nice dodge. You didn't answer the question.
Posted By: sam on 2008-08-31
In Reply to: sam is to the politics board as oracle is to the - MQ board...nm
nm
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
You give me a direct answer. You dodge it like he does.
How can he give 95% of AMericans a tax cut if 30-40% of Americans pay no federal income taxes. Either he is lying about the 95%, or he is going to use refundable tax credits. How else can he do it? PLEASE, PLEASE, explain that to me. If I am wrong, all you have to do is explain to me HOW he is going to give tax cuts to 95% of people, 30-40% of whom DO NOT PAY federal income taxes, wITHOUT cutting them a check. Please, please explain that to me.
Sam understands the basic principles of socialism and Marxism just fine. Most of which Mr Obama taught me in his books and associations. Which you are willing to ignore.
So please...very simply. Explain to me how he is going to give tax breaks or cuts to 95% of Americans if 30-40% of that group don't pay taxes. You said yourself, he can't. So either he is lying about the 95%...or he is going to cut that 30-40% a check.
PLEASE explain his tax plan to me since you are such an expert on it. HOW is he going to do it without cutting checks? HOW?
Yeah - nice try - I know who I am and I know I did not answer myself
.
It would have been nice if they would have let him answer their questions
I have never seen the group on The View come down so hard on anybody like they did Glen. All because of a stupid comment he made in his radio program? Wait a minute.....he DID NOT say what they said he said. I listened to the tape and he did not do what they said.
I'm not a real big Glen Beck fan, I like him somewhat, but he does speak about things that concern us...like ACORN and the government. Did you know they have been investigating ACORN for the past week and finding out all sorts of problems with this group from the "horse's mouth" not from his mouth. Probably not because you don't believe ACORN wears a halo.
JMHO
Nice try - you didn't do much research on this, plus (sm)
it's another hit piece by an extreme liberal who has her own radio show and trying to smear Gov. Palin. There is a lot of info out about this Shannyn Moore character. Also on her MySpace page she states who she listens to (Keith Olberman, John Stewart, and Bill Mayer), and her favorite book is "The mind of a liberal". You can't take that is credibility. They have an agenda (to smear Palin by falsely accusing her of things or distorting what actually happened).
Here is an article (from fact check) about whether Palin charged victims for rape kits (give me a break - that is the most absurd thing I've ever heard of and as a woman I'm insulted someone would insinuate Palin did this). However, I can see who this Moore takes her despicable ideas from (Olberman, Mayer, etc). The facts are that in 2000 Wasilla prompted the Alaska Legislature to pass a bill preventing alledged victims of sexual assault from being billed for forensic tests. Plus it was the police chief Charlie Fannon who had been billing the insurance companies (not Sarah Palin as the article you posted eluded to). On top of that Palin has stated she "does not believe, nor has she ever believed that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence-gathering test". On another note....Fannon (the police chief who was billing the insurance companies) is no longer the chielf of police.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_sarah_palin_make_rape_victims_pay.html
Shannyn Moore has an agenda to smear Palin as she is a liberal and of course wants a socialist in, however, her facts are not correct. Shame!
If it's been so nice, why do you continue to come here? Didn't you say you were leaving?
And didn't you say you were going to Iraq, as well? I think you'd be an incredible asset to Bush in Iraq. If you were there, we could win the war immediately. All you have to do is spread your word to the enemy. After five minutes of listening to your skewed logic, they'd turn the weapons on themselves. Masters of surprise terror attacks that they are, this would be a wonderful surprise tactic to use on them.
It doesn't work here any more, though. The only thing that would surprise some of us is if you actually told the truth about something. 
You still didn't answer
The Billy Graham/Mother Teresa reference was made only to say what if one of them asked the question. If one of them did, a) we would not have character assassination for days on end so we could cut straight to the chase. What I am saying is that if a person pretty much all Americans admire were to ask the president, "why did _____ die in this war?" what would his answer be.
