What part of you have to back up your own claims
Posted By: Do you not get? Show us the story...sm on 2008-09-09
In Reply to: That wasn't the story to which I referred - Old part-timer
Otherwise, the claim is discredited. That's the way it works.
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
everyone claims to have
abandoned this place and return monthly just to see if the posts have changed. Did all y'all coordinate to arrive on this date to check it?
Dodd claims he did not put that in there -
at least, I read that he said the date he had included was changed so that those bonuses would still be paid. He said his date would not have allowed those bonuses to be paid. ???
Validation on your claims
Okay, name all these supposed lies that Fox is telling. What exactly is the "garbage" you keep referring to. Do tell me. Then, tell me all the great things that MSNBC, CNN, and Huffington Post and other liberal rags are saying that is supposedly the truth.
Claims and Facts: The War in Iraq
Rep. John Murtha (from Huffington Post)
Saddam-Al Qaeda Connection
CLAIM: There's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government. I am very confident that there was an established relationship there. -- Vice President Cheney, 1/22/04
CLAIM: The regime of Saddam Hussein cultivated ties to terror while it built weapons of mass destruction. -- President Bush's UN speech, 9/23/03
FACT: Sec. of State Colin Powell conceded Thursday that despite his assertions to the United Nations last year, he had no 'smoking gun' proof of a link between the government of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and terrorists of al-Qaeda.' I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection,' Powell said. [NY Times, 1/9/04]
FACT: Three former Bush Administration officials who worked on intelligence and national security issues said the prewar evidence tying al Qaeda was tenuous, exaggerated and often at odds with the conclusions of key intelligence agencies. [National Journal, 8/9/03]
Weapons of Mass Destruction
CLAIM: We found the weapons of mass destruction. -- President Bush, 5/29/03
CLAIM: We know where the WMDs are. - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/30/03
CLAIM: The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. - President Bush, 1/28/03
CLAIM: Evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program...Iraq could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. - President Bush, 10/7/02
CLAIM: There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more...Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets. - Secretary of State Colin Powell, 2/5/03
FACT: A draft report on the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq provides no solid evidence that Iraq had such arms when the United States invaded the country in March and none have materialized since. [Reuters 9/15/03]
FACT: On 7/8/03, the Washington Post reported the Administration admitted the Iraq-Nuclear allegation was false. Revelations by officials at the CIA, the State Department, the UN, in Congress and elsewhere made clear that the White House knew the claim was false before making the allegation. In fact, CIA Director George Tenet successfully intervened with White House officials to have the reference removed from a Bush speech in Oct. of 2002. [W. Post, 7/13/03]
FACT: Iraq did not have a large, ongoing, centrally controlled chemical weapons program after 1991... Iraq's large-scale capability to develop, produce, and fill new chemical weapon munitions was reduced - if not entirely destroyed - during Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of UN sanctions and UN inspections. - Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay, 10/2/03
War on Terror/Bush Doctrine
CLAIM: All governments that support terror are complicit in a war against civilization. - President Bush's UN speech, 9/23/03
FACT: The Administration continues its close ties with the Saudis even though the LA Times reported on 8/2/03 that the bipartisan commission investigating 9/11 found the Saudi government not only provided significant money and aid to the suicide hijackers but also allowed potentially hundreds of millions of dollars to flow to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups through suspect charities and other fronts.
Pre-War Cost Estimates
CLAIM: Iraq will be an affordable endeavor that will not require sustained aid and will be in the range of $50 billion to $60 billion. -Budget Director Mitch Daniels [Forbes 4/11/03, W. Post 3/28/03, NY Times 1/2/03, respectively]
CLAIM: In terms of the American taxpayers contribution, [$1.7 billion] is it for the US. The rest of the rebuilding of Iraq will be done by other countries and Iraqi oil revenues...The American part of this will be 1.7 billion. We have no plans for any further-on funding for this. -- USAID Director Andrew Natsios, 4/23/03
FACT: The Bush Administration has received over $200 billion for operations in Iraq, despite firing top economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey for suggesting (accurately) before the war that a war in Iraq would cost at least $100 to $200 billion of dollars.
