no source listed for this
Posted By: ReaderCN on 2008-09-03
In Reply to: McCain and Obama Tax Proposals (chart) - Inside.
chart. No footnotes. No data to support numbers. Not enough information to verify veracity - disregarded.
also, moderators have instructed us more than once NOT to copy other websites into posts. Must use links. Please abide by the rules.
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 saw the link listed below
but it is just way over my head.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/01/news/pdf/index.htm
mccain, because i think he will (listed):
*keep this country safer from those who would try to bring the USA down.
*he will bring encouragement and respect to (and from) our troops.
*appointment of supreme court judges that will properly interpret the laws instead of try to make them.
*sincerely work with people of all backgrounds and political persuasions to make a better government (with proven history in this regard) AND a less intrusive/smaller government.
*he will more likely bring us quicker out of national deficits and eliminate pork barrel government waste (which is no minor thing).
*he will fight against anything wrong in the government whether it is politically beneficial or not, and do what is right for the people (proven history here too).
*make healthcare more affordable for all.
*encourage small business growth/jobs and make it not so profitable to send our jobs overseas, thereby boosting the economy in a real sustaining fashion.
*for best helping us become energy independent, using ALL our resources while being mindful of the environmental issues as well.
*because he has proven experience in all aspects that his opponent does not, and because he has chosen a more capable vice president, whereas if Biden were in the white house, he might need his tongue tied to keep him from running off at the mouth and saying something he shouldn't re foreign affairs or something; nevermind the probability of Obama himself causing problems with foreign affairs.
These are starters, but if you really do care, it ought to give you some food for thought.
It is listed,. regarding pedophiles..
Pedophilia -
Sexual activity with a prepubescent child (generally age 13 years or younger). The individual with pedophilia must be age 16 years or older and at least 5 years older than the child. For individuals in late adolescence with pedophilia, no precise age difference is specified, and clinical judgment must be used; both the sexual maturity of the child and the age difference must be taken into account; the adult may be sexually attracted to opposite sex, same sex, or prefer either.
in the first web site you listed it states . .
Most of the difference in giving among conservatives and liberals gets back to religion. Religious liberals give nearly as much as religious conservatives, Mr. Brooks found. And secular conservatives are even less generous than secular liberals.
All of these proclivities are not listed in the bill...
as being protected from hate crimes.
However, I think that if there's any chance that some pedophile or prostitute could twist this to use to their advantage, things need to be made very clear exactly who is being protected by this bill. Is it just homosexuals? If so, it needs to say that.
Personally, I think this hate crime bill is crap. If you beat someone up or kill someone, it's a hate crime, no two ways about it. I guess I don't understand why someone should receive more jail time for killing your average lesbian than for killing your average woman. They're both murder, no matter how you look at it.
Wouldn't it be simpler if they listed truths? LOL
ok, it says top match obama 57.14 and then has below McCain listed as 57.14
Whatever, still voting for McCain
Obama got my vote for none of the reasons you listed.
My vote is between myself and the canddiate. He is my voice. On any given subject, I could start a sentence that he can finish the same way I would. This has not happened for me in my entire adult lifetime. I was a few years shy of voting age in 1960. Kennedy was the only other candidate that gave me voice. That is why there is nothing anybody could say to sway me one way or the other and I find it sad that those who would try do not seem be able to understand that I am not the only one who feels this way about supporting this remarkable man.
What's listed here for Iran-Iraq War time
USA (as in us). We already knew about that stuff. In terms of these 2006 links, you might want to try reading up on this subject a little more. There are whole libraries of publications, including exhaustive US govermental studies, that refute your claim and, in fact, WMDs have yet to be found there. Saddam had abandoned this program, but of course, we hung him anyway. This is what we do with uppety puppets that go rogue on us.
Also, did anyone look at the Hardball segment listed on the Conservative board?
It was called "The Truth about Iraqi Freedom," I believe. I THINK it was considered meaningful dialogue supporting the neocons. However, I felt it was damning. The only "Truth" the rather strange and creepy neocon lady reporter seemed to come up with was that the soldiers handed out candy and softballs. The other guest was a former soldier in Iraq who, if only given time, was making some excellent statements regarding the real truth of the war. The whole segment was rushed and, well, kind of weird. As I said, check out the lady reporter - she seemed most disagreeable and offensive. Or maybe it was just my take on it!!!!
What is the source for this?
.
source?