Are you going to Iraq to help nation-build?
Didn't think anybody answer that
because it's obvious that a parent can't sacrifice their own child to the military---that's why very few people take Cindy S. seriously.
Too bad for her she didn't just answer
the way most contestants try to: Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah... world peace.
I didn't answer it because I wasn't here. sm
It's answered above.
You didn't answer MY question.
LOL. You still didn't answer the question. nm
nm
and still you didn't answer the question about...
if it was YOUR money they were taking. Furthermore, 10% for a millionaire is $100,000 (that's one hundred thousand dollars) per million. That same 10% for someone making, say, even 60K is only six thousand dollars. Anyway, no one pays 10% in taxes so let's make it more realistic. Let's make it say 25%. Now you've got 250,000 per million in taxes. Why should it be a higher percentage? It is an equal share. Where is the incentive to continue earning if you are doing it simply to pay more in taxes to benefit someone else and not for your own earning? Then what happens when that incentive is gone?
The moral thing to do is to treat people equally regardless of their socioeconomic situation. The right thing do is to let people decide for themselves what they can do to benefit others who may be less fortunate economically.
I will ask again: What if it were your money? what if they decided that any working person should pay to support those not working? How would you feel about that. Or are you just jealous because someone has more than you?
His teleprompter didn't give him an answer
/
I nearly didn't answer this out of the sheer lunacy of such a claim. sm
I am not sure what is so complicated about the fact that in a world of good and evil, the forces of good must sometimes temporarily ally themselves with certain unlikable forces against the most terrible and dangerous evils of the time. Of course, the problem is that people like you and most who post on this board have no real understanding of the enemy we face and will shudden in true horror when it's face is finally clear to you. Your complacency and willingness to blame all the world's woes on one single man, no matter who that man might be, is fatally short-sighted. In an effort to hate all things Bush, you have neglected the monster in the closet.
That's good that you are still deciding, but you didn't answer my question. nm
.
Okay, but you didn't answer the question... What was Bush's agenda?
?
This from the Queen of dodge.
nm
She did not dodge the question. ...
Katie Couric was going to keep hounding her, trying to get her to say something she was not going to say. I think she honestly had no knowledge if the man was still getting money from fannie or not, and why should she, and what would that have to do with being Vice President of the Unites States. The campaign told her, and he told her, he was not still getting money from them. She told Katie Couric what she knew...and the same stance the campaign and the man himself has said...he stopped doing any lobbying for fannie and taking any money from them when he started with the McCain campaign because of conflict of interest...the same reason that Joe Biden's son (a professional lobbyist in DC for quite awhile now) stopped his lobbying when his dad got the nomination, because of conflict of interest. Don't look for Katie Couric to be asking Biden about his son and MBNA. The mainstream media has a clear bias. I thought Palin did well not to fall into the carefully laid trap. It was not that she dodged...Katie Couric made it appear that way because she was not willing to accept the answer Palin gave. That is a "gotcha" interview.
No, I have not seen a proposal from either candidate about not using taxpayer dollars to help this crisis. I don't think that is possible...the government in and of itself has no money. Any money they have comes from us, the taxpayer, so any money they use comes from us, the taxpayer. We are left holding the bag.
I do have a problem, tho, with spending billions to to buy up bad mortgages where people made bad decisions, taking on a mortgage they know they could not afford. The rest of us wh struggle to make mortgage payments are getting zip out of this, except to take care of those people as well. And you KNOW the government is not going to foreclose on anyone...political suicide. So what happens then? If they do bail them out, then they need to restructure them in some way that those people can continue to make payments.
We'll see.
another dodge. The question is about
It does not involve invoking the name of his opponent. Obviously, there is not one single republican on this board with enough balls to conujure up anything that remotely resembles a McCain economic initiative. Actually, no answer is really an answer in an of itself. You can't do it because of the elephant in the room. His policies are an exact duplication of W's....the policies that an entire nation is running far and wide to escape.