FACT: The Bush Administration has requested more than $20 billion for reconstruction in Iraq -- despite the pledge that the U.S. would only fund $1.7 billion.
Pre-War Oil Revenue Estimates
CLAIM: I think has been fairly significant success in terms of putting Iraq back together again...and certainly wouldn't lead me to suggest or think that the strategy is flawed or needs to be changed. -- Vice President Cheney, [9/14/03]
FACT: International Oil Daily reported on 9/23/03 that Paul Bremer said that current and future oil revenues will be insufficient for rebuilding Iraq -- despite the Administration's pre-war promises.
Post-War Planning
CLAIM: I think has been fairly significant success in terms of putting Iraq back together again...and certainly wouldn't lead me to suggest or think that the strategy is flawed or needs to be changed. -- Vice President Cheney, [9/14/03]
FACT: A secret report for the Joint Chiefs of Staff blames setbacks in Iraq on a flawed and rushed war-planning process in which officials, conceded in recent weeks that the Bush administration failed to predict the guerrilla war against American troops in Iraq. [Wash. Times, 9/3/03]
Length of Military Operations
CLAIM: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. -- President Bush, 5/1/03
CLAIM: The war could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months. -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld [2/7/03]
FACT: The war in Iraq is still going on, and more American troops have been killed after major combat operations supposedly ended than before.
Troop Deployment Needs
CLAIM: What is, I think, reasonably certain is the idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces I think is far from the mark. -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld 2/27/03
CLAIM: The notion that it would take several hundred thousand American troops just seems outlandish. -- Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, 3/4/03
FACT: The CBO reported on 9/3/03 that The Army does not have enough active-duty component forces to do what is required in Iraq -- meaning the U.S. needs to increase its deployment above the 135,000 currently in Iraq. That confirms General Eric Shinseki's estimate that it would take several hundred thousand troops.
FACT: 32 of the original 33 brigade combat teams (BCTs) have been in OIF/OEF at least once.
FACT: 15 NGB BCTs have deployed to OIF/OEF using up availability under current Partial Mobilization authority; most others have deployed to GTMO, KFOR, SFOR, and Sinai.
FACT: Army continues to accept risk in OPLAN 5026.
Insurgency Strength
CLAIM: The Iraq insurgency is in its last throes. -- Vice President Cheney, 5/30/05
CLAIM: Mr. Cheney, speaking on CNN, said that the Iraqis were well on their way to establishing a democratically elected government in Iraq. When we do, that will be the end of the insurgency. [Wall Street Journal 6/24/05]
FACT: Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, General Abizaid said that, actually, the insurgency has not grown weaker over the last six months and the number of foreign terrorists infiltrating Iraq has increased. [Newsweek 7/4/05]
FACT: Secretary Rumsfeld said, We're not going to win against the insurgency. The Iraqi people are going to win against the insurgency. That insurgency could go on for any number of years. [Philadelphia Inquirer 6/27/05]
Troop Withdrawal
CLAIM: Indeed, if you think about it, last June or July there were no Iraqi security forces, and today, in February of 2004, there are over 210,000 Iraqis serving in the security forces ... And there are a number of thousands more that are currently in training. - Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, 2/23/04
CLAIM: Mr. Bush gave no timetables for American withdrawal other than an assurance that as the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down. [NY Times, 6/29/05]
CLAIM: Gen Abizaid said that the Iraqi forces could begin taking a lead role by next spring or summer, and that U.S. force reductions would probably come a year after that. [International Herald Tribune 6/27/05]
FACT: Gen. Peter Pace, then Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said that only a small number of Iraqi security forces are taking on the insurgents and terrorists by themselves which means we have a long way to go. [Washington Post 7/22/05]
Situation on the Ground
CLAIM: Over the past several months, Administration officials have argued that the situation in Iraq was improving. Recently, General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, noted on Meet the Press [Sunday, March 5, 2006] that the situation in Iraq was going very, very well.