What is your source for this info? As in, how do you know this is true - did you see it, hear or, what? I really want to know. Where can it be verified or disproved?
There never will be a source on this
nm
Consider the source.
nm
Consider The Source
Sam, this is the same group of people who thought that what Bill did with all those women was okay, or simply a "private" matter.
So nobody in this bunch has ever had a pg teenager? And if any one of these women here would just throw (that's Demspeak for kill) away a DS baby? It's simply a continuation of what they do is okay and what those nasty conservatives do is just criminal!
Wow, that's just classy.
Source: About.com
su
And your source for this is? nm
.
Source please. nm
.
No source? Of course not.
x
what i the source for this??
I have never seen this before. Where does it come from?
And your source is?....nm
x
One source............sm
is the NYT, but you can Google the quote and find it in several articles and blogs.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/26/international/americas/26canada.html
And what source exactly would it take
to satisfy you as being reliable?
SM, you have to consider the source,
this is the network that is fair and balanced, only if you are a democrat. These folks have an Obamachip embedded in their brain. Besides, this is a way to get let the guys and gals on here who are so enamored by their high priest a chance to get their minds off the fact that he could even come close to screwing up something or changing a campaign promise. Don't worry about double standards, they don't apply to Obama.
And your source is????? nm
x
And your source is???? (nm)
x
Well, consider the source............
The majority of those voting for Obama pay NO taxes, never paid a tax in their life, and rarely if ever held down a job...........
So why in the world do they see tax as a bad thing..... they've never paid a tax and will continue to NOT pay taxes and think Obama will just take care of all their needs. This is why they think "rich" is a bad word; they have no ambition, no drive, and never will, so for those that do, they must be punished for succeeding!!??
The lazy and ignorant are running this country through votes they really have no right having.......... IMHO
And your source is????????????? NM
.
And this is a source of pride? nm
The source of your post
I'm not sure why you cut and paste far-right-wing-biased sources as the "truth" in your posts on a liberal forum. In your above post you copied an article from frontpagemag.com and for those who know little about it:
FrontPage Magazine's main focus is on issues pertaining to foreign policy, war, and Islamist terrorism. It regularly condemns official enemies of the U.S. and is a strong proponent of the war on terror, the Iraq War, and Israel's military actions.[citation needed] It has also published articles condemning what it perceives as left-wing organizations and causes, such as the Democratic party, the media, the environmental movement, affirmative action, reparations for slavery, left-wing interpretations of feminism, Islamism, socialism, communism, anarchism, anti-war groups, the United Nations, and other matters.[
consider the source. MM is the sicko....
.
Now there's a reputable source--NOT
Huffington Post? Daily Kos (Kooks)? Moveon? Media Matters?
This isn't surprising, just disturbing.
Where is your source? You should not spread
nm
Please cite source........
x
WIKI?? THAT is your source?? lol
edited, changed, and added to by ANYONE, right? You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself as an MT to cite Wikipedia as your authority for ANYthing. I don't even necessarily like SP but you're making the case to side with her if that's how Barack's followers think/act.
We are still waiting for that source
nm
You're only source is obviously your TV set
xx
Once source we can look forward to where
the war chest. It's time to stop rebuilding Iraq and enricing their surplus coffers, get out of dodge, bring our troops back home and start rebuilding our own country. I would look for that from Obama sooner rather than later and certainly he is not on that 100-year time line of McCain's. The Iraqis gets their country back and get to govern themselves, we get our troops back, the direction of the tax dollars gets reversed and we stop one of the unspoken, yet most significant economic hemorrhages of W's administration.
We then turn our attention toward reversing the power and economic stranglehold the corporations hold over us by instituting taxpayer-friendly policies that put corporate welfare behind the welfare of our citizens. We build an economy from the ground up instead of the top down. Sound familiar? We've done it before and we can do it again. Once we do that, W's legacy of fear and division will takes its rightful place in annals of history and seem like just another bad dream we all had.
Well sure, look at the source of her income or
!!
This is a laughable source of
.
Not exactly an unbiased source!
Charles Krauthammer isn't someone whose judgment I would trust. He's been 100% pro-war policy all the way. Not surprising at all that he'd opt for McCain. What we really see is a lot of former Bush policy supporters abandoning that destructive policy and endorsing Obama instead. Can anyone cite an instance of a well-known real Democrat opting for McCain over Obama? I've been keeping my eye out (fair is fair), but have yet to see one endorsement of that type.
reliable source for this please. nm
.
