And I'll say it again...walking up the backs of the
Posted By: middle class before he squashes them on 2008-10-14
In Reply to: Obama to Plumber: My Plan Will 'Spread the Wealth Around'....sm - ms
=
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
Walking up the backs of the middle-class to
xx
Walking the walk
So do you condemn the people who have blown up abortion clinics and killed the OB/GYN physicians who perform abortions?
No, they live in the US, and the US backs Israel.nm
z
Hawaii backs Martin
The state of Hawaii has backed Andy Martin. CNN, Factcheck.org and Obama campaign exposed as liars.
http://contrariancommentary.blogspot.com/
Barry is lying to the people and they don't care. They don't care that the constitution is not being followed.
Whether Barry wins or not I believe Hillary should file lawsuit to sue him and the DNC chair for covering it up.
Hawaii backs Martin? What does that mean? nm
.
I remember my mother walking in the pouring rain
vote for JFK. Ended up that the election was very close, and she was so happy she decided to brave the rain to vote. I feel the same way this election. It is so important, the most important election EVER. Y'all get out to vote!! No matter what; rain, hail, sleet, snow, hurricane, avalanche, VOTE!
WaMu Exec walking away with a cool $11.6 Million? plus
$7.5 million in (something else). He was top exec for 3 weeks!
I just caught the tail end of this info on Oprah and have been looking for verification of this. Haven't found it yet. They might keep this under wraps since the bail out still hasn't happened yet.
I'm curious if this is true and if it is..... 
It appears to me that the governors are just walking in lockstep to politics......
It's all about politics - screw the people! Pretty sad when a political party wants to see our country fail......
Majority backs GIs, not Iraq War...see link
Interesting poll, allbeit before the death of Zarqawi and approval of ministers of the police and army.
Greenspan Backs Bank Nationalization
Wednesday 18 February 2009
by: Krishna Guha and Edward Luce, The Financial Times
Former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan has come out in favor of nationalizing some banks. (Photo: Reuters Pictures)
The US government may have to nationalise some banks on a temporary basis to fix the financial system and restore the flow of credit, Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman, has told the Financial Times.
In an interview, Mr Greenspan, who for decades was regarded as the high priest of laisser-faire capitalism, said nationalisation could be the least bad option left for policymakers.
"It may be necessary to temporarily nationalise some banks in order to facilitate a swift and orderly restructuring," he said. "I understand that once in a hundred years this is what you do."
Mr Greenspan's comments capped a frenetic day in which policymakers across the political spectrum appeared to be moving towards accepting some form of bank nationalisation.
"We should be focusing on what works," Lindsey Graham, a Republican senator from South Carolina, told the FT. "We cannot keep pouring good money after bad." He added, "If nationalisation is what works, then we should do it."
Speaking to the FT ahead of a speech to the Economic Club of New York on Tuesday, Mr Greenspan said that "in some cases, the least bad solution is for the government to take temporary control" of troubled banks either through the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or some other mechanism.
The former Fed chairman said temporary government ownership would "allow the government to transfer toxic assets to a bad bank without the problem of how to price them."
But he cautioned that holders of senior debt - bonds that would be paid off before other claims - might have to be protected even in the event of nationalisation.
"You would have to be very careful about imposing any loss on senior creditors of any bank taken under government control because it could impact the senior debt of all other banks," he said. "This is a credit crisis and it is essential to preserve an anchor for the financing of the system. That anchor is the senior debt."
Mr Greenspan's comments came as President Barack Obama signed into law the $787bn fiscal stimulus in Denver, Colorado. Mr Obama will announce on Wednesday a $50bn programme for home foreclosure relief in Phoenix, Arizona. Meanwhile, the White House was working last night on the latest phase of the bailout for two of the big three US carmakers.
In his speech after signing the stimulus, which he called the "most sweeping recovery package in our history", Mr Obama set out a vertiginous timetable of federal decisions in the coming weeks that included fixing the US banking system, submission next week of the 2009 budget and a bipartisan White House meeting to address longer-term fiscal discipline.
"We need to end a culture where we ignore problems until they become full-blown crises," said Mr Obama. "Today does not mark the end of our economic troubles… but it does mark the beginning of the end."
um...you're thinking of Bill and Hill, walking out of the white house with everything
That was a fact, overlooked by most libs.
Bush's Own Panel Backs Data on Global Warming
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-sci-warming23jun23,1,200411.story?coll=la-headlines-frontpage&track=crosspromo
U.S. Panel Backs Data on Global Warming
Growing Washington acceptance of climate change is seen in the top science body's finding.
