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




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

You are correct - It truly is frustrating - see message

Posted By: Kaydie on 2008-11-06
In Reply to: forum - aw

But it is frustrating for both sides. We all have very strong feeling towards or against a candidate and all of our feelings are legitimate. The democrats had very strong concerns about McCains age, health, his choice for VP, his economic knowledge and the war. These are all legitimate reasons and nothing wrong with that. On the other side people had very strong concerns about Obama's lack of experience, lack of knowledge of foreign policies, terrorist ties, where he was born making him illigitimate, spending 20 years in a hate-filled church and then lying to us about it, re-distribution of wealth, socializing our heath care, and other issues and with the same rights given to Obama supporters the same courtesy should have been given to McCain and other supporters without being bashed for our viewpoints. I stopped posting for a couple days because I was getting bashed constantly. And why? Because I didn't share the same viewpoints as others? After reading some posts and realizing everyone has their opinions and that is what this board is for I decided that since I am not disrespectful to others then I should be allowed to post like everyone else does, especially if it is an issue I feel strongly about and to share ideas, information, and concerns. We've been told over and over by the moderator not to make it personal. In fact, the moderator has said it so much that the last time she posted I felt like the babysitter was telling us how to behave. HA HA. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and should be able to share articles and have discussions. If you don't like it move on. I have nothing against any of the posters. I will read some of the posts even if I know I'm not going to like what the poster is going to say, that is "Freedom of speech". As for GP, I have nothing personally against her. I'm sure she's a fine person, but GP (and others) bring a lot of it on themselves. People don't go after them, but the minute we post something we get nailed and belittled for having our feelings. We someone calls us "rabid" for no reason other than to stir up emotions, its offensive. Through this election we read all the negativity and down right mean spirited comments towards McCain and Palin and in all fairness there was negative towards Obama/Biden. There were times I defended Obama especially when he was running against Hillary and I was loved for it. But then when my viewpoint changed that was a whole different story.

I say this. We may not like that Obama was chosen but he is, that's life and life will move on. We all have hopes that he will be a great president. And my biggest hope for him is that he will be able to mend the feelings of many after the last eight years. But he will also be watched carefully, as everyone does with every president. I heard on Fox tonight, which I'm sure you'd be surprised to hear, but I heard Karl Rove say. I love my country and Barack Obama will be President and we need to be fair to him and give him a chance and support him. I heard someone else say we're not going to nit pik at every single thing, we will give praise when praise is due and if something is wrong we will bring it to light. I have been watching Fox news throughout the election because that is where I am getting the balanced news. I've been an avid watcher of MSNBC for the past 6 or 7 years, but it got to a point where they were so hateful they were just coming out and bashing and lying, and then doing the pity poor me (Obama) routine. Didn't matter that they were gleefully talking about the porn movie someone was doing with a Sarah Palin look alike, and then turning in the same breath saying look at what they're doing to Obama, it's horrible. So I turned it off (and I guess so did thousands and thousands of other people because their ratings dropped and they fired C Matthews and K Olberman from reporting on the election (or at least having a main say in covering the election). On Fox they had both liberals and conservatives on. I saw they were fair to both sides.

Anyway...as for the forum you are correct one can never win, only lose. Look at how sam is treated. I always like reading her comments and she points people in the right direction on where to search information on our own but she has been treated horribly and with no good reason.

So I say with Obama, we will hope for the best, but you have to keep an eye on him and what he does as president. Just like we would if McCain or any other person got in there. If there is information about Obama or articles of interest I will continue to post and am sure will get mean-spirited replies, but then that's just the way it is.


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

It is quite frustrating - see message
Trying to educate people in the fact that we have a democratic congress that are the ones who vote on issues, bills, etc (not the president). It's very easy to conveniently blame Bush for everything, but he's not the one who has the say on spending/cutting. However when Clinton made a mess of things who did they blame? The republicans in congress/senate/house.
A politically correct holiday message sm

Best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low stress, non-addictive, gender neutral, winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most joyous traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, but with respect for the religious persuasion of others who choose to practice their own religion as well as those who choose not to practice a religion at all;


Additionally,

a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling, and medically uncomplicated recognition of the generally accepted calendar year 2009, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions have helped make our society great, without regard to the race, creed, color, religious, or sexual preferences of the wishes.

