Was there a threat made?
Posted By: Let's Be Real on 2008-11-05
In Reply to: MODERATOR - sbMT
I'm afraid that this is what is going to happen everywhere. Anytime ANYTHING is said that sounds bad somebody is going to be reporting it to the FBI. We are slowly going to lose freedom of speech at this rate.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
- MODERATOR - sbMT
- Was there a threat made? - Let's Be Real
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
The post was inappropriate, but was a threat made??
Bye bye freedom of speech.
FBI has better things to be working on and I'm afraid if this is any indication they are going to be bombarded with inappropriate statements.
Yeah, there was no threat made. It was a sick thing
nm
Please describe the actual physical threat that you allege was made on this internet chat board.
Thank you.
Threat?
GT explained what she meant in the post afterwards, which you conveniently ignored. She said: Yes, as in prove you are a bigoted fool, FRYE your butt.
Any reasonably intelligent person can see she was challenging this poster to be civil and honest and to debate instead of attack, as she herself explained in her above post. Obviously, the poster wasn't up for that challenge. 
So much for the threat. SM
This is what *I* consider a serious threat...sm
Not discounting whatever went on this weekend, but I thought this was of interest.
By the NewsMax.com Staff
For the story behind the story...
Thursday, March 16, 2006 9:11 a.m. EST
Ruth Bader Ginsburg Complains of Right Wing Death Threats
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is complaining that she's getting death threats from detractors who belong to the irrational fringe of society - people she says who have been egged on by mainstream conservatives who have been critical of the High Court.
In quotes picked up by The Associated Press Wednesday, Ginsburg told the Constitutional Court of South Africa last month that somebody in an Internet chat room had issued a death threat against herself and her former colleague, Sandra Day O'Connor.
According to Ginsburg, the chat room perpetrator declared:
OK commandoes, here is your first patriotic assignment ... an easy one. Supreme Court Justices Ginsburg and O'Connor have publicly stated that they use (foreign) laws and rulings to decide how to rule on American cases. This is a huge threat to our republic and constitutional freedom ... If you are what you say you are, and NOT armchair patriots, then those two justices will not live another week.
In a follow-up speech earlier this month, the Clinton-appointed justice said the whole experience had been disquieting for her.
The AP cited Ann Coulter as an example of a conservative who may have inadvertently encouraged radicals to threaten members of the court by joking during a recent speech that Justice John Paul Stevens should be poisoned.
Democrat: It goes on to say that Ginsberg did not speak up when a liberal commentator made a *wish him an early death* about Clarence Thomas, but was that Ginsberg's place to do so? And if so, did Clarence Thomas speak out for her?
Nothing like the threat of a
brisk IRS proctological exam to get a politician's mind right.
*Islamic Threat*
The *Islamic threat* grew over the past 50 years of our foreign policy. This did not happen just because as Bush says, they are jealous of our freedom. OMG, their ideology and ours are totally different and frankly, I dont think we will ever get a functioning democracy set up in the Middle East. Instead of doing what Blair is doing now, setting up meetings with Islamic organizations to try to defuse the situation, we went head strong into Iraq..Oh, we are America, we are gonna kick butt, and what happened, we are now fighting a world wide terrorist war with it's breeding ground Iraq and to a minimum Afghanistan. This was such an error in judgment and we will pay for it for decades to come. Bush and his administration dont have to worry. If we get attacked, they have bunkers, they have secret service that will be with them even after the term ends. It is us, who ride the subways, rail roads, buses, shop at the malls..we are the ones..the poor slobs on the farms, who are fighting Bush's war and will die in terrorist attacks. Thank you, Bush!
chavez threat
There have been many arrested over the past few years for just voicing threats that were meaningless, not like Robertson broadcasting all over the world about assassinating Chavez. That most certainly is a crime. You cannot threaten leaders of other countries, especially in a forum like Robertson has.
Iran is CLEARLY a threat and that was what he
was conveying. Making a statement about AVOIDING World War III is not irresponsible and I didn't hear him assume WWIII would evolve out of Iran specifically. ANY country with nuclear weapons could spawn WWIII.