I have a 1991 Dodge with 450,000
miles on it. We have rebuilt the rear end, but it still has the original clutch. Again, pulled a heavy horse trailer for many many of those miles.
Trying to dodge the facts again I see
You know very well that that wasn't the point. It doesn't take a mind reader to see when faced with facts you change the subject. Yes it is a republican bashing board and if you don't agree then you haven't been reading the posts on this board. This board meaning the politics section of MT Stars. Just wanted to state that as you must be looking at the wrong board. I'm talking about this one here. But I guess you think that bashing republicans/independents and anyone who doesn't agree with you is not really bashing. Then the bashing posters pat themselves on the back congratulating each other for the wonderful bashing they just did with a self-righteous attitude, but I guess you don't consider that bashing. All you have to do is read the posts one by one and you will see.
Just going down the board just a short ways I found 17 bashing of republicans to 6 nonbashing (rebuttals to the bashing). I haven't come across any posts that started out with the original poster bashing someone who doesn't think the way they do.
But then I guess you consider Republican/independent bashing not to really be bashing.
Of course you find any article that bashes the republicans and is filled with propaganda to be interesting, but it certainly is not going to render any "thoughtful or intelligent discussions" just more of the same mumbo jumbo.
By the way, I never said your posts cause me any distress. Don't know where you came up with that one. Probably the same place you think this is a vitrolic Democrat-hating board. Just because you say it is doesn't mean its true.
Good dodge, but it doesn't let you off the hook with regards to the point
x
New Orleans collects dead as officials dodge blame
By Mark Egan
NEW ORLEANS (Reuters) - New Orleans began the gruesome task of collecting its thousands of dead on Sunday as the Bush administration tried to save face after its botched rescue plans left the city at the mercy of Hurricane Katrina.
Except for rescue workers and scattered groups of people, streets in the once-vibrant capital of jazz and good times were all but abandoned after a mass exodus of hundreds of thousands of refugees into neighboring Texas and other states.
Battered and sickened survivors made no attempt to disguise their anger: We have been abandoned by our own country, Aaron Broussard, president of Jefferson Parish, just south of New Orleans, told NBC's Meet the Press.
It's not just Katrina that caused all these deaths in New Orleans, Broussard said. Bureaucracy has committed murder here in the greater New Orleans area, and bureaucracy has to stand trial before Congress now.
After a nightmare confluence of natural disaster and political ineptitude that al Qaeda-linked Web sites called evidence of the wrath of God striking America, National Guard troops and U.S. marshals patrolled the city, stricken in the days after the hurricane by anarchic violence and looting.
Local and federal officials said they expected to find thousands of corpses still floating in flood waters or locked inside homes and buildings destroyed by the devastating storm that struck the U.S. Gulf coast last Monday.
When we remove the water from New Orleans, we're going to uncover people who died hiding in houses, who got caught by the flood. People whose remains will be found in the street, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told Fox News.
AS UGLY AS YOU CAN IMAGINE
There'll be pollution. It is going to be about as ugly a scene as you can imagine.
Later, Chertoff flew into New Orleans and said the search for storm victims would be arduous. Let me be clear: we're going to have to go house to house in this city, he said. This is not going to happen overnight.
President George W. Bush, who in a rare admission of error, conceded on Friday that the results of his administration's relief efforts were unacceptable, said on Saturday he would send 7,200 more active-duty troops over three days. Continued ...
© Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved.
See link for entire article.
why do you answer so stupidly, the right answer
if you had any brains, would have been......
'well, she made a mistake.'
But telling me that I need a job, is so stupid, yes, stupid AND a very weak point.
I didn't miss any part and didn't say...
anything either way. I just posted a link.
This is the reason we are in Iraq and it's the same reason I didn't vote for him in 2000: Didn't
his own personal reasons.
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050620/why_george_went_to_war.php
The Downing Street memos have brought into focus an essential question: on what basis did President George W. Bush decide to invade Iraq? The memos are a government-level confirmation of what has been long believed by so many: that the administration was hell-bent on invading Iraq and was simply looking for justification, valid or not.