(Disclaimer: This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal. It implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for her/himself or others and no responsibility for any unintended emotional stress these greetings may bring to those not caught up in the holiday spirit.)


It is frustrating isn't it...
We have little to no transparency in our present government on just about every level. You have to tease it out slowly.

Helen Thomas chided Perino a bit in a press conference about the supposed people "electing" President Bush. So funny!
It is frustrating
DH told me tonight that the liberals beliefs are so strong that they won't listen to the truth even when you present the facts to them. He said it's like watching children that have not grown up yet but are in adult bodies. At least with a child when you tell them something is wrong they listen to the correct answer and absorb it and learn from it. I see it on the news stations and here on this board. You present them with the facts and they answer back with nonsensical words and just won't listen.

I guess I just don't understand why liberals think the way they do (and I used to be one so I should get it but I don't). Why do liberals want bigger government? Why do liberals want the government telling them what they can and can't do (when most of them couldn't wait to leave home because they didn't want mom and dad telling them what to do)? Why do liberals want to pay more taxes and they don't care (just as long as a democrat is president - and it doesn't matter which candidate, just someone who is a democrat)? Why do liberals want to be lulled into a false pretense that things are better for them even though they have no money, are getting no refunds, paying more taxes, being told what they can and cannot do, they can't go on vacations, or do anything fun because they have no money to do anything? Why do liberals believe that it's okay to live in shambles, in a cramped little apartment while all the rich democrats are living in mansions off the the taxpayers money? Then again the questions Why don't they want smaller government, why don't they want to be taxed less so they get to keep more of their money, why don't they want an affordable health care plan that isn't socialized and to be able to go to any doctor they want to and not who they are told they will go to. The why's are endless.

On one last note to say that only under a replubican president the CEOs and executives are getting huge salaries and million dollar pensions, etc is misleading. Yes the rich corporate executive are getting rich, but they always have been (even under Clinton and Carter) - this is not something new and only happening with a republican president.

And like I heard tonight. If things were so great and the country was so wonderful under Clinton then we'd still have a democrat president right now (Gore). If he was so great and Clintons were so great we would not have had Bush. But if you want to blame anyone for Bush being president you need to blame yourselves because you all did it. Things were not as great as you think they were with a Clinton/Gore and more than half the country decided enough is enough.
Thank you - it gets frustrating
Trying to argue when they won't face facts. Google is full of articles from every walk of life. If you know how to creat a web page you can put it on the internet but doesn't make it the truth.

I'm also tired of arguing about this phony "Palin is inciting hatred, blah, blah, blah". It gets real old and it's not the truth. She's back in her own state now getting back to a job she is very successful at. Really makes me want to move to Alaska with her being governor. She's the first person in politics that actually ever fought for people and can back it up with proof. She's a great lady and a good role model for many young girls growing up. It was a long hard road, and as my husband says, people forget that she didn't ask for this. The GOP came to her and picked her. McCain's camp was better for picking her and I hope to see her more in the future.

But is just disgusts me when I hear people making things up that are not true and they won't research for themselves.
Thanks - isn't it frustrating
People don't listen to reason anymore.
It is frustrating and scary to me that

so many people stand by Barrack Obama.  When you actually stop to look at the whole picture....it shows that Barrack Obama is not the type of person that we can trust to be the president of our country. 


His associations with Ayers and Rev. Wright is enough to call into question his character and those aren't the only two questionable associations.  His dealings with ACORN.  The idea that he spent money for education not focusing on testing but focusing or pushing radical ideas into education. 


Now he is being audited for some of the contributions he received (which I'm sure will be swept under the rug just like every thing else).  The fact that people were encouraging people to vote an absentee ballet in Ohio and bringing people in by the bus loads....this opens up the question of voter fraud. 


I do not feel comfortable with someone so extreme left as Obama.  We need someone closer to the middle.  How are they going to reach over the aisle when he is so extreme left? 


His attending Rev. Wright's church for 20 years, being married by him, baptisting his children, refusing to denouce him until his party made him denounce him.....just shows me that he is a racist and truly believes what Rev. Wright preaches. 


