama's share the wealth plan - Peg
Acorn had paid people signing up new voters. The people signed up a lot of fakes because they were paid by the number of new voters they signed on. The fakes cannot vote so there is no threat. What the repubs are building a case about is that Acorn is criminal (which they are NOT) and repubs want to throw out all those millions of new voters. Because the landslide is going to be so humiliating. Even throwing out Acorn wouldn't help McCain.
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
What they want is to be able to bash McCain, bash Bush, and bash Palin...
in private, their own little hatefest, slap each other on the back and high five...they could not care less about any issues. That should be patently obvious. And rather sad.
I know you don't expect an answer. They just bash, bash, bash
You know that though. They just like to bash him, no matter what he does. He could turn out to be Jesus Christ himself and they would still fault him for something!
Corporation owned media does not bash Bush, they bash those that bash Bush.sm
Google Bush and vote fraud and there is tons of information about how many Americans 'voted' for Bush. Poor us and poor troops.
Bash, rant, bash, rant, bash....
My word can you ever rant. But you don't seem so great at sticking to facts. I read the posts you paraphrased and do not agree with your synopsis. She did not say you were a cliche, among other things....she said you were using a cliche. Superior intellect? Huh? Where'd you get that? She stated she liked western history. Just because someone likes to read doesn't mean they are boasting that they are superior. How silly!!!
This is the reason we are in Iraq and it's the same reason I didn't vote for him in 2000: Didn't
his own personal reasons.
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050620/why_george_went_to_war.php
The Downing Street memos have brought into focus an essential question: on what basis did President George W. Bush decide to invade Iraq? The memos are a government-level confirmation of what has been long believed by so many: that the administration was hell-bent on invading Iraq and was simply looking for justification, valid or not.
Despite such mounting evidence, Bush resolutely maintains total denial. In fact, when a British reporter asked the president recently about the Downing Street documents, Bush painted himself as a reluctant warrior. "Both of us didn't want to use our military," he said, answering for himself and British Prime Minister Blair. "Nobody wants to commit military into combat. It's the last option."
Yet there's evidence that Bush not only deliberately relied on false intelligence to justify an attack, but that he would have willingly used any excuse at all to invade Iraq. And that he was obsessed with the notion well before 9/11—indeed, even before he became president in early 2001.
In interviews I conducted last fall, a well-known journalist, biographer and Bush family friend who worked for a time with Bush on a ghostwritten memoir said that an Iraq war was always on Bush's brain.
"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and Houston Chronicle journalist Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said, 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He went on, 'If I have a chance to invade…, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency.'"
Bush apparently accepted a view that Herskowitz, with his long experience of writing books with top Republicans, says was a common sentiment: that no president could be considered truly successful without one military "win" under his belt. Leading Republicans had long been enthralled by the effect of the minuscule Falklands War on British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's popularity, and ridiculed Democrats such as Jimmy Carter who were reluctant to use American force. Indeed, both Reagan and Bush's father successfully prosecuted limited invasions (Grenada, Panama and the Gulf War) without miring the United States in endless conflicts.
Herskowitz's revelations illuminate Bush's personal motivation for invading Iraq and, more importantly, his general inclination to use war to advance his domestic political ends. Furthermore, they establish that this thinking predated 9/11, predated his election to the presidency and predated his appointment of leading neoconservatives who had their own, separate, more complex geopolitical rationale for supporting an invasion.
Conversations With Bush The Candidate
Herskowitz—a longtime Houston newspaper columnist—has ghostwritten or co-authored autobiographies of a broad spectrum of famous people, including Reagan adviser Michael Deaver, Mickey Mantle, Dan Rather and Nixon cabinet secretary John B. Connally. Bush's 1999 comments to Herskowitz were made over the course of as many as 20 sessions together. Eventually, campaign staffers—expressing concern about things Bush had told the author that were included in the manuscript—pulled the project, and Bush campaign officials came to Herskowitz's house and took his original tapes and notes. Bush communications director Karen Hughes then assumed responsibility for the project, which was published in highly sanitized form as A Charge to Keep.
