You didn't hear Ms O talk about his clothes on the View?
Posted By: Missed the web pic of bottom....sm on 2008-10-22
In Reply to: and I'm sure Obama's suits - sbMT
of his worn out shoe soles? O pays for his own clothes (he can afford it, after all).
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
I find the hags on the View who outnumber and talk
nm
I can't stand to hear her talk. It just grates my nerves.
.
I didn't say you did talk that way.
It was simply an exaggerated example to make a point about the subjectiveness of deciding what constitutes an observation versus an insult. I think that was obvious to most people. Regarding your snide observation, no I do not talk like that. As I said it was an example.
Perhaps your other boards do not have such a marked slant. And shall I make an observation on the tedious repetition that is found in your milieu's absolutely ENDLESS recitation of the evils of liberals, just to mention a few? ONe doesn't even need to read the content of the posts, merely scan the subject lines and the repetition is obvious.
Ah yes, but what we didn't see and hear....sm
...that is the question. What we didn't see and hear.
My goodness, me. Where to begin, with what little there was open to us.....
Karzai looked absolutely enchanted with her, and so must have been quite taken with what she had to say.
I didn't quite see her very long with the Columbian prez, so not sure about him...but....
Did you see Henry Kissinger with her? The old guy was looked like he couldn't get enough time with her, and I haven't seen him grin so widely in ages.
And Bill Clinton sounds like he's changed sides, he's so taken with her (go figure on that one....)
Methinks the Governor has the chops to handle the big boys.
Yessirreebob.
Didn't you hear - they lost
No need to keep kicking her when she's down. Leave the lady alone. She did a fine job, energized the party and had the experience and knowledge. Sorry she wasn't the "suit" everyone thinks you have to be to be in Washington.
Maybe you should stick with posting postive things you think Obama is going to do. I haven't found any post yet with positive issues Obama will do for the country. Just the same ol Hope, change & yes we can. But no explanation of actual issues. Except for the tax increases he will oppose.
Gov. Palin is on her way back to Alaska. Don't worry, you don't have to see her anymore. Let's move on.
Didn't I hear some senators say that passage of....sm
the "bail out" would not preclude bringing those people criminally responsible to justice? I am for that. Let's see if either candidate steps up to the plate and advocates that now that the bail out has passed.
Media didn't have to do a thing....everyone could hear
xx
Um no, Palin spoke and did herself in.... didn't you hear her? sm
No media, even intelligent media, could make up what she said. She said ignorant statements out of her own mouth, rallying the crowds and saying Obama pals around with terrorists. She ruined any chances McGeezer had, not that he had much of a chance but you MUST know that she has hurt the republican party, except for the most ignorant of them.
I didn't hear the boos, darn... what does wheelchair have to do with it? sm
He is a criminal whether he is jogging or in a wheelchair.
I didn't talk down your faith but your faith
Get over yourself already. He shows the kindness and tolerance of a true Christian and not all the hating and intolerance like you and a lot of people here. Just because you are a Christian doesn't make you any better than anyone else
palin's clothes are way more
important than his associations.
or your Sunday go to meetin' clothes...nm
nm
That's like saying eTransPlus buys my clothes!
I get a paycheck and I spend it. He gets a paycheck and he spends it. That is a little different than the campaign paying for her clothes....
Buying her clothes IS from donations.....
!!
Yes, but the post still wasn't about the clothes
nm
The clothes don't make the person
She, at first, didn't know where the clothes came from, but when she found out the facts, that's when the clothes are either going to charity, to auction, or back to the stores. She stated that fact the other night. I mean, c'mon, take a person from a small town and push them into the politiking world without knowing how it really works is crazy.
I'm sure she would do fine as a VP. To me, she seems pretty up and up, a truly common person thrust into the world of politics and not realizing how nasty it can get (just read this board).
I feel she is truly an honest person who only wants the best for the people. No bashing please. This is MY opinion and no one else's. No newspaper or poll swayed my vote.
Nope; never, she spends too much on clothes.
She'll spend too much in government as well. She's not the one I'd like to see. I'm fine with who we've got and hope for re-election in 2012.
It's like Palin won a pagent and the prize is $150,000 clothes
yeah! what a waste of money.