Despite such mounting evidence, Bush resolutely maintains total denial. In fact, when a British reporter asked the president recently about the Downing Street documents, Bush painted himself as a reluctant warrior. "Both of us didn't want to use our military," he said, answering for himself and British Prime Minister Blair. "Nobody wants to commit military into combat. It's the last option."
Yet there's evidence that Bush not only deliberately relied on false intelligence to justify an attack, but that he would have willingly used any excuse at all to invade Iraq. And that he was obsessed with the notion well before 9/11—indeed, even before he became president in early 2001.
In interviews I conducted last fall, a well-known journalist, biographer and Bush family friend who worked for a time with Bush on a ghostwritten memoir said that an Iraq war was always on Bush's brain.
"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and Houston Chronicle journalist Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said, 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He went on, 'If I have a chance to invade…, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency.'"
Bush apparently accepted a view that Herskowitz, with his long experience of writing books with top Republicans, says was a common sentiment: that no president could be considered truly successful without one military "win" under his belt. Leading Republicans had long been enthralled by the effect of the minuscule Falklands War on British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's popularity, and ridiculed Democrats such as Jimmy Carter who were reluctant to use American force. Indeed, both Reagan and Bush's father successfully prosecuted limited invasions (Grenada, Panama and the Gulf War) without miring the United States in endless conflicts.
Herskowitz's revelations illuminate Bush's personal motivation for invading Iraq and, more importantly, his general inclination to use war to advance his domestic political ends. Furthermore, they establish that this thinking predated 9/11, predated his election to the presidency and predated his appointment of leading neoconservatives who had their own, separate, more complex geopolitical rationale for supporting an invasion.
Conversations With Bush The Candidate
Herskowitz—a longtime Houston newspaper columnist—has ghostwritten or co-authored autobiographies of a broad spectrum of famous people, including Reagan adviser Michael Deaver, Mickey Mantle, Dan Rather and Nixon cabinet secretary John B. Connally. Bush's 1999 comments to Herskowitz were made over the course of as many as 20 sessions together. Eventually, campaign staffers—expressing concern about things Bush had told the author that were included in the manuscript—pulled the project, and Bush campaign officials came to Herskowitz's house and took his original tapes and notes. Bush communications director Karen Hughes then assumed responsibility for the project, which was published in highly sanitized form as A Charge to Keep.
The revelations about Bush's attitude toward Iraq emerged during two taped sessions I held with Herskowitz. These conversations covered a variety of matters, including the journalist's continued closeness with the Bush family and fondness for Bush Senior—who clearly trusted Herskowitz enough to arrange for him to pen a subsequent authorized biography of Bush's grandfather, written and published in 2003.
I conducted those interviews last fall and published an article based on them during the final heated days of the 2004 campaign. Herskowitz's taped insights were verified to the satisfaction of editors at the Houston Chronicle, yet the story failed to gain broad mainstream coverage, primarily because news organization executives expressed concern about introducing such potent news so close to the election. Editors told me they worried about a huge backlash from the White House and charges of an "October Surprise."
Debating The Timeline For War
But today, as public doubts over the Iraq invasion grow, and with the Downing Street papers adding substance to those doubts, the Herskowitz interviews assume singular importance by providing profound insight into what motivated Bush—personally—in the days and weeks following 9/11. Those interviews introduce us to a George W. Bush, who, until 9/11, had no means for becoming "a great president"—because he had no easy path to war. Once handed the national tragedy of 9/11, Bush realized that the Afghanistan campaign and the covert war against terrorist organizations would not satisfy his ambitions for greatness. Thus, Bush shifted focus from Al Qaeda, perpetrator of the attacks on New York and Washington. Instead, he concentrated on ensuring his place in American history by going after a globally reviled and easily targeted state run by a ruthless dictator.