The revelations about Bush's attitude toward Iraq emerged during two taped sessions I held with Herskowitz. These conversations covered a variety of matters, including the journalist's continued closeness with the Bush family and fondness for Bush Senior—who clearly trusted Herskowitz enough to arrange for him to pen a subsequent authorized biography of Bush's grandfather, written and published in 2003.
I conducted those interviews last fall and published an article based on them during the final heated days of the 2004 campaign. Herskowitz's taped insights were verified to the satisfaction of editors at the Houston Chronicle, yet the story failed to gain broad mainstream coverage, primarily because news organization executives expressed concern about introducing such potent news so close to the election. Editors told me they worried about a huge backlash from the White House and charges of an "October Surprise."
Debating The Timeline For War
But today, as public doubts over the Iraq invasion grow, and with the Downing Street papers adding substance to those doubts, the Herskowitz interviews assume singular importance by providing profound insight into what motivated Bush—personally—in the days and weeks following 9/11. Those interviews introduce us to a George W. Bush, who, until 9/11, had no means for becoming "a great president"—because he had no easy path to war. Once handed the national tragedy of 9/11, Bush realized that the Afghanistan campaign and the covert war against terrorist organizations would not satisfy his ambitions for greatness. Thus, Bush shifted focus from Al Qaeda, perpetrator of the attacks on New York and Washington. Instead, he concentrated on ensuring his place in American history by going after a globally reviled and easily targeted state run by a ruthless dictator.
The Herskowitz interviews add an important dimension to our understanding of this presidency, especially in combination with further evidence that Bush's focus on Iraq was motivated by something other than credible intelligence. In their published accounts of the period between 9/11 and the March 2003 invasion, former White House Counterterrorism Coordinator Richard Clarke and journalist Bob Woodward both describe a president single-mindedly obsessed with Iraq. The first anecdote takes place the day after the World Trade Center collapsed, in the Situation Room of the White House. The witness is Richard Clarke, and the situation is captured in his book, Against All Enemies.
On September 12th, I left the Video Conferencing Center and there, wandering alone around the Situation Room, was the President. He looked like he wanted something to do. He grabbed a few of us and closed the door to the conference room. "Look," he told us, "I know you have a lot to do and all…but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way…"
I was once again taken aback, incredulous, and it showed. "But, Mr. President, Al Qaeda did this."
"I know, I know, but…see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred…" …
"Look into Iraq, Saddam," the President said testily and left us. Lisa Gordon-Hagerty stared after him with her mouth hanging open.
Similarly, Bob Woodward, in a CBS News 60 Minutes interview about his book, Bush At War, captures a moment, on November 21, 2001, where the president expresses an acute sense of urgency that it is time to secretly plan the war with Iraq. Again, we know there was nothing in the way of credible intelligence to precipitate the president's actions.
Woodward: "President Bush, after a National Security Council meeting, takes Don Rumsfeld aside, collars him physically and takes him into a little cubbyhole room and closes the door and says, 'What have you got in terms of plans for Iraq? What is the status of the war plan? I want you to get on it. I want you to keep it secret.'"
Wallace (voiceover): Woodward says immediately after that, Rumsfeld told Gen. Tommy Franks to develop a war plan to invade Iraq and remove Saddam—and that Rumsfeld gave Franks a blank check.
Woodward: "Rumsfeld and Franks work out a deal essentially where Franks can spend any money he needs. And so he starts building runways and pipelines and doing all the necessary preparations in Kuwait specifically to make war possible."
Bush wanted a war so that he could build the political capital necessary to achieve his domestic agenda and become, in his mind, "a great president." Blair and the members of his cabinet, unaware of the Herskowitz conversations, placed Bush's decision to mount an invasion in or about July of 2002. But for Bush, the question that summer was not whether, it was only how and when. The most important question, why, was left for later.
Eventually, there would be a succession of answers to that question: weapons of mass destruction, links to Al Qaeda, the promotion of democracy, the domino theory of the Middle East. But none of them have been as convincing as the reason George W. Bush gave way back in the summer of 1999.