Post was about travel expenses not clothes
nm
Those are not her clothes and will be donated or auctioned for charity
Those were never her clothes to keep. She had to look a certain way (the Washington way), so the committee provided her with some clothes for a few days. They are not hers to keep and she said they will either be donated or auctioned off and the money given to charity. Her favorite place to buy clothes is a consignment shop in Alaska (and her shoes too). Everyone made a big deal out of this and made it sound like she was stealing money from the campaign. They did not want to tell the truth. I'm glad it finally came out.
Also, so what if she is giving the clothes to charity, she sneakily did not say they were given to h
She never disclosed the clothes were bought with campaign funds. She didn't think it would come out, but I am not running for anything and I am not dumb enough to think I wouldn't be scrutinized for everything I do and had done. I just don't think she is a very bright bulb and I have read the good with the bad and feel I made an informed decision for myself. I just have a hard time with people in our profession that would fall for someone like her.
It's Elis Hasslbck and Palin who KEEP talking about the clothes because sm
they want to keep off the important subjects. It makes me laugh... they keep brining up the clothing issue and saying it shouldn't be brought up but they are the ones actually using it as a distraction.
Pretty sly, eh?
2 million of whose money?? And yet the media criticizes Palin for her expensive clothes!
But it's okay to spend that kind of money - he's a Democrat, so no one will say anything about it. They only make an issue of it when it's concerning a Republican. Everything is suddenly an issue only when it's conerning a Republican...
Hear, hear! He is an exceptional person for an ....sm
exceptionable time. They say that God is watching us from a distance and I believe that is true. I think that Obama has a good pure heart, extraordinary intelligence, does truly want to improve our lives, and my prayers are with him. How about that he has Bobby Kennedy's desk (my hero).
good grief, forget the clothes, the woman charges everthing to Alaska, plane tickets, hotel rooms, l
x
Hear ye, hear ye. We don't want to be scared.
nm
My view.
I really don't think the slander/libel has anything to do with how the public is perceiving this. I do think it plays a part in how the women feel, as well it should. I have been saying all along that we have free will to read or not read what we wish. I agree with you totally on that. However, I feel the handling of this incident is definitely along political lines and I also feel that what Ward Churchill said was a lot worse. Ward says he does not regret what he said and he probably doesn't. But his career has certainly been affected. Thank you for addressing the issue and not making a personal attack. That's refreshing.
Sam we don't always have the same view but
you are welcome to post under mine at any time. We have debated a few issues without resorting to crude, name-calling and I have enjoyed that. I too am an independent, leaning more toward Dem., and I am glad you aren't going to lump all Dems together, because not all, and none I know, would do anything that you are seeing on TV or say even a tenth of the crap that is being said here.
So Sam, please debate away!
and what about JOY ON THE VIEW?
and Barbara is just about as bad.
My view............sm
based on my studies of Revelation over a period of time, are that there are 2 beasts referred to in Revelation 13. The first Beast who arises out of the sea (could be interpreted to mean a sea or mass of people or, in Obama's case, that hew was born on an island - Hawaii) and the Antichrist are one and the same. Why? Because the Beast will usher in a one-world religion that will demand he be worshiped, thereby making him the Antichrist. The 2nd beast will arise out of the earth. I believe this is likely the religious figure who will point to the first beast and build him up as one to be worshiped. Farrakhan has already said "the messiah has spoken" so could this be him? I don't know, but I do know that Obama has said that should the political winds blow in an ugly direction he would side with the Muslims and Farrakhan has very strong roots in the Islam faith.
All this remains to be seen, of course, and I'm certain that, if these conclusions are correct, it won't matter who we vote for because God will cause the events in Revelation to come to pass, whether now or at some point in the future.
God does not view us
as homosexual or heterosexual. He sees us as humans he created. We are not to be lukewarm or sit on the fence when it comes to sin. You need to either heat up the water or fall off the fence. Hopefully, it will be on the right side. ;-)
Another point of view...
Thinking About Iraq on King Day
By Star Parker
Monday, January 15, 2007
The characteristic of greatness - whether we are talking about a great man or great art - is that it transcends time and place. It dips into that which is universally and eternally true and applies those truths to a particular moment and a particular place.
Re-reading, after many reads, Dr. Martin Luther King's words of Aug. 28, 1963, the famous I Have a Dream speech, his greatness rings clearer than ever.