The Herskowitz interviews add an important dimension to our understanding of this presidency, especially in combination with further evidence that Bush's focus on Iraq was motivated by something other than credible intelligence. In their published accounts of the period between 9/11 and the March 2003 invasion, former White House Counterterrorism Coordinator Richard Clarke and journalist Bob Woodward both describe a president single-mindedly obsessed with Iraq. The first anecdote takes place the day after the World Trade Center collapsed, in the Situation Room of the White House. The witness is Richard Clarke, and the situation is captured in his book, Against All Enemies.
On September 12th, I left the Video Conferencing Center and there, wandering alone around the Situation Room, was the President. He looked like he wanted something to do. He grabbed a few of us and closed the door to the conference room. "Look," he told us, "I know you have a lot to do and all…but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way…"
I was once again taken aback, incredulous, and it showed. "But, Mr. President, Al Qaeda did this."
"I know, I know, but…see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred…" …
"Look into Iraq, Saddam," the President said testily and left us. Lisa Gordon-Hagerty stared after him with her mouth hanging open.
Similarly, Bob Woodward, in a CBS News 60 Minutes interview about his book, Bush At War, captures a moment, on November 21, 2001, where the president expresses an acute sense of urgency that it is time to secretly plan the war with Iraq. Again, we know there was nothing in the way of credible intelligence to precipitate the president's actions.
Woodward: "President Bush, after a National Security Council meeting, takes Don Rumsfeld aside, collars him physically and takes him into a little cubbyhole room and closes the door and says, 'What have you got in terms of plans for Iraq? What is the status of the war plan? I want you to get on it. I want you to keep it secret.'"
Wallace (voiceover): Woodward says immediately after that, Rumsfeld told Gen. Tommy Franks to develop a war plan to invade Iraq and remove Saddam—and that Rumsfeld gave Franks a blank check.
Woodward: "Rumsfeld and Franks work out a deal essentially where Franks can spend any money he needs. And so he starts building runways and pipelines and doing all the necessary preparations in Kuwait specifically to make war possible."
Bush wanted a war so that he could build the political capital necessary to achieve his domestic agenda and become, in his mind, "a great president." Blair and the members of his cabinet, unaware of the Herskowitz conversations, placed Bush's decision to mount an invasion in or about July of 2002. But for Bush, the question that summer was not whether, it was only how and when. The most important question, why, was left for later.
Eventually, there would be a succession of answers to that question: weapons of mass destruction, links to Al Qaeda, the promotion of democracy, the domino theory of the Middle East. But none of them have been as convincing as the reason George W. Bush gave way back in the summer of 1999.
Not nice.
Of course conservatives are wrong. And often. I am one, so I should know. What I am NOT is a neocon. That word gets used a lot here and it is used incorrectly. I am not the original poster but I wanted to point that out.
Really nice, isn't it?
Not all of them are gone, but a lot were removed. Smells a lot better on the Liberal Board today, though it probably won't last. 
It's really nice to have you here.
As you can see, you may also be called names on this board, as well. The monitor has asked that they stop, but they continue to do it. If they begin to attack you here, I hope you will just consider the source, laugh it off and continue to post here because they aren't important and certainly don't represent the majority of normal Americans.
Exactly....have a nice day. :) nm
nm
nice
When a woman gets attacked by a man with knife, do you condemn her because she didn't fight back hard enough?I say condemn the attacker, not the attackee....you attack folks and then condemn them because there feelings where hurt instead of addressing the real problem which is your bullying.
Nice try, but no....
I started posting here about 3 years ago, and there was no observer but me. If there was one before that, I had no way of knowing that. Taiga did not "steal" Teddy's moniker. They were always the same person, just posting under two different monikers. I have posted under two...Independent for awhile, and then Observer. Observer was not in use when I changed to that moniker, and if there was one before my time...as I stated...I have no way of knowing that. Again...did not accuse Taiga of stealing the Teddy moniker. She posted under both.