Just when you think Repubs
http://www.time.com/time/nation/printout/0,8816,1106213,00.html
Saturday, Sep. 17, 2005
Looking for a Corpse to Make a Case
Senators look for a wealthy casualty of Katrina as evidence against the estate tax
By MASSIMO CALABRESI
Federal troops aren't the only ones looking for bodies on the Gulf Coast. On Sept. 9, Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions called his old law professor Harold Apolinsky, co-author of Sessions' legislation repealing the federal estate tax, which was encountering sudden resistance on the Hill. Sessions had an idea to revitalize their cause, which he left on Apolinsky's voice mail: [Arizona Sen.] Jon Kyl and I were talking about the estate tax. If we knew anybody that owned a business that lost life in the storm, that would be something we could push back with.
If legislative ambulance chasing looks like a desperate measure, for the backers of repealing the estate tax, these are desperate times. Just three weeks ago, their long-sought goal of repeal seemed within reach, but Katrina dashed their hopes when Republican leaders put off an expected vote. After hearing from Sessions, Apolinsky, an estate tax lawyer who says his firm includes three multi-billionaires among its clients, mobilized the American Family Business Institute, a Washington-based group devoted to estate tax repeal. They reached out to members along the Gulf Coast to hunt for the dead.
It's been hard. Only a tiny percentage of people are affected by the estate tax—in 2001 only 534 Alabamans were subject to it. And for Hill backers of repeal, that's only part of the problem. Last year, the tax brought in $24.8 billion to the federal government. With Katrina's cost soaring, estate tax opponents need to find a way to make up the potential lost income. For now, getting repeal back on the agenda may depend on Apolinsky and his team of estate-sniffing sleuths, who are searching Internet obituaries among other places. Has he found any victims of both the hurricane and the estate tax? Not yet, Apolinsky says. But I'm still looking.—with reporting by Amanda Ripley/Washington
And the Repubs don't?
repubs
America most certainly won. What planet have you all been living on for the past eight years??? The last administration did NOTHING for us. How do you think we got in this big mess - you really have to stop watching Fox noise and start looking at all the facts.
Repubs love that pig sty!
Let the dukey fly,I say - there was too much one-sided flinging back in the 90s and the Cons weren't the ones getting dirty.
What I find really amusing is that the Cons want to smirk and say go ahead and indict - we'll just indict you for all your nasty little crimes too! - as if that's a bad thing:) Repubs don't seem to realize that the Dems don't support criminality in their leaders the way Cons worship it in their own.
Asking Repubs to use imagination?
Exercise in futility - as you can see by the comments below, they don't seem interested in imagining what is happening to their own country. Actually sometimes I think they don't give a XXXX. Spying on Americans, arresting dissenters, confirming activist judges with pro-corporate, pro-governmental-power agendas, trashing the Constitution in favor of fabricated time of war emergency - all that's just dandy. Goes right along with how they think the USA should be. Why bother themselves to imagine where all this leads?
And, why bother themselves to consider what major role they are playing in assisting and abetting the murder of America?
La de da, all's great in Bushworld - why think at all?
Filibustering is what repubs do best.
I see this on the other message boards as well, I believe it is actually coordinated, to monopolize the discussion, to sway undecided voters maybe or convince themselves that we are the ones who are wrong.
It is exasperating. I block most of them when I can and do not engage unless someone writes "I'd vote for George again in a second." Then, well, I have to slap them with a response but it is hopeless, they don't even hear.
There are two Americas now, the rich and the poor, the pro-choice and pro-"what happens in your uterus is my business and don't you forget it."
Best advice: Do not engage.
Repubs always gripe about "politicizing" -
I would venture to guess that the Kings know more than any nay-sayer about politics and how it can affect a life - no reason whatsoever to exclude politics from a service in Mrs. King's honor. And judging by the reactions of the crowd, all comments were received in the spirit offered and were much agreed with and appreciated. You don't give standing ovations otherwise.
In mentioning long, lengthy, hop-on-the-bandwagon, take-every-chance-to-get-your-word-in, excessively drawn-out and tiresomely-exaggerated, politicized and moronic tripe-ridden ceremonies however, one name does come to mind.... Reagan! Now I think he was a decent guy, even if he chose to ignore the sharks and jackals around him who were busy at genocide - but weeks and weeks? Seven hours would have been just fine for that one too, I'm sure you'd agree.