American is clearly a threat to some
America is clearly a threat to many countries, especially seeing what we have been doing for the past four plus years and how we have fueled the hatred and terrorism around the world by chosing to invade and kill instead of holding diplomatic sessions..the thinking mans way of handling a disagreement/problem..no not cowboy Bush, he thinks nothing of sending over our loved ones to fight his illegal, immoral so wrong war, just as long as his daughters and the children of the lawmakers dont have to go.
She is a threat to Obama. and they will do
nm
Approaching threat.s are......
Israel and Aghanistan, not Iraq.
It all started in Afghanistan.
Obama threat already.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/02/10/obama.threat/?iref=mpstoryview
Perhaps. But to ignore the Islamic threat would mean sm
the end of life as we know it and we don't even want to imagine what the "new" life would be like. Be careful what you wish for.
Sounds like a threat to me. And hey, I am being nice here. SM
How about trying to be nice in return. This sounds like a threat:
Can I call your arse to task when you step off your ******* truce*******..You bet I will..So, honey, keep posting good posts, debate posts and you will be **in**, jump off that and your arse is fried..
The answer is, there is no terrorist threat. sm
That sums it up.
Thinly veiled threat
It was a thinly veiled threat. Like someone stating..if you are interested in my punching you in the nose, keep up the baloney. It was stated to make other countries shiver in their boots, however, what it does is make other countries race faster to make the nuclear bombs to protect themselves from the country they perceive as a terrorist country, the USA...you know the country that pre-emptively invaded a soverign nation which was no threat to them.
IED threat was known before war but troops not protected
I'm so glad that Joe Biden is in the White House now, considering he was one of only two who spoke up about this. Our troops deserve an administration that respects and cares about them and will do its best to protect them.
Report: IED threat known before war |
By Peter Eisler, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON —— Military leaders knew the dangers posed by roadside bombs before the start of the Iraq war but did little to develop vehicles that were known to better protect forces from what proved to be the conflict's deadliest weapon, a report by the Pentagon inspector general says.
The Pentagon "was aware of the threat posed by mines and improvised explosive devices (IEDs) …… and of the availability of mine resistant vehicles years before insurgent actions began in Iraq in 2003," says the 72-page report, which was reviewed by USA TODAY.
The report is to be made public today.
Marine Corps leaders "stopped processing" an urgent request in February 2005 for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles from combat commanders in Iraq's Anbar province after declaring that a more heavily armored version of existing Humvee vehicles was the "best available" option for protecting troops, the report says.
Marine officials "did not develop a course of action for the (request), attempt to obtain funding for it or present it to the Marine Corps Requirements Oversight Council for a decision on acquiring" MRAPs, the report says.
The military continued relying mainly on Humvees until May 2007, when then-incoming Defense secretary Robert Gates called procurement of the MRAPs his top priority. Since then, the Pentagon has spent more than $22 billion to buy more than 15,000 of the vehicles.
When field commanders first began requesting MRAPs, military officials saw the armored Humvees as a more immediate option to countering IEDs, Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said. "The threat has evolved and our force protection measures have evolved with it," he said.
The Marines requested the inspector general's investigation in February after an internal report accused the Corps of "gross mismanagement" of the urgent request for MRAPs. Hundreds of Marines died unnecessarily because of delays in fielding the vehicles, said the Jan. 22 study by Franz Gayl, a retired Marine officer and civilian science adviser.
Two U.S. senators —— Democrat Joe Biden of Delaware, now the vice president-elect, and Republican Kit Bond of Missouri —— demanded an investigation after details of Gayl's study were published.
"The Pentagon was aware of the threat IEDs posed to our troops prior to our intervention in Iraq and still failed to take the steps to acquire the technology needed to reduce the risk," Bond said after reviewing the report. "Some bureaucrats at the Pentagon have much to explain."
USA TODAY detailed the Pentagon's failure to move quickly on MRAP development in a series of stories last year. Gates credited one of those stories with sparking his interest in the vehicles.
Marine commanders in Iraq's then-volatile Anbar province sought 1,169 MRAPs in the February 2005 urgent request. "There is an immediate need for an MRAP vehicle capability to increase survivability and mobility of Marines operating in a hazardous fire area," it said.
The inspector general's report says that Marine officials advised Marine Corps commandant Michael Hagee at the time that armored Humvees were the "best available, most survivable" vehicles to meet the request.