Because King did indeed touch the heavens on that day and pull down kernels of eternal truths about freedom and the condition of man, those words of 40-plus years ago have relevance to our struggles today. They can serve as guidance in these difficult times.
Am I saying that King's message from 1963 can guide us in today's conundrums _ about our embroilment in Iraq, about the Middle East, about America's role in the world? Yes, I am saying this.
The power of King's message, the unquestionable reason that the movement he led was successful, was his appeal to the truth of freedom and its universal applicability to all men.
By identifying and appealing to the freedom of man as a universal and eternal truth, and going on to make clear that this truth defined what this great country is about, then King's conclusion _ the intolerability of conditions that denied any American full participation in this freedom _ could not be denied.
Beyond this central message, King made other very important points in this speech.
One of key importance was that responsibility for solving a problem does not necessarily imply direct responsibility in having caused that problem.
Although the responsibility clearly was in the hands of those Americans with power, overwhelmingly white Americans, to fix the problems in the country that limited the availability of freedom to all, this did not mean that all those same Americans were racists or had caused the problem to begin with.
The responsibility for fixing these problems came, rather, with being the beneficiaries of a country whose destiny and identity was fundamentally linked with the enterprise of freedom.
In King's words, white Americans have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny and they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom.
He appealed to blacks not to allow suffering to translate into bitterness nor into categorical hate of white Americans. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.
Instead, King exhorted black Americans to Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive.
So Dr. King accomplished a lot of business that August day in 1963.
He recognized the universal truth of human liberty. He recognized our country as a unique vessel of that truth. He appealed to Americans with power to assume their responsibilities as the beneficiaries of liberty to make this a better and freer country. And he appealed to black Americans to assume a different kind of responsibility _ to not allow themselves to be destroyed by unearned suffering but to be redeemed by it.
The prophet is a lonely man because he brings a message that people do not want to hear.
Dr. King's activism was not welcomed by most whites and a good many blacks.
There is natural appeal in the inertia of the status quo. Change and assumption of new responsibilities and challenges are welcomed by few.
Turmoil tells us that something is wrong and we have no choice but to open our eyes and ears and assume the responsibilities that are cast upon us.
I am, of course, not a military tactician and am in no position to speculate about how best to use American troops to midwife a portion of the world that clearly needs help in becoming more modern, more civil and freer.
However, I can say, that I am in complete sympathy with our president who senses that America has a unique and special role to play in this world. We cannot shirk responsibilities that are clearly ours.
I cannot help but think that it is not an accident that the United States stands so alone, despite many other nations that claim to have similar commitments to and stakes in civility and liberty. The way they act makes clear that they don't.
The truths that Dr. King articulated in so crystal clear a way in 1963 continue to resound today. Freedom is what this country is about. We have no choice. It is our heritage. We thrive and prosper from it. And we cannot avoid the responsibilities that come with it in our engagement with the rest of the world.
I understand your view, but
Yes, you don't like government control at all. However, if insurance companies have full control -which they pretty much do - then they have the full power to deny or insure whomever they choose. What do you say then to the people who have cancer that have been denied coverage by the insurance company? I have posted a few times regarding this issue and I never get a response. I am really curious, for those who want government hands out of health care altogether, what do you say to the people that insurance has denied due to an illness? Too bad?
Just a little opposing view...
Journalistsf Tell Howard Kurtz Why Good News from Iraq Shouldnft Get Reported (updated w/video)
By Noel Sheppard | October 7, 2007 - 13:35 ET
As CNN's Howard Kurtz accurately pointed out on Sunday's "Reliable Sources," few media outlets seemed at all interested in giving much attention to the great news out of Iraq last week regarding September's sharp decline in casualties.
To Kurtz's obvious frustration, his guests - Robin Wright of the Washington Post and Barbara Starr of CNN - both supported the press burying this extremely positive announcement.
I kid you not.
*****Update: Wright responds to reader e-mail message at end of post.
After introducing the subject, Kurtz asked, "Robin Wright, should that decline in Iraq casualties have gotten more media attention?"
This was Wright's amazing answer (video available here):
Story Continues Below Ad «
Not necessarily. The fact is we're at the beginning of a trend -- and it's not even sure that it is a trend yet. There is also an enormous dispute over how to count the numbers. There are different kinds of deaths in Iraq.