Not a reliable source - sm
The Huffington post is not a reliable source. It's radical left-wing propaganda. It's even less credible than MSNBC.
The source is not the issue
the voting record is.
I just did and cited my source.....sm
so what are you speaking of?
Not a credible source
Can you point me to somewhere on Obama website that gets anywhere close to what this guy is talking about? The youtube was made by some obscure person, NOT showing the alleged speaker at any time. I have found no credible source for "barracks and uniforms" anywhere.
Personally I would support an addition to school curriculums that required community service as part of social studies. A local 4-H club leader called me the other day and asked if I could help her find community service opportunities for her 22 kids. I could and I did. I think before this economic mess is done we'll all help each other or we won't survive. There are a lot of opportunities for input on the Obama website. Time might be better spent flooding that site with your thoughts and concerns rather than posting here. I can promise you that I'm doing my part to flood the suggestion boxs, are you?
I worry more about the Clintons continued involvement in the government....like Ole Bill's "Foundation." .
According to you nothing is a credible source
and other liberal outlets who go ga-ga for the O while they sip the kool-aid.
Luckily there are plenty of other sources and articles about this. If you don't like an article that's one thing.
You should have said "I don't agree with what Obama said in the video. I don't believe he is saying it himself. I don't think he's a credible source because it goes against everything he's been telling us".
Get off the credible source issue. This argument has become a lame excuse therefore is laughable when we read that.
Source not credible
This is an article published by msnbc. We all know msnbc is a left-wing liberal rag. They have a lot to lose if the O is found ineligible, hence, they "use" their positions in the media to lie and try to sweep the issue under the rug.
The judge that ruled against the case was from Philadelphia. This judge was also afraid to rule against Obama. Judge R. Barclay Surrick is also a Clinton appointee. Hence, he wants a democrat president. Additionally, this was not Judge Surrick's decision to dismiss the case. Judge Surrick was faxed the ruling. On this faxed copy from Judge Surrick, the senders information is blank. That way the sender's identity could not be seen. But wait...this gets better. Judge Surrick received the fax from none other than a former law clerk of his, Christopher B. Seaman (they forgot to remove the fax number at the top of the fax page that shows where it came from). Christopher B. Seaman now works as an attorney for Sidley Austin LLP, and Sidley Austin LLP is the same firm that employed Michelle Obama, Bernadine Dorn (wife of William Ayers), and where Barack met Michelle. This is a clear case of "Conflict of Interest". It is most obvious that the order to Judge Surrick was written by DNC laywers. My my...what a small world.
The case is being brought to the Supreme Court to include the above reasons. Additionally, Berg stated...
What happened to ‘…Government of the people, by the people, for the people,…’ Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address 1863.
Additionally, the people in Hawaii who keep claiming they've viewed Obama's bc and "it is okay (take my word for it, I've seen it)" are none other than Obama supporters and backers.
I for one am glad this is going to the Supreme Court. If they determine it is not okay and the O is ineligible, you will still have a democrat as President, so what is everyone whining about.
Exactly what would you consider a reliable source? n/m
Credible source
I have read and researched everything about the birth certificate, his association with Ayers and everything else that was lobbied against him. I have found nothing to hold against him with the exception of preacher Wright and time will tell about that. After looking at the "evidence" on Factcheck, I am convinced his b/c is as credible as my own. I do not believe the Health Department of Hiawaii would have certified it if it were not so.
You can rest assured that I read everything about a subject which troubles me and Obama DID trouble me. Having heard him have news conferences and getting right down to business gives me somewhat more faith in him although I am still not convinced that he can undo what has been done the past 8 years and starting even before that, even if his intentions are squeeky clean. We are in for a VERY rocky road IMHO and we need to move on past the issues that have already been settled. The b/c on Factcheck leaves no doubt it is the real deal and the SC isn't going to find any differently...if they even hear the case. You are aware that they did not order him to produce the b/c by Dec. 1? They actually ordered him to answer...which of course he will do, to do otherwise would cause the complainant to win by default and he is not going to let that happen. It is customary in any court to give the defendent X number of days to answer a complaint. I should think you would know that. They can't "order" him to produce the b/c until there has been a hearing. I expect they will turn these frivilous suits back to the lower courts and refuse to hear any more about it.
Let's have some "credible" source...... sm
for your figures, please. LOL
|