Sheez! How do Repubs defend this?
Boggles the mind! But also learned another curious thing tonight - several people have told me they can't buy any ammunition for their guns, I think they told me AR15's or whatever the civilian model of an M16 is? - they said the rounds are not available by mail or at stores and they are told it's all being stopped at the ports and sent to Iraq. Say what??
Anybody else having a similar experience or know anything else about this? Would be curious to know if the situation in Iraq is really so bad that all civilian ammo has to be confiscated so it can be sent there.
Sounds similar to what some Repubs. were
doing to some Jewish people.
This is one case where the Repubs are in the clear...
this is a Dem mess. Lay it right at the feet of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and the dems who blocked reform on Fannie/Freddie at least 2 times when Alan Greenspan, John Snow, John McCain and the Bush admin telling them this exact thing was going to happen. It is all on video. I would cut them a modicum of slack if they at least admitted it, but oh no...it's all the republicans fault. Geez! How anyone could vote for ANY Democrat this round is beyond me. If I was a Democrat I wouldn't be voting for them either. At least 92 of them are worried about their jobs because the people are so PO'ed about it...they voted against it. And had Pelosi not come out BEFORE the vote tearing the hide of republicans in strips and blaming them for it yet again...she messed in her own nest. A bunch of Republicans weren't going to vote for it anyway, but the ones who would have didn't.
Need advice from Dems and Repubs sm
I am a swing voter. I am one who is on the fence about who to vote for. Here is my problem. I am finding that this year's presidential election is separating people. Republicans seem to be a little angrier lately since Obama leads in the pools. Dems are not as angry BUT they are very firm in their political choice. I am finding that I cannot have a discussion with anyone about this election. If I say anything about Palin, repubs jump all over me. If I question Biden, dems are horrified. I do want to vote. I will figure it all out through my own research. My question for everyone today is how do I stay friends with people during all this? Any words of advice will be appreciated as I found my self in tears this morning.
None of the repubs can spell..!!! It's "despicable." nm
nm
Voter suppression is not just done by Repubs.
nm
The repubs were rabid right before the election and sm
I decided to leave until I could come back and rub it in. Here I am to all those who had their fake "poll" saying McCain would win... I am laughing so hard and you know.. he who laughs last, laughs best. WE WON WE WON WE WON... you were WRONG. Obama DID WIN.
Wow, I guess repubs really can't handle a little
You would prefer the rovian style of of GWB & DC dishonest fearmongering to fact? O is not offering up some mushroom cloud ultimatum of do it his way or face doom. He is simply proffering that things are probably going to get worse before they get better, which is also what any reputable economist is saying. There is no quick fix for what we have allowed to happen to our country.
Because the repubs are anti abortion nm
nm
Yahoo! And now all the repubs are going to squirm because they say....sm
The Iraq war was not a republican idea... the Iraq war was not about oil. Even dopey Palin admitted it was for oil.
THANK GOD WE HAVE OBAMA to get us right with the world!
If you came here to bash
Conservative board.
Never a problem there.
It's a new day. Just say no to bash.
x
Regarding the "O" Bash....
The right wing rag I got my figures from was the IRS:
Progressivity and the Tax Burden
Our tax system, however, is highly progressive, meaning that as one's income rises, a higher proportion of that income is taxed. Thus, those in the highest tax brackets contribute more to the overall tax burden even though there are far more people in lower tax brackets.1
- According to data from the IRS, the bottom 50 percent of income earners pay approximately 4 percent of income taxes.
- The top 25 percent of income earners pay nearly 83 percent of the income tax burden, and the top 10 percent pay 65 percent.
- The top 1 percent of income earners pay almost 35 percent of all income taxes.
The bottom 50% referred to above includes the middle class.
The $6 billion figure came from one of your own posters down in a lower thread...from the tax institute who evaluated O's plan, and the fact that it would add about a trillion (literally) dollars to the deficit. You can scroll down and find it yourself.