There are combat deaths. There are sectarian deaths. And there are the deaths of criminal -- from criminal acts. There are also a lot of numbers that the U.S. frankly is not counting. For example, in southern Iraq, there is Shiite upon Shiite violence, which is not sectarian in the Shiite versus Sunni. And the U.S. also doesn't have much of a capability in the south.
So the numbers themselves are tricky.
Wow. Numbers shouldn't be reported because they're "tricky," "at the beginning of a trend," and there's "enormous dispute over how to count" them?
No such moral conundrum existed last month when media predicted a looming recession after the Labor Department announced a surprising decline in non-farm payrolls that ended up being revised up four weeks later to show an increase.
And, in the middle of a three and a half-year bull run in stocks, such "journalists" have no quandary predicting a bear market every time the Dow Jones Industrial Average falls a few hundred points.
Yet, when good news regarding military casualties comes from the Defense Department, these same people show uncharacteristic restraint in not wanting to report what could end up being an a anomaly.
Isn't that special?
Alas, not seeing the stupidity in this position, Starr, with a straight-face nonetheless, agreed with Wright:
But that's the problem, we don't know whether it is a trend about specifically the decline in the number of U.S. troops being killed in Iraq. This is not enduring progress. This is a very positive step on that potential road to progress.
Hmmm. So, I guess a "very positive step on that potential road to progress" isn't newsworthy, huh Barbara? Even Kurtz recognized the hypocrisy here, which led to the following:
KURTZ: But let's say that the figures had shown that casualties were going up for U.S. soldiers and going up for Iraqi civilians. I think that would have made some front pages.
STARR: Oh, I think inevitably it would have. I mean, that's certainly -- that, by any definition, is news. Look, nobody more than a Pentagon correspondent would like to stop reporting the number of deaths, interviewing grieving families, talking to soldiers who have lost their arms and their legs in the war. But, is this really enduring progress?
We've had five years of the Pentagon telling us there is progress, there is progress. Forgive me for being skeptical, I need to see a little bit more than one month before I get too excited about all of this.
Hmmm. So, a shocking increase in deaths would have "certainly" been newsworthy. However, for a decrease to be reported, skeptical journalists have to be more convinced that it's a lasting improvement.
Sadly, this is what makes today's reporters more like sports fans than real journalists.
After all, it shouldn't be their position to decide when a comeback, rally, or winning streak is real enough for them to jump on the bandwagon and get excited about. News - be it good or bad - is to be reported.
That's their job.
And when folks like this make dissemination decisions to not share information on something as important as American casualties of war due to their own personal skepticism, they have indeed abdicated their solemn responsibility to the public whose interest they regularly claim to serve.
What follows is a partial transcript of this segment.
HOWARD KURTZ, HOST: The news from Iraq has been consistently depressing for several years now, a continuous tableau of death and destruction. But when the administration released more positive casualty figures this week, the media paid little attention. A couple of sentences on the "CBS EVENING NEWS" and NBC "NIGHTLY NEWS," The New York Times ran it on page 10, The Washington Post," page 14, USA Today page 16. The L.A. Times, a couple of paragraphs at the bottom of a page 4 story.
One exception was Charlie Gibson, who made it the lead story on ABC's "WORLD NEWS."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHARLES GIBSON, ABC ANCHOR: The U.S. military reports the fourth straight month of decline in troop deaths, 66 American troops died in September, each a terrible tragedy for a family, but the number far less than those who died in August. And the Iraqi government says civilian deaths across Iraq fell by half last month.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KURTZ: Joining us now to put this into perspective, Robin Wright, who covers national security for The Washington Post. And CNN Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr.
Robin Wright, should that decline in Iraq casualties have gotten more media attention?
ROBIN WRIGHT, THE WASHINGTON POST: Not necessarily. The fact is we're at the beginning of a trend -- and it's not even sure that it is a trend yet. There is also an enormous dispute over how to count the numbers. There are different kinds of deaths in Iraq.
There are combat deaths. There are sectarian deaths. And there are the deaths of criminal -- from criminal acts. There are also a lot of numbers that the U.S. frankly is not counting. For example, in southern Iraq, there is Shiite upon Shiite violence, which is not sectarian in the Shiite versus Sunni. And the U.S. also doesn't have much of a capability in the south.