FACT: Since the last week in February 2006, sectarian violence and death has reached new heights. In the past few weeks alone, over a thousand Iraqi civilians have been killed in the violence.
FACT: Electricity production remains below pre-war levels. Baghdad received an average of 6.4 hours of electricity per day. Oil production was at 1.77 million barrels per day, some 30% below pre-war production rates. [Iraq Weekly Status Report of March 1, 2006 from the U.S. State Department]
FACT: The number of incidents per week have tripled since one year ago [summary of classified information provided by the Central Intelligence Agency]
FACT: Unemployment ranges from 30-60% nation-wide. In Anbar Province -- the epicenter of the insurgency -- unemployment reaches 90%. [summary of estimates by the State Department and U.S. intelligence agencies]
I would be fruitless. He claims to be all-knowing
Hate to burst anyone's bubble, but a very large portion of what you read on the internet is skewed, inaccurate, erroneous, and flat-out false.
Dubious claims? Are you a crackpot?
Or just on crack?
And just what claims are those prey tell.....-see message
That we want the country to succeed? That we want the constitution enforced? That we don't want to be taxed so that we can no longer afford to live? That we don't want the spending of money that hasn't been printed yet, or printing so much money that inflation hits? That we want him to keep his campaign promises (that he hasn't yet)? That we want equality for all people? That we want the WA thugs to pay taxes like we have to? That we don't want him lining his pockets or those of the 1% wealthiest (his friends) while the rest of us pay for it? That we don't like viewing his @ss while he bows to our enemies? And also that we don't like him lying to us about it? That we don't want him giving our jobs to overseas companies? That we don't want our children drafted? If those are ridiculous to you, and if you call turning our country into a socialist/communist state, then I do believe you would find a better home in Cuba.
Rush said -
"This notion that I want the president to fail, this shows you the problem we've got. This is nothing more than common sense and to not be able to say it? Why in the world would I want what we just described: rampant government growth, wealth that is not being created yet is being spent? What is in this, what is possibly in this that any of us want to succeed? Did the Democrats want the war of Iraq to fail? They certainly did. And they not only wanted the war in Iraq to fail they proclaimed it a failure.... They hoped George Bush failed. So what is so strange about being honest and saying I want Barack Obama to fail if his mission is to restructure and reform this country so that capitalism and individual liberty are not its foundation?"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/28/rush-limbaugh-at-cpac-dou_n_170792.html
Seeing as you purposely distorted the truth it needed to be posted.
So you are allowed to say you want Bush to fail, but people can't say they want Obama to fail? Double standards - nice...NOT.
WND same source that claims Mohamar Ghadaffi is
rasberries
Oh, sure. The left always claims election are stolen,
nm
White House denies Bush God claims (name of article)
White House denies Bush God claims
James Sturcke
Friday October 7, 2005
A senior White House official has denied that the US president, George Bush, said God ordered him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq.
A spokesman for Mr Bush, Scott McClellan, said the claims, to be broadcast in a TV documentary later this month, were absurd.
In the BBC film, a former Palestinian foreign minister, Nabil Shaath, says that Mr Bush told a Palestinian delegation in 2003 that God spoke to him and said: George, go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan and also George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq.
During a White House press briefing, Mr McClellan said: No, that's absurd. He's never made such comments.
Mr McClellan admitted he was not at the Israeli-Palestinian summit at the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh in June 2003 when Mr Bush supposedly revealed the extent of his religious fervour.
However, he said he had checked into the claims and I stand by what I just said.
Asked if Mr Bush had ever mentioned that God had ordered him into Afghanistan and Iraq, Mr McClellan said: No, and I've been in many meetings with him and never heard such a thing.
The claims are due to be broadcast in a three-part BBC documentary which analyses attempts to bring peace to the Middle East.
Mr Shaath, the Palestinian foreign minister in 2003, claims Mr Bush told him and other delegates that he was spoken to by God over his plans for war.