Yes, $250,000 in INCOME. That is a small business owner's PAYCHECK. That is what is left after they have paid all their small business operation bills, and he wants to RAISE the taxes on what they have left. It HURTS small businesses. IF they work hard, pay their people, keep their jobs on shore, what do they get for it? After paying whatever business taxes they have to pay, he wants to tax their bottom line AGAIN. In my opinion...that sucks.
Don't have time to run through the whole rant right now. More later.
Get over yourself. If all you can do is bash.....
don't bother posting at all. Sheesh. No wonder people leave this board.
Besides ,we all know that sam is a whole lot more knowledgeable about the entire political process than almost anyone here. Me included, and probably you.
Even though this gal was right about your #8.
Dont expect FOX Repubs to understand
your post, which was mostly right on!
Anyone who can watch FOX and *not* see the blatent attempt to TELL ITS VIEWERS what they want to hear INSTEAD of the truth must be downright stoopid. Come on get a clue: The 'teleprompter readers' just get prettier while the content gets more embarrassing. Are Americans THAT easily manipulated?
For the record though ALL MAINSTREAM media is purposefully designed to keep Americans ignorant about what is really going on - no wonder much of the rest of the world has such disdain for us: We are often not only wilfully ignorant in this country, we're arrogant about it to boot!
Question: When repubs. speak (or write), why is every
.
Pure garbage. I actually think the repubs leaked that...sm
personal baloney about Sarah to gain her the sympathy vote.
I am comparing SP to other repubs - not democrats - in my question - nm
x
Dear Satan Claws, you repubs .......sm
I know that a moniker is anonymous but at least the people who use the same monikers over and over aren't hiding as much as you cowards.
Satan Claws.
You Repubs and your angry rants are PITIFUL.
You Lost. You are no longer in power. America repudiated your hate, greed, racism and just generally STUPIDITY. Get over it!! Take your ball and GO HOME!
Wow, and now the Repubs claim to communicate with the Dead!
You Repubs are really embarrassing yourselves with your childish behavior. It is so, so sad to see SORE LOSERS!!! Please, grow up and GET BEHIND OUR PRESIDENT!
The moderator said not to bash.
She did not say that people with opposing viewpoints could not post.
The only bash under this thread is
Just can't resist slamming a different perspective, can you? Not even one time is this possible.
If Bush did not go, you would bash him for that.
nm
This is not a bash, but let me explain
I used to live 20 minutes from the border of Canada, we got a lot of perspective of what the Canadians thought of US.
First, this is not an election about race, but your comments are trying to suggest it is. Nobody in America cares about Obama's race. We care about Obama as a person. What is Obama offering the American people. What is Obama's plans for America. What will he do to our economic and foreign policies. What he wants to turn America into is not good for the country. Of course the people who support him will jump on your bandwagon and congratulate you on the "race" comment because they cannot defend the wrong he has done.
America does not want higher taxes which his plan will certainly increase our taxes. We work 50 and 60 hours or more at work to makes ends meet. Now we're going to have to work 80 hours or more because of the extra tax burdeon we will have to support all his programs while just handing the people who don't pay any taxes more money. Americans don't want our health care industry socialized, which is what his plan will do. We will no longer have control over our own health care.
We don't feel safe from our enemies with Obama's foreign policies. It's taken a lot since 9/11 for some Americans to feel that America is safe (or close to safe) from our enemies. Obama does not have the experience or knowlege of dealing with foreign leaders. A lot of us do not know where or who his allegience stands with. His ties to our enemies is not a very comforting feeling.
I find it funny how a lot of people will support Mr. Obama with his ties to the people who want to see us wiped off the planet, they'd rather see America turned into a socialist country. They'd rather see our freedoms and way of life taken from us. They want the people who work hard for what they have to work harder to give it to those who don't have and who refuse to do anything to better themselves. All for what? So that we can have a black president? That we have a president who is young?
Sure John McCain is not the first choice for a lot of us. We would have rather seen Ron Paul, Mit Romney or any of the others selected, but this is who the republican party chose.