MRAPs are far more resistant to IEDs and landmines than armored Humvees because they're higher off the ground and rest on a V-shaped hull, which deflects blasts from the vehicle's underside.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2008-12-08-mrap_N.htm
threat to national security
and YOU have undisputed proof of this?
No threat to national security?
We just posted where these facilities are and what is going on, but hey....don't worry....no national security risk. OMG! What a bunch of flipping morons!!!
P.S. I don't recall anyone posting a near death threat to the
remote to that.
Why is it you are the only ones who are "free" to display your anger on your board?
If you take a look at the posts on this board, the only time they get nasty is when a troll from your board comes here and begins spewing your hatred and rage.
Why are you so angry? Your guy won.
Whenever a liberal raises an issue concerning a Bush administration policy or decision, I seldom see an intelligent thoughtful response come from most of you. Instead you attack the poster on a personal level when that poster never personally attacked YOU. They complained about Bush. Are you BUSH??
Time and time again, most of you come back with "all liberals" insults and rarely, if ever, address the question or issue that was raised.
If you can begin to understand that it isn't YOU PERSONALLY that we are referring to, maybe then we can begin to have an intelligent conversation on this board.
If you are a conservative, I respect your right to your opinions, and I'd like to learn more about them. I can't do that if all you do is throw insults, which you are "free" to do on your board, but if we are angered or insulted by them, we are not likewise "free" to express that.
I had hoped that these new boards would eliminate the personal favorites that seemed to exist on the other board. Looks like that isn't the case.
And as far as approaching the administrator about fairness, if I can't do that, then I truly don't belong in a forum like this one. I belong in one that doesn't play favorites, where intelligent discourse can occur, where personal insults and attacks are prohibited for everyone, not just for some.
I just wonder how many people you've chased away from here, besides me.
I don't think this quote refers to ignoring a threat...
I think it speaks about creating and justifying a war, and in the Iraq war's case, a hasty and simple-minded war. I don't know what Goering's thoughts were, but my own are that war should be a last resort and that seems like common sense. This is in no sense to be construed as downplaying the threat of Islamic terrorism. I would like to mention there that a big complaint about the Iraq war was that Bush ignored or didn't wish to consider the advice of folks who had a solid background in the Middle East. The insurgency and threatening civil war were all predicted when we went to war but the advice was ignored. Bush, it seems, reversed the usual order in which a country is forced to go to war: He decided FIRST that he would go to war, then created justification, then ignored all the sage advice that Iraq was a potential powderkeg, and then he did what Goering prescribed to get the U.S. to rally around his cause (or at least some of the U.S.). That's how it appears anyway. I hope I am wrong about this but with the mounting well-documented evidence to the contrary I believe this will become the ultimate truth of the matter.
dorky song threat realized
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPBxmrWqI-g&feature=related
Right! Beck is a threat to the left so as usual,
nm
Any ideas on how paying down too much debt could be a terrorist threat?nm
Careful! Some neocon troll might twist your post into a threat!!!
Who honestly cares, as long as the terrorist threat was stopped. sm
Until all of you stop your Bush rabid hatred, the terrorist threat is not only lost on you, you look for something more sinister and it all has to point to Bush. This is really disturbing.
British Government Says Mothers With Babies New Terror Threat sm
British Government Says Mothers With Babies New Terror Threat
You're either with us, or you're with the babies.
British government security advisors and the national media are doing their level best to strike rampant irrational paranoid terror into the hearts of UK citizens by identifying the latest targets of the war on terror as pregnant women and toddlers.
Absurd delirious fearmongering continues in the British media with the Sun tabloid, Britain's most braindead and unfortunately also most popular newspaper screaming, HATE-filled mums willing to sacrifice themselves and their BABIES are being hunted in the war on terror.
Yes that's right you haven't slipped into an upside down parallel universe - pregnant women and mothers with young babies are the new Al-Qaeda.
The evidence?
The nightmare is that mums carrying tiny tots would provide “very good cover” and not raise suspicions among even the most alert security guards.
The Sun cited a senior Government security adviser as their source.
So let's ignore that guy with the turban who looks like Mohammed Atta and instead focus our magic screening wand on Mrs. Smith and her newborn infant.
Extra pat downs for young mums and making toddlers take their shoes off - boy do I feel safer now.
What's the next threat? Barney the purple dinosaur?