He told the film-makers: President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan. And I did, and then God would tell me, George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq... And I did.
'And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East. And by God I'm gonna do it.'
The Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, who attended the June 2003 meeting as well, also appears on the documentary series to recount how Mr Bush told him: I have a moral and religious obligation. So I will get you a Palestinian state.
Mr Bush, who became a born-again Christian at 40, is one of the most overtly religious leaders to occupy the White House, a fact that brings him much support in middle America.
History is littered with examples of people doing the most bizarre and sometimes wicked things on this basis, said Andrew Blackstock, director of the British-based Christian Socialist Movement. If Bush really wants to obey God during his time as president he should start with what is blindingly obvious from the Bible rather than perceived supernatural messages.
That would lead him to the rather less glamorous business of prioritising the needs of the poor, the downtrodden and the marginalised in his own country and abroad.
When we see more policies reflecting that, it might be easier to believe he has God on his side. And more likely that God might speak to him.
The TV series, which starts on Monday, charts recent attempts to bring peace to the Middle East, from the former US president Bill Clinton's peace talks in 1999-2000, to Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip this year. It seeks to uncover what happened behind closed doors by speaking to presidents and prime ministers, along with their generals and ministers, the BBC said.
Well, the majority of America claims a Judeo-Christian faith
and being set up as a democracy/Republic the majority view holds. No one is stopping the minority from having their beliefs, but our country was founded on Christian principles, and one of those Christian principles was to allow anyone to practice their religion, but that does not mean we have to mullify our beliefs to appease the minority. Separation of church and state was started to keep the state out of the church and not the church out of the state. Forty-nine of the states start their preambles with God in the title, and to toss all of that aside just to please a very small minority of those who either don't believe in God period or don't believe in a Judeo-Christian God would be beyond ridiculous. Immigrants to this country have to assimilate to our culture. It's not for us to change our culture to accomodate them or any minority religion or race who CHOSES to live in this country. We are a Judeo-Christian founded country no matter what the left in their recent history rewriting campaign tries to tell you. The documentation is there to prove it.
only part saved was the ignorant part
You can read the whole article. This quote was saved to show what she said that was so stupid.
get on back, neocon, get on back
Tell ya what, sweetheart, last I checked this is the LIBERAL BOARD and I havent been banned, as I dont break the rules, so I can stay as long as I want..Seems to me, conservative, you are the one who should mosey on by and get back to drink more Kook-Aid.
O's votes support his claims. JM's votes support Bush.
Believe what you like. Voting records tell the tale. Could use a few more details on that budget. Just what programs will he slash and and how many tax dollars will be directed away from middle class and in the direction of the rich? How much longer can the infrastructure afford to crumble?
JM adopted O's withdrawal plan when he saw how well it went over with the public in an election year. He flipped on the war once. What's to stop him from flipping again once elected? The nation is war weary. Some prefer a surge in diplomacy, not military answers to diplomatic failures. Ask the Iraqis who have lost more than 100,000 among them how sucessful the war has been. Obama has always understood that the OBL/Taliban live in Afganistan, not Iraq. JM, a little slow on the draw there.
I see nothing in JMs platform that backs his claims about transparency. I see specific plan on the O side under technology initiatives, continued initiatives which originated under Clinton and were reversed during the undercover Bush administration. Pork barrel spending for pubs means something different than it does to dems. Slash the poor to give to the rich? Hard seel in the current economic frefall. Also find nothing in JM's plan to address runaway contract corruption in Iraq. Having Halliburton and companies there props up those struggling American corporations. Show me the plan.
Antiglobal/antidiplomacy. No surprise there. This is about the futureworld, not American imperial delusions of grandeur. So much data on the drilling scam being an immediate relief for gas problems out there it is not worth addressing. Can you say T-Bone Pickens, i.e., we can't drill our way out of this one. He should know. Been an oil man all his life.
Since these are just a few, what else do you have up your sleeve?
I think you are right, but only in part...sm
The bigotry is the other part. What escapes you was the FACT pointed out in this article that blanks are disproportionately denied parole when their white counter parts are allowed parole time for their crimes. No bigotry there...maybe not???