Nice. (sm)
Fortunately your opinion on this subject means nothing to me. Those who want to pray will. Those who don't, won't. It is a free country,and while no one can force you to pray, no one can force us not too either. Much as you would like to have that control. What a myopic view of life you have. Party line vote Dem or die and dam* anyone who doesn't agree with you. Sounds decidedly UNdemocratIC to me.
nice try
This comes from the same pinheads who were absolutely certain that Rush would go outta business when Clinton got elected. Yeah, right! 20 million listeners at least, and HOW many hundreds of millions later?
And y'all actually think Keith Overbite & Mr. Potato Head actually discuss news seriously when 1 has crabs or something crawling up his leg? And give up the opiates re Rush. He fixed that problem, but didn't do the resume enhancement like the celebutards do. Start that empty crap & I'll just keep listing their names.
And just to clarify things, in case anyone didn't catch the post about the NAGS, that's Rush's pet name for the National Assn of GalS. I knew I wasn't the only Dittohead on the embarrassment of a board.
Face it. Y'all have nothing to offer here, just empty insults and thrills over women "choosing" to kill babies. That's the only definition y'all have of "choice." Funny, but I thought choice was supposed to mean that the woman decided either way. Nice try once again.
nice try....but NOT
I take you comparing me to Sam as a compliment though as I do value a lot of the same opinions.
However, once again, instead of actually coming on with facts and trying to prove an actual point, I find someone who just spats out anything. I was not the one who started this post. I was just stating my opinion and sharing some experiences I've had raising horses and what has happened in the past when deer hunting was not allowed. Those are things that I have seen first hand.
That would be nice!
Doubt that will happen, but my husband and I could pay off the house we just built, have money for the kids college education, etc.
oh come on... he seems like a nice
and he wants change.... give him a break... LOL.....
I'M WITH YOU!!! PEOPLE ARE SO INTO HEARING WHAT THEY WANT TO HEAR THAT THEY ARE BLIND!!!!!!
nice
from yet another who cannot back up what exactly obama stands for besides "change"... hmmm
there was nothing psychotic about her post.
It would be nice
there was help for those who help themselves.... not just help themselves to handouts.
That might be nice, but don't look to
nm
Nice Try
Our economy is in a bad way, so what does "O" do? Raise taxes! What on earth are y'all thinking! So taking $ from you to give to someone else makes sense?
This is comparable to the women who went totally nuts over the Beatles!
Check your taxes for 2007, 2008, then 2009. The facts will speak for themselves.
Just more white guilt, too, which is also pitiful.
that sure was nice!
x
Nice try
Yeah, that so-called nutjob recently signed another long-term contract (7 years, I believe) for how many millions?
I never miss his show.
Have you ever actually listened to his show? You'd like his official Obama Criticizer, Bo Snerdley. You can find clips on google.
When I got married, we used his theme song to announce the wedding party at the reception
You just said she was nice. Why don't you
accept her as she is then if she is a nice person. Maybe she wants to raise her baby is a safe place. I live in Arizona and the only illegal immigrants I have a problem with are the drug dealers who bring their dope across the border.
its nice to see him in an
informal setting. Every pol goes for a photo op once in a while, just to remind you they are around. I enjoy seeing him smile and interact with people. He makes me smile. God Bless America, how fortunate we are to have him at this time in history.
nice try
I dont think so. I am an American. As a matter of fact I was a soldier and I helped defend this country. So dont even try to tell me that I am not American and I should leave just because I don't like or agree with the present administration. Do I hope that Obama will be all that people need? Sure. Do I think he will do it? No. That has nothing to do with my American pride or heritage. This country was founded on many things that are not in effect today and I dont have to blindly support things that are blatantly wrong with our government. Most politicians are liars and crooks and our government is not a representation of our country. Our country is hard working American people who have built this land up based on dreams, faith, hard work, and pride. Our government is supposed to answer to us, not us to them. You have the wrong idea and should not categorize people based on whether they like Obama or not. That is why we VOTE and have the FREEDOM to choose who we want in OUR office.