As for him leading our country....his government programs will not work.  We have no money for it.  He plans to end the war in Iraq to pay for his government programs, but he knows we can't just pull out of Iraq and now there is trouble brewing in Pakistan.  What will Obama do if we have to fight over in Pakistan?  His plans just will not work and no one will listen to that.  All they hear is change.  A promise that Obama cannot keep. 


In his four years in the senate, he has asks for billions of dollars worth of earmarks.  He received the second highest amount of money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I see no change coming from what he has done during his seat in the senate. 


How can people support a man like this?  I beg you all to look at the big picture.  Stop listening to what you hear on TV and actually dig in and do the research.  If people would take their blinders off and listen to more than just the promise of change, they would realize that Barrack Obama has a very sketchy political history and associations with scary individuals and associations with ACORN that bullied people into getting bad loans...which is also what helped lead to this economic meltdown. 


Taxes will go up with Obama in office and that includes the middle class as well.  His government programs will cost so much that the cost of these programs will not be paid for by higher taxes to the rich alone.  It isn't feasible.


God help us all if Obama becomes the next President of the USA.  I cringe at the very thought.


Thanks Emily Ayn - Man it's so frustrating
It's so frustrating to try and make sense and discuss issues with them because they don't know the issues. They are just wrapped up in the euphoria/high of having a black man as president. That's all they care about. This whole "proud" thing it getting out of hand. Hits the "creep-zone" big time. Like watching people after a batch of bad mushrooms and on a bad "trip". I just can't believe there are so many human beings out there walking around without a brain and cannot think for themselves. Now that's what I call creepy
You are correct
the thing is we can find common ground with people who we don't always agree with 100%.  Blair tends to be more socialistic, but he is unified in the fact that terrorism is the worst threat to our world right now, and we have to stop it at all costs.  Social agendas come second to him.  Safety is 1st.  
You are correct
I'm sure there are some wonderful people in Iran!! You included. It's good that you can the government is scary though. Here are some words from Iranian president AhMADinejad from just yesterday...

Ahmadinejad warned the West that trying to force it to abandon uranium enrichment would cause an everlasting hatred in the hearts of Iranians.

From your comments it sounds as if this a false statement since you love America. You of all people I'm sure appreciates America!!


Yes, of course you are correct

However, my post topic was literally just a couple posts below yours and it seemed unlikely that you would have not noticed the duplication in monikers.  This board may indeed be available world-wide, however, there is a fairly small group of folks who routinely post.


My point was simply that your posting may have erroneously led folks to believe that I was posting both pro and anti-liberal messages within a few posts of each other.  That would be rather confusing to say the least and it would be thoughtless to confuse and/or mislead anyone who might be using this board, whether in the U.S. or outside of the U.S. 


You are correct about the $40K....
that is the SCHIP program as it has been over the past 10 years (although income levels have gone up some from the start of it). The expansion of the program was to include the $80K families. This bill was about expansion of the program. Letting the program continue as it was was not the issue. The expansion was the issue. Bush would not have vetoed it if they had not sought to expand it that much. They knew he would veto it if they left that in, and they wanted him to veto it to score political points. That I do not understand. Yes, some Republicans voted for it too, also for political reasons, so if the fallout was really bad they could come back and say "Oh i voted FOR it." Kinda like the Iraq war resolution...lots of Dems voted for it...yada yada.
I want to correct myself on the above...
I was wrong about the poverty level. The figure quoted for a family of four at 300% of the poverty line is $62,000 so he was close on that. However, the bill does not state those people over that level will not get on it. It says the matching rate from the feds might not be available. Then we have the EXCEPTION...the waiver. That opens the door for New York and every other state who wishes to, to expand the program as high as they want to go. That is what Bush was talking about. The waiver makes it possible, and not only possible, probable.

Just wanted to be sure my facts were correct.

Thanks.
Yes you are 100% correct!!!

By george you are right!!!  EVERY SINGLE POSTER ON THIS BOARD IS ME!!!!!!  Except for Observer, of course, and a few old American Girl postings!  I admit it, I am guilty, you have caught me.  I have authored every single post you read on here.  It keeps me very very busy but it's worth it!!!


There I have "fessed up and I feel sooooooooo much better.  Whew!  Thank you Observer for helping me to do the right thing.