Another sad part...s/m
Yes, due in part to a "surge" there is less violence in Iraq at this time. How long will this last? I certainly do not know. What will the situation be in Iraq in 2 to 5 years? I certainly don't know, but my gut tells me that you cannot go into another region of the world, bomb it extensively, ruin the lives of so many people, impose your will in trying to "plant the flag of democracy" in a region that does not want that, and have a good outcome. It was a terrible mistake in invading Iraq, and I don't see a good or happy outcome long term. That's my opinion.
I got to this part
A reduction in the violence does not mean that things are “going well,” only that they are going “less badly.”
-And I loved it! Exactly.
Here's the sad part...
You came across this article. You read it. You believed it and posted it because:
a) it said what you believe and
b) we (liberals) must believe it too because it is from a Democrat who is against the war.
Did you not question the validity of the statement? It came from an opposer, so it must be true? Do you believe everything you read simply because it says what you want to hear?
If the article had stated his specific reasons for believing so, I would have been more inclined to believe to be true. But again, it was a blanket article that says very little except his opinion. I think the article is short sighted and your posting it most refutable.
All that it did was convince me further that all your postings do is to try and take the very complex issue of Iraq and over simplify it to justify your war position. Not unlike what the Bush administration has done from day one in regards to dealing with it.
No one with half a brain believes that the progresses being made in Iraq is soley due to the troop surge, and there is plenty of documentation out there to disprove this theory.
Wasn't that the intent of your posting? Try to convince others that the surge is working? It didn't work. We are not that gullible.
I am most happy and pleased about the small gains that are being made, and I recognize them for what they are. But I am also realistic enough to know that those gains can disappear tomorrow regardless of the increased forces because there is no real stability established in the country. Our military is not the one who is going to create that stability. It is just a superficial band-aid at best. It is going to remain a hostile territory until the Iraqi people decide for it not to be and that has to come from reconciliation on the three parties involved. It won't make any difference how many troops we have there.
No I'm sure that part won't be on there. sm
I like to go to Huff and read the stuff, most it makes me laugh, the blogs; but ya gotta take it all with a grain of salt. Thanks for geting my point about the whole post, it being about Fox news and not about McCain or Obama.
I feel that with all of the side stuff, both sides are like little kids bickering, we are forgetting about everything that is important. I am so tired of both sides bashing the other, it is a waste of time and money.
I think it is all part of the......... sm
"American Dream" picture and White House tradition as well. Remember Molly, Barbara Bush's dog? I think Molly got more attention than George did at times.
Part 2
The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings.
The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.
Winston Churchill
The only difference between a tax man and a taxidermist is that the
taxidermist leaves the skin.
Mark Twain
The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill
the world with fools.
Herbert Spencer, English Philosopher (1820-1903)
There is no distinctly Native American criminal class...save Congress.
Mark Twain
What this country needs are more unemployed politicians.
Edward Langley, Artist (1928 - 1995)
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong
enough to take everything you have.
Thomas Jefferson
but part of what got us here
is many, many people abusing the system and getting free handouts when they should have been working.
The problem with our nation is the mentality that everyone is owed something. There is no pride in hard work anymore! And yes the rich thing they are owed loop holes, and the poor think they are owed handouts, and well the middle class is just p.o.'d at both of them!
Unfortunately if we start taxing the heck out of the rich they will just cut jobs from the middle class who pays taxes and then the poor who receive handouts won't be taken care of because we won't have any tax money left!
Before anyone gets mad, I understand completely that their are poor people who need help, and that doesn't bother me. The welfare system was originally created for single mothers though, not single mothers and their babies daddy and for the mothers to have 14 babies so the community to take care of them!
Here's a good idea for creating jobs: hire more caseworkers to investigate everyone on welfare and the ones that are abusing it lose it, which puts money back into the system for those that need it! The ones that abuse it should have to do community service to make up for it!