Of course we know what this is all designed to accomplish - it's about broadening the terrorist definition to the point where everyone's a suspect and everybody's behavior is under preposterous and suffocating scrutiny.
The implication that the most benign, harmless and innocent members of our society could in actuality be terrorist suicide bombers is a sick ploy crafted to ensure that absolutely no one is allowed to escape the self-regulating stench of being under suspicion.
It is also intended to brainwash the population that terrorists are potentially hiding under their beds, that they are everywhere and that only by a system of reporting suspicious behavior and unquestionably trusting the government will they too avoid the accusing finger.
This is classic Cold War style behavioral conditioning and the Neo-Fascist architects know exactly what they're doing.
Despite the status of alert returning to previous levels in both the US and the UK, ridiculous restrictions on travelers remain in place. Every time a new bout of fearmongering washes over a stupefied public, they are more pliable to new ways of being shoved around by government enforcers, even after the alleged plot has been foiled.
The fearmongering never subsides, it is always ratcheted up another peg in anticipation for future manufactured threats.
The future of airport security?
Why don't they just ban any luggage, clothing or personal accessories whatsoever and have done with it? Better yet - why not strap every passenger into a straight jacket from the moment they enter the airport?
In Knoxville, TSA officials are testing a biometric scanner device which interrogates passengers about their 'hostile intent' by asking a barrage of questions. If you thought the current delays and blanket 'everybody's a criminal terrorist' attitude were annoying enough, you ain't seen nothing yet.
In a similar example to the mothers and babies mindlessness, the London Guardian reports that located in the tranquil and peaceful rural surroundings of the British Lake District and Yorkshire Dales are terrorist training camps where Al-Qaeda devotees are preparing for their next big attack.
What's next? Bomb making factories under the Atlantic Ocean? Islamo Fascist brainwashing schools at the North Pole?
The sheer stupidity implicit in the Guardian article is bewildering. If the police haven't even questioned the alleged terrorists, allowing them to gather evidence of terrorist activity, because they're conducting covert surveillance of the group then why in God's name have they told a national newspaper, who in turn have splashed the story all over their front page?
If these supposed terrorists didn't know they were under surveillance before then they sure do now!
I live on the edge of the Peak District nearby the kind of areas being fingered as terrorist training areas. The closest thing to Al-Qaeda like activity up here is when a discourteous rambler leaves a farm gate open.
Again, it's about people who live in the country being smothered with the same raving paranoia and cockamamie fearmongering city-dwellers are subjected to. Woe betide anyone living in a converted barn house in the middle of miles and miles of wilderness think they can escape the war on terror - it applies to anything!
Baby formula, lip gloss, mothers and toddlers included.
Fortunately, Lurker, many on the left realize the threat from radical Islam. sm
It isn't political, but it has been made that way. That's why a lot of you have been lulled into being apologist for murdering Islamofascists.
Yes I do have it made.
I do have it made, and it is well earned. How much military service do you have under your belt? How many political action committees have you served on?
I don't think she has made this
decision without thinking about all she might miss with her kids. My mom was at a lot of the things I did in school. However, my dad was at work. He was supporting his family by making a living. He was making our situation better by working that overtime so we could afford stuff. Would I have liked my dad to be at my tennis match.....sure. But the reality is that even though he wasn't there watching, he still was literally the one supporting me and I appreciated and loved him for that.
As for Palin, did you ever think that maybe....just maybe she is willing to sacrifice time with her kids to make a better country for them as well as all of us? Have they asked Obama about sacrificing time with his kids? No....because we all just assume Michelle will take care of the kids.
Al would have made sure we were . . .
not kissing (notice I did not say kicking) butt over in Iraq to get that oil. This country would have been a lot further along with alternative energy sources!!!
I made my own
NObama pin which I alternated with an Obama pin (with the red slash through the O as in a no smoking sign).
thank you SO much, made my day!!
 That was truly worth the seven minutes!!
Please tell me you just made that up!!!
Because if you didn't, you're right, that is much more sick.
Please tell me you just made that up!!!
Because if you didn't, you're right, that is much more sick.
NO vaccines are made in the U.S. now???
Or is that another conservative "fact"?