By Thomas H. Maugh II and Karen Kaplan
Times Staff Writers
June 23, 2006
After a comprehensive review of climate change data, the nation's preeminent scientific body found that average temperatures on Earth had risen by about 1 degree over the last century, a development that is unprecedented for the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia.
The report from the National Research Council also concluded that human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming.
Coupled with a report last month from the Bush administration's Climate Change Science Program that found clear evidence of human influences on the climate system, the new study from the council, part of the National Academy of Sciences, signals a growing acceptance in Washington of widely held scientific views on the causes of global warming.
The council's review focused on the controversial hockey stick graph, which shows Earth's temperature remaining stable for 900 years then suddenly arching upward in the last century. The curve resembles a hockey stick laid on its side.
The panel dismissed critics' charges that fraud and statistical error were responsible for the graph's sharp upward swing, noting that many studies had confirmed its essential conclusions in the eight years since it was first published in the journal Nature.
There is nothing in this report that should raise any doubts about the broad scientific consensus on global climate change … or any doubts about whether any paper on the temperature records was legitimate scientific work, said House Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.), who requested the study in November.
The finding was a rebuke to global warming skeptics and some conservative politicians who have attacked the hockey stick as the work of overzealous scientists determined to shame the government into imposing environmental regulations on big business.
Geophysicist Michael E. Mann of Pennsylvania State University, lead author of the study that debuted the graph, said it was time to put this sometimes silly debate behind us and move forward, to do what we need to do to decrease the remaining uncertainties.
Though scientists have cited various factors as evidence of global warming — including the melting of polar ice caps and measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide — the hockey stick encapsulated the issue in an instantly recognizable way.
It's a pretty profound, easy-to-understand graph, said Roger A. Pielke Jr., director of the University of Colorado's Center for Science and Technology Policy Research. Visually, it's very compelling.
The chart drew little attention until it was highlighted in a 2001 report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
After that, the hockey stick was everywhere, Pielke said.
It also became an easy target.
If you are someone who's interested in critiquing climate science, he said, the hockey stick would be a lightning rod.
One prominent attack came from the House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman, Rep. Joe L. Barton (R-Texas), who last year launched an investigation of Mann and his colleagues. Barton demanded information about their data and funding sources — an effort widely viewed as an attempt to intimidate the scientists.
Barton's committee has launched an inquiry into the statistical validity of the hockey stick. Larry Neal, the committee's deputy staff director, criticized the National Research Council panel Thursday for having only one statistician among its 12 members.
The crux of the dispute is that thermometers have been used for only 150 years. To determine temperatures before that, scientists rely on indirect measurements, or proxies, such as tree ring data, cores from boreholes in ice, glacier movements, cave deposits, lake sediments, diaries and paintings.
Mann and his collaborators tried to integrate data from many such sources to produce climate records for the last 1,000 years. Their report was filled with caveats and warnings about the uncertainties of their conclusions — caveats that were overlooked as the research achieved more celebrity.
The panel affirmed that proxy measurements made over the last 150 years correlated well with actual measurements during that period, lending credence to the proxy data for earlier times.
It concluded that, with a high level of confidence, global temperatures during the last century were higher than at any time since 1600.
Although the report did not place numerical values on that confidence level, committee member and statistician Peter Bloomfield of North Carolina State University said the panel was about 95% sure of the conclusion.
The committee supported Mann's other conclusions, but said they were not as definitive. For example, the report said the panel was less confident that the 20th century was the warmest century since 1000, largely because of the scarcity of data from before 1600.
Bloomfield said the committee was about 67% confident of the validity of that finding — the same degree of confidence Mann and his colleagues had placed in their initial report.
Panel members said Mann's conclusion that the 1990s were the warmest decade since 1000 and that 1998 was the warmest year had the least data to support it.
The use of proxies, they said, does not readily allow conclusions based on such narrow time intervals.
The report said that establishing average temperatures before 1000 was difficult because of the lack of data, but said the trend appeared to indicate that stable temperatures could extend back several thousand years.
Senator Frist Now Backs Funcing for Stem Cell Research
Finally! A neocon wants to save life AFTER it's born, too!
July 29, 2005
Veering From Bush, Frist Backs Funding for Stem Cell Research
WASHINGTON, July 29 - In a break with President Bush, the Senate Republican leader, Bill Frist, has decided to support a bill to expand federal financing for embryonic stem cell research, a move that could push it closer to passage and force a confrontation with the White House, which is threatening to veto the measure.
Mr. Frist, a heart-lung transplant surgeon who said last month that he did not back expanding financing " P nonetheless.< bill the supports he work, for financing taxpayer on limits strict placed which policy, four-year-old Bush?s Mr. altering about reservations had while that said He speech. Senate lengthy a in morning this decision his announced juncture,? at>
"While human embryonic stem cell research is still at a very early stage, the limitations put in place in 2001 will, over time, slow our ability to bring potential new treatments for certain diseases," Mr. Frist said. "Therefore, I believe the president's policy should be modified."