You are correct - however, you were the one...
Yes, you are correct, a lot of people don't give middle names second thoughts, and certainly there is nothing to worry about when mentioning his name in full, but when you smear it like its a dirty word, I call that a dirty shame. I was simply stating why don't you say Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton or John Sydney McCain, no you don't, therefore it seems when people don't treat one candidate equal to the other they are up to something. I have no problem with his middle name. I think its a beautiful name. I also think Sydney is a beautiful name.. Second just because someone posts a long post does not mean they copy from other articles. I happened to write the post myself, however, if you would like a much longer one there are plenty that I can copy and paste from - just let me know....happy to oblige. :-)
Correct!
Strange how it's permissible to spread all kinds of rumors about McCain but off limits to mention the facts about Obama's past and present associates, such as the Reverend whose sermons he claimed he never heard.
Sam would be correct
nm
You are correct and I think you are going to see it...
more and more as this campaign goes on. I think it has finally happened. The slumbering lion is waking up. :)
I am sure you are correct, but please,
be specific as me was.
Well.....if you are correct in

assuming that she and her husband aren't working their butts off....at least she isn't living beyond her means regardless of how many hours she works.  At least she doesn't want a handout from the government and money given to her that she hasn't earned.  There are people making as much as she does a year and are well beyond their means with toys, cars, homes, etc.  Crying that they are victims and requesting a handout. 


The most disgusting thing that I have ever seen was during Christmas.  Every year my church does an angel tree.  Every year I would take names of children and their ages and their interest and go out and buy them gifts so they would have something for Christmas.  I wanted to help.  What kid doesn't deserve a nice Christmas....ya know.  So I went out and spent a lot of money on these kids.  Come to find out....these kids weren't poor.  Their parents drove newer and more expensive cars than I drove.  The parents were only out for a free handout....and that sickens me.  I felt used.  I so wanted to help people who really needed help.  Not people who were just looking for a free handout come Christmas time. 


Unfortunately you are correct. s/m

Unions don't have any clout anymore thanks to the Reagan years.  Without the ability to strike, what can they do?  While my husband, as a retiree, has excellent benefits, it is something that is not available to workers retiring now and in the future.  Fact is, we are worried that his benefits may be cut.  They have raised the retirement age and will have to pay more for their medical insurance.  Why?  Because they have lost members.  People who worked at CF with my husband and weren't of retirement age for the most part had to take non-union jobs which paid far less causing many of them to lose their homes and file bankruptcy.  Did anyone hear about them?  I guess not.  That was in 2001 and truckers are worse off today than they were then as are most American workers.


People have let the unions that people fought for go down the tubes.  American workers bought into the "unions have outlived their usefulness, aren't needed any more" from the Reagan years.  Unhuh and we see how much the employers care about their employees now.  Unions are no different than politics.  They are no better or worse than the people who support them.  Basically the clout of the unions came from people that had the fortitude to stand up for their rights and stand together.  Unfortunately we don't have that any more, it's more like, "I've got mine, sorry about you."


Unfortunately, since McCain says Reagan is his hero, I expect if he is elected the American workers can expect to be further shafted.  JMO of course.