A lot of us are researching what John McCain has done in his political career and what Barack Obama has done in his political career and we are comparing who would be better for America. It has nothing to do with the color (or lack of color) of their skin, it has to do with their character and judgment. It is a very close race and until election day is when we will learn who the people voted for. Here in America the polls do not mean anything. They are just a tool for the media to use to try to influence people, but thankfully most Americans do not vote based on just what polls say, and as we all know what happened with Tom Bradley (better known as the Bradley Effect) we know that polls do not mean anything, and the true results only happen on election day.
For a lot of conservatives we are choosing McCain over Obama because we feel McCain's plans and ideas are better for Americans. He has fought for Americans his whole political career. He has fought with both democrats and republicans on issues he feels are wrong for America.
Obama has too much "bad baggage". Sure he's a good speaker. He should be, after all he's a lawyer. He has had years of experience arguing cases in court rooms, but just because he speaks well, dresses nice, is good looking and had a lovely wife and 2 beautiful little girls does not mean that what he will turn our country into is right for America. Seeing as you have access to most everything on the Net you should visit some independent sites that are neither for or against both candidates and learn more about them, their history, their affiliations, who they studied under, who supports them, who donates to their campaigns. Who are they, what have they done in their careers and what are they trying so desperately to hide.
This campaign is different. We had a women running, Hillary, who now after being defeated are learning that she would have been a lot better for America than what is in there now. As the saying goes if she was elected "at least we know what the devil looks like". I voted for Obama over Hillary, but now I wish I voted the other way.
This election is also different because never in my adult years have I have heard such bias liberal media just trying to tear out the souls of anyone who is not democrat. Issues are in black in white in front of their faces and they choose to ignore them. We have people like Barney Franks, Chris Dodd and others who made a fortune from the housing crisis while they knew it was wrong, yet the democrats will say it was all Bush's fault, when President Bush does not vote on these issues. Sure President Bush is not the most intelligent. As my friend says "He's one fry short of a happy meal", but he didn't vote on Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac. Congress did. We were lied to by the democrats and this is where it got us. But the liberal media ignores that. Then we have the top democrats (Nancy Pelosi, and a couple others that I forget their name right now- Harry Reid, that's his name and others) who have the authority to impeach President Bush, and there is plenty legitimate and legal reasons for him to be impeached but they are not doing it. So the democrats will whine about Bush and how he should be impeached, but they don't say anything against the democrats for not impeaching him. There are a lot of conservatives who want Bush and Cheney impeached, so you have to ask yourselves why is Pelosi and others not doing it. I, as others believe, Pelosi and the others have done something wrong (accepted money or whatever it is) and they've been told not to do anything or else.
Anyway....yes, this election is different than others. We have one candidate who is a true American hero, who will fight for Americans and has fought for us. He doesn't belong to the "good ol boys" club like Bush/Cheney. Then you have the other candidate Obama who is so deep up to his neck in shady doings, associates, and everything else we are finding out. Also the same people who have donated and are in charge of President Bush are the same exact people who are supporting Obama (makes you think twice about that one).
You said Barack's wife is well spoken and I agree with you there. I also believe McCain's wife is well spoken. She has dedictated her life as a special education teacher and nurse. She has spent her whole life helping others. She is a truly beautiful lady like Michelle Obama on both the inside and out. Two extra-ordinary women who would make fine first ladies.
Obama's campaign is all about change. Yes everyone is tired of Bush/Cheney, and we certainly don't want to go back to the Clinton/Gore years, so people are looking for a change, just not the kind of change Obama wants to make. He also says its time for change but he picks Biden for a running mate. The same Biden who said that Obama was not ready to be President. Clinton also said Obama was not ready to be president. So Obama wants change but he picks a running mate who has been in Washington as long as McCain has. McCain's campaign is about putting America first. Which means fighting for us. We saw his courage and his fight while he was in a POW camp. He fought then and he will fight now. His running mate goes to show us McCain will truly put change into Washington. He picked a qualified person who gives Americans hope that more than only lawyer's can be elected. She has the experience (she has more experience than Obama does) to be elected as a VP. She's a fast learner and has come as far in a few weeks that took Obama almost 2 years to get to.
So, your post did not offend, but you need to know that this election is not about race. It's about ethics, integrety, patriotism, knowlege, courage, and sticking up for the American people. All qualities that John McCain and Sarah Palin hold.