So the numbers themselves are tricky. Long-term, General Odierno, who was in town this week, said he is looking for irreversible momentum, and that, after two months, has not yet been reached.
KURTZ: Barbara Starr, CNN did mostly quick reads by anchors of these numbers. There was a taped report on "LOU DOBBS TONIGHT." Do you think this story deserved more attention? We don't know whether it is a trend or not but those are intriguing numbers.
BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: But that's the problem, we don't know whether it is a trend about specifically the decline in the number of U.S. troops being killed in Iraq. This is not enduring progress. This is a very positive step on that potential road to progress.
KURTZ: But let's say that the figures had shown that casualties were going up for U.S. soldiers and going up for Iraqi civilians. I think that would have made some front pages.
STARR: Oh, I think inevitably it would have. I mean, that's certainly -- that, by any definition, is news. Look, nobody more than a Pentagon correspondent would like to stop reporting the number of deaths, interviewing grieving families, talking to soldiers who have lost their arms and their legs in the war. But, is this really enduring progress?
We've had five years of the Pentagon telling us there is progress, there is progress. Forgive me for being skeptical, I need to see a little bit more than one month before I get too excited about all of this.
*****Update: Susan Duclos of Wake up America sent an e-mail message to Robin Wright concerning this matter. Here was Wright's response:
Ms. Duclos -
Thanks for your comments. The point I was trying to make on CNN is that two months do not make a permanent trend. As Gen. Odierno said last week, when he came to the Post, the numbers have been good the last couple of months but the US military has not yet reached the point of "irreversible momentum." When they do, it will certainly mean a different kind of reporting about the war in general. Unfortunately, all it will take is one or two really bad incidents and the numbers will start going up again. The numbers aren't the whole story either. The progress in Anbar has been widely covered in the US media -- and that in many ways tells us far more about both the war and the future than the death tolls.
I also think we're all a little nervous about declaring victories before we're fully confident that they represent a long-term and enduring trend and are not just a favorable blip on the screen.
With regards,
Robin Wright
Diplomatic Correspondent
The Washington Post
Telephone: 202 334-7443
Email: wrightr@washpost.com
Fax: 202 496-3883
Looks like anything good is being censored on this side by most of the major outlets here. Not surprising.
my view on experience is...
I don't think experience is that big of an issue - nobody has "experience" at being the President of the United States until they get elected - and I don't think that the experience that Hillary claims is any real experience anyway.
I am excited at the prospect of having somebody in office who has no "experience" - maybe they will really want to "change" the way the "experienced" people have been doing things!
I appreciate your point of view, Just Me....
and I will be the first to admit, as I admitted right up front to GT/GW/BW/FPJ who knows what else, she pushed my buttons and took great joy in doing so. She attributed things to me I never said, condemned an entire political party en masse and had the nerve to call me a bigot and that was the nicest thing she called me. If you followed the posts you know that most of the name calling from my end was just repeating back to her what I had been called. The same kinds of exchanges happen on political talk shows every night. Have you ever watched Chris Matthews or Keith Olbermann?
Her parting shot...Time to take out the trash.
In deference to your request, I will say this...I believe that GW believes with every fiber of her being that she is right and is passionate about her beliefs, and I certainly understand that. I think she is probably a nice person to those who share her views, loves her family like the rest of us and would like to fix all the perceived injustices in the world, just like the rest of us would. But you can't move forward if you don't let go of the hate and the blame game. There is plenty of blame to go around, on both sides of the aisle. No law, no program, no nothing can be passed in this country without both Republicans and Democrats voting for it, fact. We can't blame it all on the left and we can't blame it all on the right or the middle or whoever. In fact, we shouldn't be blaming at all, just trying to fix. But...as I am sure you well know, Just Me...the radical side of BOTH parties don't see the middle road.
The irony of the whole thing is that I am not a registered Republican...registered Independent. Only register Republican in primary years because I can't vote if I don't register Republican or Democrat...that's the law. Yet I was thrown right in and condemned right along with every other "pub."
Just Me, sometimes you just have to stand for what you believe, and not let a bully pigeon hole you and call you things you are not. And sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. That is just a part of life. I apologize if you were offended by witnessing it. I truly do. I apologize to anyone who was.
Just to clarify: I don't hate immigrants or immigration. That is how this country was born. Save Native Americans, we ALL descend from immigrants. I just feel immigration should be legal, and that immigrants should become tax-paying citizens before they get the benefits of citizenship. That's it. Real simple. And not bigoted.