You are correct on that one.
Consider that the tax issue will have to pass Congress unless my memory fails me.  I would say middle-class is more like $80,000 to $150,000, depending on whether you fall at the lower or upper end.  As I understand it what Obama is seeking to do is do away with Bush's tax cuts, which WILL affect just about everyone.  The tax cuts, as many of Bush's policies, was a bad idea in the beginning.  Now because of his poor management of the economy EVERYONE is going to pay more taxes and many of those free loaders we talk about may get told to get to work as they should be.  Obama's plan appears to be to be nothing more than rolling back Bush's ill advised tax cuts in the first place.
You are correct..........sm
Arnold can run for Senate (provided he has his citizenship papers in order, and I believe he probably does. Not sure what the laws are in Kollyfawnya.) but he could never run for the POTUS or VPOTUS.
you are correct..it's still that way,
born and raised there, it doesn't change.
You are 100% correct. n/m
x
I would say you are correct
Is anyone really so ignorant that they think that if there was anything illegal about Obama's run for the presidency, that HILLARY first would not have exposed it?  Certainly if she didn't McCain would have.  Why do you suppose THEY let it go?  Because it wasn't going to bear any fruit for them, that's why.
M is correct below - no, they did not
Bush gave his acceptance speech (like everyone does) then had respect for Clinton to finish out his term. Even though Clinton was a disaster too, Bush had the decency to wait until he was sworn in. I do remember hearing about who he was picking for cabinet members but he never held the press conferences that OMessiah is. Also, Clinton did not either. He too had respect for Bush Sr. This is just something you don't do. It is very disrespectful no matter how much you don't like or disagree with the outgoing president. You DON'T do it. They are not president yet and as far as I know the electorates have not even voted yet. So it is still not "cinched" that he is going to get in there. I do believe however he is giving so many press conferences (as many as he can get his face on the camera for) because can you imagine the outcry if the electorates do not vote him in. He's already preparing people to riot if he does not get elected. My take is that the more he gets his face on the camera, the more the idi@ts will believe he is already president. Then it puts pressure on the electorates and others that still have not voted him in yet that if they do anything to disrupt this there will be he!! for them to pay. O'Messiah knows what he's doing alright, but it doesn't make it right.
That is correct, but....(sm)
the middle man (the stores) get a share of that.  As far as computers go, a lot of the components are made overseas, but there are some places here where they put them together.  Then you have companies like Intel, who make computer chips, who have decided to move their stuff back to the US.  Hopefully more will follow.
Correct
I do stand corrected. Thank you.
You are most definitely correct -
Many things our founding father said we should be listening to and following advice of, but they don't. They have an agenda to destroy all that is good in our country and they don't care anything about what the founding fathers went through to make this a great country. They understood very well what was happening and it's happening once again.
I should correct what I said about
straight people.  I think that SOME straight people don't get marriage.  Sorry if I offended anyone.....that wasn't my intention.
Yep....that's correct....(sm)

If the quotes above are from them, then I would say they either sucked at reading or weren't very good Muslims.  And I'm sure noone from YOUR church would have a lopsided view of anything.  But we wouldn't know anything about that, because all we know is what YOU say, and so far you're heading towards strike three on that count.


You may be correct that not all

However, I think most of Europe was happy we prevented them from all becoming German speakers - twice - how quickly they forget.  The victims of genocidal nutjobs in Bosnia and Kosovo were pretty glad to see us.  Kuwait was pretty grateful we kept Hussein from annexing their country. I believe the majority of Iraquis are delighted to be rid of him and his mistreatment and genocide of his own citizens. 


Like it or not, the US has been in the business of subduing bullies since the turn of the last century.  And when we don't step in, we're treated as though we're committing the atrocities ourselves.  Why didn't we get involved?  Because we don't like the victims? Because we have no economic or strategic interest in the region?  Damned if we do, damned if we don't. 


The citizens of North Korea might be very appreciative to be relieved of their own little megalomaniac, who starves his people in order to fund missile parades.   Obama feels we do not have the right to decide who has nuclear weapons and who does not, so we'll probably never find out how the North Korean people feel, until KJI lobs a missile right at us. 


And when there is a disease outbreak, a famine, hurricane, an earthquake or a tsunami anywhere in the world, who is the first to offer assistance?  Like Ghostbusters:  Who ya gonna call?  And we are expected to step up and take care of it.


I think other countries are starting to suspect that their calls will begin to go unanswered.  Certainly, voluntary charitable donations will be reduced in the US, and with a $7 trillion (that's a 7 with 12 zeros) US budget deficit, they might be getting the ideal they are on their own now.


That is correct....(sm)

and I understand exactly what you're saying, and yes, the same thing might happen, but I just don't think it will.  This retaliation that you talked about was in the face of what the middle east saw as an endless war/occupation.  That's not the case now.  They aren't facing Bush now (in their eyes a war monger).  They are facing a guy that is willing to work with the people, is coming clean about previous actions involving the middle east, and who is keeping Israel at bay.  It's not that I think Obama is that wonderful, it's that the circumstances are that different.


Something else....everyone (including those in the middle east) already know there are more pics.  It's not like that's been kept a secret.  Granted, for some it may be worse to actually see the pics than to just know they are there, but I think if there was going to be another retaliation it would have already happened just from the knowledge that they are there.