And, yes, those dang whacko liberals like Robert F. Kennedy and those of his ilk should be ashamed of themselves for connecting the presence of thimerosal in vaccines and resultant autism and attempting to STOP it. Who cares about the children who are already here? The most important thing is that we make sure not to hurt those inanimate cells in a petrie dish.
And, yes, it's certainly has been proven that there can be side effects associated with the smallpox vaccine where a small percentage of people might get sick and die. We COULD maybe let the people CHOOSE whether they want the vaccine or not (if enough of it ever actually EXISTED to protect the entire country), but, no, free choice isn't a very "red" thing to do. So the only logical thing to do is make sure that we deny the vaccine to all Americans so we can ALL die if terrorists decide to use that as a form of bio warfare. (By the way, I truly doubt that lawsuits will be much of an issue if we're all DEAD.)
Right? I mean, you "red" guys know what should be allowed and denied in the life of every single American, don't you? You've got some kind of special "divine knowledge" where you know what I should be "allowed" to do with my own personal body, who I'm "allowed" to love, how I'm "allowed" to plan my family, when I decide I'm "allowed" to die, and which God I'm "allowed" to worship without being doomed to eternal damnation?
wow, you made that assumption of me HOW? sm
by the way, the immaturity and silliness of your answer just makes you look like a fool. Might want to work on that.
Yep, made a mistake, should have been why would anyone BAN you. SM
People do that all the time on the board, don't make a big deal out of it and I am perfectly FINE here. Why.....feeling uncomfortable? It's not like you guys don't take pot shots on the Conservative board now is it?
No, only the ones made by liberals.
xox
SOY was the one who made it personal anyway.
**This fits many on THIS board...To fear the LORD is to hate evil; I hate pride and arrogance, evil behavior and perverse speech.**
Maybe you missed that because you've stereotyped, judged and sentenced the liberals already.
Yes! You made my point exactly
They just keep shipping the jobs out until eventually we'll be left with millions of doctors and lawyers!! And who wants that?! :)
Seriously, something has to be done about this. Unfortunately, quite a few politians are paid by these big companies that make profits by off-shoring. We have to start putting major pressure on them to stop.
But who and how would that decision be made
From a legal perspective? Say "convenience" abortions are made illegal. I get pregnant and decide I want to have a "convenience" abortion. However, I know these are illegal, so I say the guy raped me. Who gets to pick in which cases abortion is permitted and in which cases it's not?
This is my main concern. You're preaching to the choir on the rest of it, because it used to disgust me when I would type reports and a woman would've had 15 abortions. I do not agree with that at all, and I don't think there are many who do. But, logistically speaking, again, it's either legal or illegal.
I only made it through the first two paragraphs
I had a nauseating sense of deja vu.
Its me again - you all made me laugh
Just had to write back to let you all know I enjoyed reading all your posts to my "rant" this morning. It's nice that other people see her for what she really is, and sad that others do not. Sure we all want to just up and leave when things don't go our way and nothing seems fair, but as my mama used to say "who ever told you that life was fair", and no I'm not rich like the hollywood people who can leave country at the drop of a hat. So, just to let you know my feelings have not changed about how I feel for her. No, I don't hate her, but I do see her for what she is and I don't like it. Well yeah, maybe deep inside I do hate her. I just wish she would just go away and I wouldn't have to see her anymore, but somehow they always find their way out from under the rocks (Bush & Cheney is included). Anyway....I have calmed down since posting (not not with medication, but with a good dose of reality from all who commented) :-) I don't have anything to worry about anyways though because even if she pulls some of her "maneuvers" and knocks out Obama she will never win over McCain - just a fact. (if by chance she does, then in November I will come back and tell you all I'm eating crow. HA HA HA. I'm also not worried bout it anymore -after all I do have a "mute" and "channel changer" on my remote control. :-)
This one's too easy. Just made my day.
Title of you post is lifted straight out of TT112OldTimer's post responding to Free Speech Rocks. When spinning soooo out of control that the brain becomes blank, you can always resort to plagiary. Hello. Are you listening? Vitriol out, vitriol in. You might be shocked by how much respect you earn with just the simple gesture of extending some. Respect is NOT a 4-letter word.
Common sense is exactly what I used when I decided to attack my own bigoted tendencies back when I was still a teenager. I did not learn any of that from books or courses I took in school. I took it to the streets and reaped benefits beyond measure from those lessons.