And for the record, I don't hate all Democrats or blame them for all the ills in the world. Like I said...plenty of blame to go around on both sides. My parents were Democrats (old school Democrats). There have been Democrats I greatly admired...John Kennedy...Zell Miller. Great Americans in my opinion.
Afraid to view it are you?
And it is the least of my worries what you consider trash...:)
By all means....don't view it. You might actually have to really know...
what you support. Can't have that, can you?
Perhaps not everyone shares your view....as to the
downward course of the nation. Just like you did not allow us to rain on your parade...you ain't gonna rain on this one. So happpeeee this morning, not even you can dampen it, try though you will. :) You have a great day, valuevoter! It is a GOOD day!!
Some may view that differently.......
When I was little and my grandfather said pull yourself up by your bootstraps and move on, he simply meant do the best you can, lean on God and do not expect yourself to be able to handle EVERYTHING yourself. Somehow politics gets pulled into the meaning, when it shouldn't really. It used to be a phrase thrown out there to encourage others to get up and on the saddle again, so to speak, and just get moving without waiting for everyone else to do it for you. Do the best you can in whatever you do.
I agree with this view.
The Christian Right threw fits when Ridge was being considered. Leiberman was too much of a party turncoat to suit them and way to left of party center. It does not really matter where the idea of submitting to the temptation to pander to the Right AND Hillary supporters/women voters came from. JM or advisors, the pick would suggest that whoever made this decision was putting winning first and the welfare of the country second. BTW, presidents are held responsible for the decisions they make, no matter how many advisors had input.
My view as an independent.
I don't see Michele as hard, negative or loud. I see her as passionate and a go-getter. I have seen her speak at different things and have always enjoyed her.
Cindy I see as not weak, but just more quiet. I wouldn't say she was weak though.
Maybe this has something to do with their age differences, different generations?
My point of view
I really don't care if a president cheats on his or HER spouse under most circumstances. But when his little playmate testifies he was being "serviced" by her with talking on the phone with important people, that bothers me. She very well could have heard confidential things she shouldn't have. When you are in the Oval Office you are on the clock and should act like it.
need to view the big picture
Gut reaction is to say let the fail. I was not in favor of the bailout as proposed; however, common sense tells me that there has to be some plan. It isn't a question of stocks falling; it is a question of the economic structure of the US failing completely. I do want to save their "greedy banker butts" (to use your words) but you need to think of the bigger picture. You talk about a drop in stock, retirement, possible lower value of your home and no loan for college. How about drop in stock and savings and checking and everything to zero. How about losing your home, not having a job, not being able to afford food or clothing? Do you understand the consequence of no fix to this problem goes way beyond "bailing out their greedy banker butts." It is just not wall street here, it is the entire American economy.
Not much of one, if it narrows their view
*
View of the world........
It would seem to me that someone, obviously you, who has nothing to believe in, does have a VERY NARROW view of the world, as you seem to believe you and you alone got yourself here, and formed everything around you. I, on the other hand, know for a fact there is so much out there waiting for us and I for one am looking forward to it BECAUSE I don't have such a narrow view of the world/Heaven!!!
The View today
Love, love, love Joy (Go Girl!). Bill O'Reilly is an arrogant, egomaniac and Keith Olberman so has his ticket. Elisabeth is know-nothing, simpering little twit who most of the time doesn't have a clue what she is talking about. Whoopi is the best -- so much common sense!! I would vote for Whoopi in 2012!
It's more how Muslims view us
They see any non-Muslim as an infidel. THAT is the problem.
the overwhelming view is that
the Supreme Court does not want to touch this with a 10 foot pole. They believe rightly that the citizens have spoken in the election. Anchors having hard time keeping straight face reporting this story.
World view (sm)
All this talk about how unimportant France and other countries are. Now I understand why you thought Palin was such a genius. LOL. You know that old saying about if you look around the room and everyone in the room is wrong except you? Guess what? That's how it's been for the US and the rest of the world for a really long time. I just hope that one day Americans can get over themselves long enough to take a peek outside and see the world as it really is instead of just going by what our censored media wants us to know.
Another point of view...or two (sm)
http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=17587
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-11/20/content_10388377.htm
|