His speech received the approval of Democrats as well as Republicans.
"I admire the majority leader for doing this," Senator Harry Reid, the minority leader and Democrat of Nevada, said immediately after the speech. He and Senator Dick Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, said Mr. Frist's stance would give hope to people everywhere.
Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, contending they were discussing "the difference between life and death," said of Mr. Frist, "I believe the speech that he has just made on the Senate floor is the most important speech made this year, and perhaps the most important speech made in years."
He added: "This is a speech that will reverberate around the world, including at the White House."
Scott McClellan, Mr. Bush's chief spokesman, said Mr. Frist had told Mr. Bush in advance notice of his planned announcement. "The president said, "You've got to vote your conscience," Mr. McClellan said, according to The Associated Press.
"The president's made his position clear," Mr. McClellan said when asked if Mr. Bush would veto a pending bill that would liberalize federal support for stem cell research, The A.P. reported. "There is a principle involved here from the president's standpoint when it comes to issues of life."
Mr. Frist's move will undoubtedly change the political landscape in the debate over embryonic stem cell research, one of the thorniest moral issues to come before Congress. The chief House sponsor of the bill, Representative Michael N. Castle, Republican of Delaware, said, "His support is of huge significance."
The stem cell bill has passed the House but is stalled in the Senate, where competing measures are also under consideration. Because Mr. Frist's colleagues look to him for advice on medical matters, his support for the bill could break the Senate logjam. It could also give undecided Republicans political license to back the legislation, which is already close to having the votes it needs to pass the Senate.
The move could also have implications for Mr. Frist's political future. The senator is widely considered a potential candidate for the presidency in 2008, and supporting an expansion of the policy will put him at odds not only with the White House but also with Christian conservatives, whose support he will need in the race for the Republican nomination. But the decision could also help him win support among centrists.
"I am pro-life," Mr. Frist said in the speech, arguing that he could reconcile his support for the science with his own Christian faith. "I believe human life begins at conception."
But at the same time, he said, "I also believe that embryonic stem cell research should be encouraged and supported."
Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian group, said today in a statement that Senator Frist's decision was "very disappointing but not a surprise," given the senator's previous testimonies advocating stem cell research.
"As a heart surgeon who knows that adult stem cells are already making huge progress in treating heart disease in humans, it is unfortunate that Sen. Frist would capitulate to the biotech industry," Mr. Perkins said. "Thankfully, the White House has forcefully promised to hold the ethical line and veto any legislation that would expand the president's current policy."
Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition, also objected to Mr. Frist's decision and alluded to its political impact. "Senator Frist cannot have it both ways," he said, according to The A.P. "He cannot be pro-life and pro-embryonic stem cell funding. Nor can he turn around and expect widespread endorsement from the pro-life community if he should decide to run for president in 2008."
Backers of the research were elated. "This is critically important," said Larry Soler, a lobbyist for the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. "The Senate majority leader, who is also a physician, is confirming the real potential of embryonic stem cell research and the need to expand the policy."
Mr. Frist, who was instrumental in persuading President Bush to open the door to the research four years ago, has been under pressure from all sides of the stem cell debate. Some of his fellow Senate Republicans, including Orrin G. Hatch of Utah and Mr. Specter, who is the lead Senate sponsor of the House bill, have been pressing him to bring up the measure for consideration.
"I know how he has wrestled with this issue and how conscientious he is in his judgment," Mr. Specter said today. "His comments will reverberate far and wide."
But with President Bush vowing to veto it - it would be his first veto - other Republicans have been pushing alternatives that could peel support away from the House bill.
Last week Mr. Castle accused the White House and Mr. Frist of "doing everything in their power to deflect votes away from" the bill. On Thursday night, Mr. Castle said he had written a letter to Mr. Frist just that morning urging him to support the measure. "His support of this makes it the dominant bill," he said.
Despite Mr. Frist's speech, a vote on the bill is not likely to occur before September because the Congress is scheduled to adjourn this weekend for the August recess.
With proponents of the various alternatives unable to agree on when and how to bring them up for consideration, Mr. Frist says he will continue to work to bring up all the bills, so that senators can have a "serious and thoughtful debate."
Human embryonic stem cells are considered by scientists to be the building blocks of a new field of regenerative medicine. The cells, extracted from human embryos, have the potential to grow into any type of tissue in the body, and advocates for patients believe they hold the potential for treatments and cures for a range of diseases, from juvenile diabetes to Alzheimer's disease.
"Embryonic stem cells uniquely hold some promise for specific cures that adult stem cells just cannot provide," Mr. Frist said.