I'm not saying I believe they will win because it is a very close election, but I like many others hope they do win. We want to be able to remain a free country and prosper the way our founding fathers wanted the country to be.
You want solutions? HA!. All you do is bash
nm
Suddenly the Repubs are worried about the political divide?
Oooh yeah, that's believable. Now that the ball has most definitely flown your court, you want to make sure EVERYBODY plays by the rules. Well let us tell you, the time to be polite was years ago, bucko, and your side blew its credibility in that respect. It was your senseless rampages that tore the political fabric of this nation from stem to stern - over NOTHING. So just sit back, shutty as they say on the main board, and take it on the chin like you deserve.
No, shallow Sally. Repubs are smart, but lefties
nm
He was on a board with Ayres and so were plenty of repubs, no biggie
I dated someone who was a liar and I'm not a liar. This is just a bunch of crap because they can't get anything on My SWEET OBIE.
Conservative Repubs rendered Clinton powerless
. . . because they were more interested in impeaching Clinton for getting head in the oval office than allowing him to carry out his presidential duties. Blame the republicans for a lame duck presidency in the last years of the Clinton administration.
Obama is shrewd, savvy, honest, and the repubs are not going to be able to touch him. They'll try . . . but it's a waste of time.
BEAMING WITH PRIDE AT BEING AN AMERICAN FOR THE FIRST TIME IN 8 YEARS.
  
It's not your right to bash her - this is the liberal board
As I said, if you have a problem with liberal ideology being expressed on this board, you need to contact the administrator as she is the one that helped toward having the two boards and requested many times to not bash. Can you understand that?
Please do not bash liberal posters. Thank you. nm
.
Mentally ill....? That is quite a bash, friend...
I was trying to be civil but the gloves are off now. You are so far embroiled into the liberal lockstep you don't even know what civil is, and you have demonstrated your own immaturity by this attack.
*I think you and your friends are playground bullies with maturity of a 5-year-old...*
This from someone who supports a so-called adult who let his johnson run his life...and then commit perjury and obstruction of justice to cover it up. Yep, there is a MATURE role model for you and you are following him like the sheeple. Instead of talking about it intelligently (that presupposes you are capable), you whine, snipe, and run.
You are welcome to any opinion you have about the *far right* Republican party, conservatives, et al. I have an opinion about the *far left* (although I believe that the whole party is so far left there is no more *moderate* left, they have been so effectively silenced). I believe that the Democratic party will finish destroying this country if they stay in power. Bill got a good start, and you, like the good sheeple are, follow blindly. The upper crust of your liberal party could not care LESS about you, walked to power on your shoulders, and intend to keep you oppressed and under their thumb to stay in power. The truth is, the far right Republican party cares more about you than they ever will. Not bashing, an opinion!
*You guys don't play fair.* Boy, THAT is rich! Someone disagrees with you or takes a shot at that tin god Clinton you bow to, and you don't want to have an intelligent debate, you just want the naysayers to go away. It is that kind of blinder vision that lets people like Adolf Hitler take hold and suddenly it is all right to kill six million people. You spewed enough venom here to pretty much prove that point. But the bigger point is this one, and if you have one brain cell left that is not liberally indoctrinated, LISTEN. The far right Republican party, and conservatives, are AMERICANS too! For the love of mike, get a grip and take off that liberal hat for 10 seconds and realize, conservatives are people just like you, have families just like you, pay taxes just like you, and whether you LIKE IT OR NOT, have rights just like you. I cannot believe the tone you are taking. Read your own post! Sheesh. You are acting like these people (myself included) are your mortal enemies. What in the world is the MATTER with you??? This is a posting board, not a battlefield. Good grief!!
Lets bash the pastor.
According to dictionary.com, the meanings of the N-word are “deeply disparaging and are used when the speaker deliberately wishes to cause great offense.” They go on to say, conversely, “it is sometimes used among African-Americans in a neutral or familiar way.” Since he whispered the statement behind what he thought was a cold microphone, it is highly unlikely that Rev. Jackson intended to cause great offense and his use of the word probably falls into the latter category of usage.