Thank you. Nice to know I'm not alone
I liked Sarah Palin a lot and was the main reason I was leaning more towards their camp. I actually kept going back and forth. I liked Obama, then I liked Sarah, then I liked Obama, then I liked Sarah. I could not make up my mind. But I liked Gov. Palin a lot. Washington needed a new face. Someone not on the inner circles and corrupted by Washington politicians/lobbyists. She said things as she saw them. She was the only one out of all of them who had the qualifications. She was a governor and knows how to balance a budget. If she believed in something she stuck to it. She didn't give in and say one thing then run over to a different group and say another thing. Like some people did. You want to talk about experience? Obama had less experience than she did. As for her saying things and making mistakes. Nobody has a right to say anything about that because your all okay with Biden saying the most @ssnine things. You didn't like that she carried her baby around, but you were okay with Biden carrying around his grandson everywhere (talk about an obvious prop). He'd look around for the camera then grab his grandson and make sure the camera saw him carrying him. I liked the way Sarah spoke. She spoke the truth and to the point. Sorry it's not fancy/sleezy enough for the Washington crowd. She/McCain had ideas for how to get the people back working again. Now look what we've got. Someone who just keeps telling us its going to get worse, passed a bill that creates no jobs for the country and nothing to stimulate the economy, and is punishing the people who are hard working and trying to survive. Just more money for them to line the pockets of the politicians. But then again it doesn't matter what we thought because the people have no control over who is elected. Obama had been selected a long time before the election even began.
I liked Sarah Palin and I don't care what anyone says. She was a real human being. You can slam me all you want. Sure there were other candidates I would have supported, especially every time Biden spoke. He's puts his foot in his mouth every time he speaks and it's becoming more and more evident this guy is either going senile or truly does not know what he is doing. No wonder why the WH keeps him behind locked doors.
But it's all a double standard. People say she didn't have experience, don't vote for her, we have to have someone with experience. Then when it's brought up about Obama's lack of experience (i.e. no experience) we hear. You gotta give the guy a chance. They trashed her personal life, but when anyone spoke about Obama's personal life they were told don't talk about his personal life it has nothing to do with his being president. When people said, you can't bring Palin in, she's not Washington, she's an outsider, but when they were told well Obama is new and he hasn't been in Washington very long himself (i.e. no experience) and has been in Illinois most of his life we were told we need a fresh face in Washington. When we brought up Palin's balancing the budget we were met with Obama got a bunch of people registered to vote. You just can't win. None of what I wrote pertains to anyone on this board, it's what was in the news. And I was watching MSNBC during the election because I was voting democrat, but was interested in Palin. And the best of them all was when people were asked "So you're voting for Obama because of his policies? and they answered yeah, then when asked "So if Obama is elected President you wouldn't mind Sarah Palin as the VP?" And they all said "No, I think she'd make a fine VP". HA HA HA. What's that Master card commercial where at the end it says "Priceless".
Nice try, but once again
no cigar.
It would be nice if EVERYBODY would
follow the rules of this board, but some apparently think they are above the rules.
The two posters you pointed out are not the only ones who call other posters names, especially in the last week or so that I've noticed, but the instead of falling into the argumentative mode, you need to ignore their posts.
It is nice to know that our
economy is in ruins, we have spies interfering with our electronic grid, our president bows to the Saudi King, every country still hates us even with Obama's major butt kissing and you are concerned about Levi and Bristol? Who cares. How many teenagers really stay together even when there is a baby involved? This isn't a matter of national security. It is a teenage girl who screwed her boyfriend and got knocked up and then they broke up. Like that never happens anywhere else in the world.
I personally couldn't care less if Levi and Bristol broke up. Who cares? If you like teenage drama, you might want to watch the N channel and get your fill with Degrassi or something and keep this nonsense off the political board.
nice..
very Christian of you saying her husband is as messed up as she is. showing your true colors.
|