Au contraire. The bluster of bigots is easy to bury under fact and logic. No need to be thwarted by that. Their reservoir of insults runs very shallow, but the intellect is a well that one can dig as deep as is necessary. Fact/truth is another arch-enemy of the bigot. You at least had the wisdom not to attempt to ridicule the context post since you knew you would be in way over your head and besides, you are allergic to the other side of the coin. As they say, if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. It can’t be much fun to find yourself dumbfounded by your own narrow mind. Frustrating too...remember it well.
On the shortcut post: That was your snipe, not mine. Snipe begets tripe. Vtriol out/vitriol in. Garbage out/garbage in. Is there an echo in here?
Not the slightest bit interested in agreement, validation or vindication. I am secure enough by now not to need all of that. But in political contexts, the journey down the road to consensus will never begin in the absence of flexibility, open-mindedness and a good dose of patience.
What part of my posts reflect your tactics do you not understand? You absolutely refuse to look at yourself in the mirror, but you do know enough to be outranged when someone sends you your own reflection. It’s not a pretty sight and furthermore, you become every bit as enraged as you seem to think I am. You are constitutionally incapable of seeing what a spiteful little vixen you become when your brick-wall logic is thrown back in you face.
No surprise there. Bigotry is always blind. Here’s another example you are bound to ignore: You are so driven by your hatred of illegals that you would actually weigh in on the side of transnationals and cast your vote for the party who empowers them to outsource your profession overseas and drive your own wages into the ground.
Well shut my mouth! Could it be that you have finally run out of insults in the face of the realities of logic and have arrived on the threshold of the next level where most other right-wingers eventually find themselves...running for the hills and back into the open arms of the choir members? You are big on cliché. Here’s one for you...you can run, but you can’t hide. Have a safe journey and I am “sending up a prayer” that you find the sanctuary you seek.
no, my mind is already made up
I have been catching some of it (busy with MT and all) but what I really want to see is political commentary by someone who can say these were the good things about the speech and these are the things that weren't good or they should have talked about. Watching Democrat commentary they mostly say everything is wonderful and great speeches, and wathcing Republican commentary they mostly say the speech was lame or ineffective or whatever. Isn't anyone impartial? I'm really missing Tim Russert now.. :(
It would not be an issue if he had not made it one. nm
nm
The only guy that made a mess is
So the ends justify the means when it come to rebpulicans, abuse of power and the ethically challenged ethics maid? Said it once, will say it again. Divorce/custody issues are typically played out in family courts without interference and manipulation of the Governor's office. Marginalized? Is that the best spin you can think of for cold, hard fact? No backs up against the wall here. You see, JM has made life a whole lot easier by his latest senior moment. This decision smacks of "he just doesn't get it." Alienated women with his token showcase and moved the party straight back to the far right. If there were any doubt that he would be 4 more years of the same before, now it is plain as the nose on his face. We knew he would self destruct sooner or later, but noone expected it would come in the form of his VP pick. Nothing petty and vindictive about it, but if you feel the need to insult, bash and vent a little, by all means, knock yourself out. You, like your candidates, are underestimating the Clintons, their supporters and their party. She may have the same genitalia, but she is about as far from Hillary as it gets.
No, you are. I'm saying judgments will be made
For those who feel SP was insensitive to her daughter's situation and right to privacy during her pregnancy and childbirth, right or wrong, SP's judgment and priorities might come into question, especially since she has been pregnant 5 times herself. Her ability to balance her political responsibilities with her family obligations will likely be examined as well.
As a feminist, I do not think this is particularly fair, but it is STILL done in the work place when women are being considered for high positions in companies. Female leaders of childbearing years are measured by different standards than their male counterparts in this respect, regardless of whether you or I think this is fair. Mothers are held to higher standards than fathers when it comes to protecting their children. As a political candidate, she will be in a position to answer a whole lot of questions not posed to those of us in the private sector.
If they really did discuss this issue ahead of time, she and McCain both might have anticipated this kind of fallout if the Bristol's pregnancy were to come to light and could made have decisions accordingly. It may appear to some, if not many, that the interest of the party or the country was NOT their first consideration, and Bristol, her baby and the 4-month old infant son ranked under electability when this decision was made. That is what I am saying.
|