For example, the N-word can become much less offensive and even assume neutrality within historical discourse, literature, poetry, cinema theater and the like. One could further argue that within certain contexts (i.e. rap music, conversations within the black households, neighborhoods and businesses, to name a few) connotations of the word can be construed so as to convey a sense of community…even a brotherhood, of sorts. Language is fluid, dynamic and vital in its nature, not static or one-dimensional. Context, message, intent, environment, speaker and audience all impact the ultimate nuance of meaning in all forms of communication.
I agree with you and take deep offense at the use of the N-word, regardless of who says it. However, I would like to comment on some of the other points you raised in your post. A careful read of the actual statement shows that Rev. Jackson did not use this epithet to personally attack Obama. Rather, he was referring to the black population as a whole. Granted, his choice of words was extremely poor (at least from a white perspective), but the statement was not meant for public scrutiny. It was spoken from one black individual to another, much the same was that Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s statements were made from black preacher to black congregation.
As a white person, I do not believe I can sit in judgment one way or another regarding his choice of words when taken completely out of context, in the same way I am not qualified to criticize the sermons of Rev. Wright. I would like to think that I am intelligent enough to understand that, having lived in the US as a white person both before and after the civil right eras (1948 to present), I have not experienced life in America the same way black people have. They are entitled to their own “take” on their own lives. Who am I to tell them how to “tell it like it is?”
One last point. I am sure that much flap and bruhah will ensue over this unfortunate news. However, the very fact that Rev. Sharpton, you, I, the media and countless others will be having this debate over our outrage and dismay is a testament as to just how effective Rev Jackson and other early leaders in the civil rights movement were in defining the key issues, defying status quo of his times, enlisting support for the cause, effectively engaging his opposition in ongoing bipartisan initiatives over nearly 4 decades and producing fruitful, far-reaching and substantial bodies of legislation from which today’s black community continue to reap bountiful benefits and blessings. They weathered storms of protests, incarceration, series after series of setbacks and reversals, and buckets of bloodshed in their efforts to secure the civil liberties and rights that reach far beyond the black community to encompass other forms of discrimination against women, gays, immigrants and the poor, to name a few…all so casually taken for granted and so easily dismissed in the blink of an eye with one ill-chosen, unfortunate slip of the tongue.
For those of us whose memories reach further back than the latest round of CNN sound bytes and chat room chatter, we probably would forgive Obama should he decide not to denounce Rev Jackson’s support, nor would we feel driven to force him to abandon his own pastor of 20 years for the sake of our own righteous indignation.
And managed to bash dems on the way out....
Don't be so quick to bash Bush.... sm
This is near the bottom of the article I posted. Maybe you just missed it.
"To gain access to the emergency loans, GM and Chrysler must also agree to a wide range of concessions, including limits on executive pay and the elimination of their private corporate jets. "
Everyone put it on Bush's shoulders to do some thing about this and now that he has, still he gets bashed. He's not my favorite president by far, but I think he should be afforded some kind of recognition for doing something to help the economy. As far as pay cuts for the UAW, the article says that they will have to bring their wages more in line with those of foreign auto makers, which is still a danged good salary. Would the UAW rather have a pay check or be completely unemployed? That is pretty much what it all boils down to. I wouldn't particular want to take a pay cut either, but in light of the situation and the current economic picture, I think I would thank my lucky stars that I at least would HAVE a jo
Like the old saying goes "You can please all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time but you can't please all of the people all of the time."
Off  .
Yes, BASH BUSH - he should be tried for war crimes!!
He put us in this mess - the SOB should be tried for treason, corruption and war crimes. Oh wait, he probably has a layer of insulation between him and Scooter Libby. Huh.
They are trying to bash Bush again to distract from
nm
I didn't bash anyone...and I read them all
I think that you are unfairly bashing the poor man. Diagree with his politics--fine--that's what the board is for, but what is with the personal attacks. If you don't like the words he uses, that's okay, but why make a big deal out of it. If he talks over your head, I am sure that he didn't mean to. I don't find what he writes hard to understand. I simply disagree with tons of people attacking him on a personal level--or you for that matter. I did not attack anyone personally, nor would I. I did READ all the posts and did give my comment. I stand by it.
|