The sad part about this....(sm)
is that it's gonna get a lot worse than this before it gets better. As far as staying in their homes until they get arrested, some of them may not have any other choice if they don't have anywhere to go. If they go to jail, at least they have a roof over their heads. I don't think Obama's housing plan covers those who have already been evicted, but they need some kind of relief. At least ACORN is trying to help them, regardless of how they're going about it. What a mess.
You mean the part about
many officials who fear that the government will squander its takings, and so propose returning the money to citizens in the form of tax rebates or cuts, an idea known as "cap-and-dividend".
Yep, I am "enlightened" alright!!
Got it now. Had to use only the .com part
.
now I don't get the part where I
tried to change the subject as usual. I don't believe I am familiar with you at all as I don't remember ever chatting with you before, an endeavor which I am starting to think is not worthwhile anyway. I left this board a long time ago because of the constant bickering and mudslinging. Perhaps I have made an error trying it again. You consequently have not answered a question I had. In a nutshell, would you have objected a few years ago had he directed these kids to a liberal webside? If you are objecting on this behalf you would be just as wrong.
AW, you are part of a team.
People get mad at me sometimes because they think I am too harsh with conservatives - and I'm talking about liberals and progressives. You know though what we're up against. You can't be too harsh with them. Look at what they do. They've been getting away with it for a long time and enough is enough. They refuse to act like normal human beings and they shouldn't be treated like normal human beings. You could run away from a swarm of angry bees or vacate a house that was overrun with cockroaches and you'd be right to do so - but please even if you leave here, don't stop pegging these people. These kind of cockroaches are trying to overrun the world. I know you know who they are and I hope you won't be able to stay silent when they come scurrying around! I really hope you will stay here and keep adding your voice. In no way on no day should these people be allowed to remain unchallenged.
I think we agree for the most part
however, from what I heard of the tapes I don't think this teacher was just throwing his opinions out there. He was teaching them as fact. I think even if he was transferred to a political science class then he would still need to tone down his rhetoric several notches. You can teach any class from an objective point of view with very little effort. Yes, everyone is entitled to their opinion, however, I think teachers need to be very careful about much of their own opinion they teach to students.
This is the part of a sermon that I can do without...sm
But this lady takes it to a whole new level. Passing out!? That's a class act.
Yep, I read that part...
and probably the difference in the cost is split between the difference in what the doctors make in both places, and if there is some sort of a cap on services...meaning, the insurance plan tells the doctor that is what you get for that particular service. No negotiation, no nothing. That is the only way I can think of that the streamlined disbursement system would work. If they do not have clerical personnel handling it, that tells me they have specific charges for specific services, regardless. That would be another sticky wicket on this side of the pond with the medical profession.
Another thing mentioned, and why the French physicians are okay to charge less...medical school in France is tuition-free. There will be another huge hit on the American taxpayer....can you even imagine the cost of that on the front end?
Like I said, it looks good on the face...one would be interested in knowing how long it took from inception to where it was "working well" and the dollar cost involved in the conversion and the ongoing maintenance.
I wonder, when they apply the "broad tax on earned and unearned income" if the French people will love it as much as they do now. It is a consideration...
Not meaning to be a fly in the ointment, kam...just looking at in stark reality.
Have a good day!
What part of this are you not understanding
I just read a bunch of posts below and am not disturbed, but maybe dismayed is a better word. Whether you trust Obama or not because of his policies, voting record, political life, or whatever is your perogative (sp?), but to incorrectly be making statements not based on anything but milicious rumors spread around leads readers to believe the writer is a biggot and just does not want a black man (which I should state once more 1/2 black, 1/2 white) in the white house. I have no doubt if more of the white race came out and he looked more white than black a lot of this would not be surfacing.