Yes, you're completely correct. So we should do nothing to

only answer is hop around the globe, play eenie, meenie, miney, moe and choose another sovereign country to invade.


It didn't happen here.....yet.  But every single terrorism expert believes it's not a matter of if but a matter of WHEN.  And Bush is helping them by not protecting us satisfactorily and by providing THEM with OTJ training in Iraq.


Yes, I think I'm beginning to "get" it.


As far as what I feel about Conservatives, I've voted Republican a number of times in my life, so don't tell me what I think because you haven't a clue.  I vote for the candidate, not the party, and if Bush and Kerry are the best this country can offer up, we need to worry about much more than terrorists.


So even the monitor can't correct you? NM

So....Correct me if I'm wrong here
But you seem to be advocate blowing somebody away just because you merely think they are going to do something wrong?

Quite the little anarchist, aren't you?


Yes, you care correct, however...
My point was simply that things are not black and white, or purely good or evil.  I'm also not sure why anyone would try to categorize someone's ethics or morals based on the political party they belong to.
You are correct. Please ignore
my above post. I was given incorrect information and failed to check its validity before passing it on. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. My humble apologies.
Almost forgot...all the others are correct TOO!!

The others that you mention -- they are correct, too (about being on to me).  Don't want to hurt anyone's feelings by leaving them out.


Oops, that's right -- all those others are ME!!!!!


You are correct....others have....all over several blogs....
and another variation...Obama bin Biden. Don't agree with it, any more than I agree with going after candidate's families. Either candidate. Obama complained about people going after Michelle for her "proud of her country comment," said going after spouses was wrong, but have not heard him defend Cindy. Unfair if its Michelle, fair if it is Cindy. He's a politician and he is not any different than McCain in that respect. So much for change. Picked a guy who has been in Washington politics longer than most any senator on the hill. So much for change in Washington. Joe Biden a few months ago was saying he would be proud to be on a ticket with John McCain. Ahem. Sigh.
You are correct...he wants to control...
the situation, questions asked, etc, because he knows he couldn't come up with any anwers on the fly without knowledge of them first. He told Bill O to his face after one of the debates that he would come on his show after the primaries...hmm, so much for Michelle stating in her speech that he was a man of his word. Anyone who can't answer the tough questions without being prepped and coddled is not ready to lead this country.
That is correct, ms. And I don't believe that your regular...
Democrat on the street agrees with this nonsense...at least I hope not!! But they are allowing the DNC to define their party as low-life attack dogs and this stuff is as low as it gets. It is orchestrated with the media hoping John McCain will drop her from the ticket because they are scared spitless they will lose in November. All I hear is tap, tap, tap...hammering nails into their own coffin. Who wants ANYone from a party with this kind of values or lack thereof in the white house? Not me. Not now. Not EVER.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe there
***
You are correct about his plan not being...sm
socialized medicine. I don't think the majority of people have insurance through their employers anymore. If you don't you will be insured based on what you can afford to pay, and you will keep your own doctor. Vermont already has such a plan and it works great.
One thing you say is correct s/m

People have not and do not stay informed.  I don't like McCain, I don't like Obama either.


As for Lou Dobbs, I like his mouth service but I listen to what comes out of the mouths of his guests.....both Republicans and Democrats.  I don't believe ANYTHING I hear from a 3rd party.  I like to get my info directly from the horse's mouth.


Well..........I'll give it a rest for a few days.  We're off to Branson, Mo. for a few days of R and R.  Cheers to y'all!


this is the correct link - sorry

see below


Poster is correct
If someone gets on this board and says anything about Obama you don't like, O lovers go ballistic. They want facts, they get facts, and then instead of admitting they weren't aware, they just attack because that's all they got.

I'm not even republican and I can see how close-minded you are. You believe anything said about Obama is a lie, even if the facts are out there. You immediately call the poster a liar without even looking at the source posted, etc.

Please do not try to sound so open minded.....you are not!
You are correct for once...including the
x
Love it, how correct.
NM
AHAAAAAA - your are correct - a big duh for me
I better go take a dinner break. - How embarrassing.

Sorry. I do know that Stephen Baldwin is involved in politics and is conservative so that's who I thought you meant.