First - Obama is NOT muslim. You can think all you want and hope it to be true but what part of the facts don't you understand. How many times does he have to repeat he is a Christian. Always has been. Raised in a Christian home, white grandparents, white mother, went to catholic school, attended a Baptist church, married in a church (not Moslim), children baptised in a church. To say he is a muslim is like saying McCain belongs to KKK after all he's a white dude. Pullease. Sure, his father was a muslim when he married Obama's mother but that's where it stops. Obama never studied the muslim religon or went to muslim services. My parents are catholics but I was not raised catholic and am not catholic. His mother later remarried someone from Indonesia and Obama attended a catholic school. Get your facts straight. He never went to a muslim school or studied muslim studies and he is not muslim. So what if the muslims like him, so do the Christians, Jews, Mormoms, Baptists, and many other religions!
Second of all on the flag thing. Obama's plane has the American flag on it, are you upset because the flag is not so huge it covers the plane from one end to the next? There's a flag there! Also, just because he doesn't have an american flag plastered all over the place on everything does not mean he is not "American". Have you seen him pledge to a flag of another country? No, he pledges to the American flag! As for the picture that he is standing not with his hand over his heart. I can't tell you how many times I've said the pledge of allegience and I didn't have my hand over my heart every time. Doesn't mean I'm not American. He's not trying to get rid of the American flag, but for pete's sake it doesn't need to be plastered in every square inch of empty space.
The poster who is not well informed about Obama's religion and trying to scare people into believing he's muslim when he's not is just plain wrong. It doesn't "ruffle any feathers" because you are just wrong. You may not want to "sugar coat any facts" but first you need to get the facts straight. People don't "hate" republicans, and certainly not enough that they would want "anything" in there. You could always put that statement on the other foot "People just hate the democrats so much they'll elect an old senile person to fill the position just as long as a democrat doesn't get in there". That excuse just doesn't sit well.
I'm no "Obama-lover" and I won't be voting for him but not because of malicious rumors on the internet or false statements made by the republican side. I'm basing my decision on his voting records and other issues that I don't agree with him on, certainly not from anything I get off the internet. You know there are people on both sides who hate the other candidate so much they are posting fall information, but for anyone to spread this...all I can say is "shame on you".
What part of we got other issues do you
nm
actually, in answer to the last part,
I do believe I heard him say he was going to consult with his wife and grandmother! McCain was going to consult with the generals. Agree with the rest of your post.
PS. Forgot the part about "I don't think
nm
Yes....I was only replying to the part about using her name....
I think that is why people use her name. As to what she thinks, of course no one knows what she thinks...can guess, I suppose, but no one really knows.
I think the statement Obama made was great. He was forceful, no beating around the bush, I didn't think he did it because of politics, I think he meant it. I am not an Obama supporter, but the man was a class act when he made that statement. Hats off to him.
Wow. Looks like I missed that part.
One blurb just said Bush will speak via satellite and RG was "bumped." Still curious about why. Please post if you hear anything.
Medical was part of it......... sm
The foreign car workers have, I believe, national insurance coverage so that does not figure into the workers' benefits from the company. The figure being negotiated with the UAW was the amount that the foreign companies pay their workers. I don't believe health care would be a part of the package for the UAW.
If you don't vote, you are part of the
problem....It saddens me that you take your freedom, or what's left of it, so lightly. If you allow others to vote for you, you are giving your rights away. Politics is always a dirty business, but it's not politics you are voting for. Hoping you reconsider.
The Sickest Part.........
Is the fact that most pubs probably did the same name-calling and pandering in the last election as they are doing right now. Look what it got you. George Bush. Are you proud of him? Has he been a success? Would you even ADMIT that you voted for him? McCain isn't proud of him. The whole party is trying to pretend he doesn't even exist. He didn't even speak at the convention - he was "wired" in because he INSISTED. How sad. He was used like TP and now he is being flushed. Now you want to put another puppet in the whitehouse. Some shuffling, suffering, old man who looks like he can barely move - I am sure he is in pain. And you have his running mate one HEARTBEAT AWAY........who has governed a state with a population the size of Memphis, TN. THAT'S executive experience!!!!!! NO, it is absolutely TERRIFYING! If you keep expounding the same lies over and over - the simple ones start to believe them. If those bozos win - I hope I can afford to leave this country (you can keep your comments about "no one will miss you" as your hate is not welcome or necessary). I'll move to Mexico and tell the Mexicans they are more than welcome to overrun this country because that is what it will become, a third world country. The rich and the poor and nothing in between.
The sickest part
I totally agree..besides, I certainly would not want a VP whose former brother-in-law Tasered his own stepson (now THAT's sick)!!
(See story in today's Yahoo! site
Now did I say the "pubs" had no part in it?
This article says an untruth when it says: Mr. McCain was never a leading critic or defender of the mortgage giants.
This is what McCain said in 2005 with his proposed legislation:
Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae’s regulator reported that the company’s quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were “illusions deliberately and systematically created” by the company’s senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.
The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae’s former chief executive officer, OFHEO’s report shows that over half of Mr. Raines’ compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.
The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator’s examination of the company’s accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.
For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs–and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.
I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.
I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.
The Democrats killed that bill.
Barney Frank, Democrat, pushed fannie/freddie to extend those subprime loans to minorities/lower income people who did not have a hope in heck of paying them back.
Top CEOs at fannie...Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelick, James Johnson, and timothy Howard...two of who were Obama advisors until recently....all left Fannie with millions and we are left holding the bag. Chris Dodd, democratic head of banking and commerce committee...looked the other way. He is top recipient of donations from Fannie. Guess who is #2?
Pubs may have had a finger in it...Democrats had both hands up to the elbows in it. Just plain old fact.
Exactly what part of the video do you....
consider a conspiracy? The Chris Dodd part? The Barney Frank part? The Franklin Raines part? All denying that there was a problem with fannie/freddie? Which part of that is the conspiracy? SOme nasty Republican holding a gun to their heads to make them say it?
Perhaps the disclosure of which politicians were most in the fannie pocket? That part?
Or maybe the part where the bills introduced by the Republicans (named and numbered and easily verified) trying to regulate fannie/freddie only to be shot down by the Dems? That part? The part where McCain said on the senate floor we better wake up? That part?
Which part was it?
And what part of two-faced do you use to
xx
What part of he has already been investigated don't
.
What part of the evident below do you not
xx
I know, I don't think religion should be part of it either (sm)
But if McCain had been attending a white supremist church that hated African-Americans and had a minister who spewed hatred, and he had attended that church for 20 years and called the minister one of his mentors.....who would vote for him?? No black person, no non-caucasian person, and at least 90% of whites would not vote for him either!
This is the part where I realize just how little
going on besides the "economy" thing that everyone has their minds wrapped around so much it doesn't allow them to see anything else and every time Obama is questioned about something he wants to sidestep, he shoots back to that horrible economy that he knows so many can't think past.
You'll just have to pay attention, dive in, and connect the dots. I'm tired of doing it for you.
what part of reading don't you get?
xx
this is part of the problem
God forbid somebody mention God. They are talking about God in this election. Don't read those posts if it offends you. To some people God is relevant in this election
I assume you mean the sad part
is all of our brothers and sisters who refuse believe because they can't "prove" God's existence. I don't feel sad that the end times are near (I believe) for myself but I do believe the Bible tells us that in the end EVERY knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. It also tells us not to be afraid, something I struggle with, yet I know that in my rather looooong life, He has provided that which I needed, sometimes things I didn't even know I needed. He has also allowed me to suffer the consequences when I went against His will. Whatever part of the tribulation we have to endure, I am sure He will make a way for us. And I do believe we are entering into the tribulation.
did you miss the part where
this lady had a B for Obama carved in her head by a black man (not that his race really matters, so lets not start calling me a racist). I doubt that it was Republical propaganda about Obama being a Muslim that caused such a thing and I find it offensive that everyone keeps talking about Palin's looks. Honestly, it's not as if she is really all that good looking, just better looking than Hillary. Might not be racism, but it is a bit of sexism. If this had been a black woman attacked by a McCain supporter, I still would not understand you stance, but at least it wouldn't be from out of nowhere.
|