But the cells cannot be obtained without destroying human embryos, which opponents of the research say is tantamount to murder. "An embryo is nascent human life," Mr. Frist said in his speech, adding: "This position is consistent with my faith. But, to me, it isn't just a matter of faith. It's a fact of science."
On Aug. 9, 2001, in the first prime-time speech of his presidency, Mr. Bush struck a compromise: he said the government would pay only for research on stem cell colonies, or lines, created by that date, so that the work would involve only those embryos "where the life or death decision has already been made."
The House-passed bill would expand that policy by allowing research on stem cell lines extracted from frozen embryos, left over from fertility treatments, that would otherwise be discarded. Mr. Castle has said he believes the bill meets the president's guidelines because the couples creating the embryos have made the decision to destroy them.
In his speech, Mr. Frist seemed to adopt that line of reasoning, harking back to a set of principles he articulated in July 2001, before the president made his announcement, in which he proposed restricting the number of stem cell lines without a specific cutoff date. At the time, he said the government should pay for research only on those embryos "that would otherwise be discarded" and today he similarly supported studying only those "destined, with 100 percent certainty, to be destroyed."
Moreover, he said, "Such funding should be provided only within a comprehensive system of federal oversight."
After Mr. Bush made his 2001 announcement, it was believed that as many as 78 lines would be eligible for federal money. "That has proven not to be the case," Mr. Frist said. "Today, only 22 lines are eligible."
But, Mr. Frist says the Castle bill has shortcomings. He says it "lacks a strong ethical and scientific oversight mechanism," does not prohibit financial incentives between fertility clinics and patients, and does not specify whether the patients or the clinic staff have a say over whether embryos are discarded. He also says the bill "would constrain the ability of policy makers to make adjustments in the future."
Mr. Frist also says he supports some of the alternative measures, including bills that would promote research on so-called adult stem cells and research into unproven methods of extracting stem cells without destroying human embryos.
"Cure today may be just a theory, a hope, a dream," he said in conclusion today. "But the promise is powerful enough that I believe this research deserves our increased energy and focus. Embryonic stem cell research must be supported. It's time for a modified policy - the right policy for this moment in time."
Jennifer Bayot and Shadi Rahimi contributed reporting for this article from New York.
I'll double that 'amen', and I'll raise you one!
amen
This happened while walking door to door
His true colors are coming through bright and clear. "Spread the wealth" came out of his own lips. He didn't even need an advisor for this one. Yea, he is going back to redo his economic plan which means all those who like being led by a nose ring and singing the praises of Obama's economic plan will now have to watch for a new and NOT improved plan. Same old, same old. Only the next one will be bigger taxes, more programs, more freebies and their little paychecks will be getting even smaller.
Oh. Well, they'll have to kill me before they'll censor
We'll see who'll be laughing tomorrow.
Bet it's me!
If O "fails", then you'll probably like him more cuz he'll
So when the terrorists come, you'll just say STOP or I'll say STOP again? nm
I'll be.
.
We'll see...
 Again, you might want to consider a bib for the drool...
Okay I'll say it again...
I condem sexual abuse and from AR says he/she does too, but please don't generalize the whole of conservatives because of what one guy did in Washington or Oregon. That would be like me saying that all liberals are responsible for what the extreme left is doing like burning down SUV dealerships in the name of environmental protection.
I'll tell ya
I'm 25 and in college. Right before Bush got re-elected, my Composition class was discussing the state of things (we had just read a sort of anti-war book). Anyway, I was the only one (aside from my Professor) that spoke up against the war in my class. The others were so angry with me (how dare I be unpatriotic!) that I was seriously afraid people were going to jump me or something!! The same thing happened in another class around the same time. I haven't had a class discussion about it since then, but I'd be curious to see if they all feel so passionately for the war now.
yes, i'll be around!
In an uncertain world, reason should prevail. Besides, I have an axe to grind. My chemo drug runs $6,000 per month (who can afford that). I have had to fight insurance companies like a pitbull with lipstick (kak). I have watched my entire life go down the toilet due to illness and I have worked hard my whole life, paid taxes, obeyed the law, etc., and now..........I can try to at least make an impact on something that means so much to future of our country.
And I'll bet YOU don't, right? We all have
I'll bet....
you voted for BUSH both times, too!!! Now that's good judgment. Bye-Bye Now, Bye-Bye.
well you'll just have to
keep on bein' that way, I guess.
we'll never know now, will we? sm
Obama never does anything that's not according to the script or teleprompter. That's why he looked so foolish at his press conference, with all his ers and uhs. Didn't have all his talking points memorized yet.
Who could believe that?
Yea, well, if you believe that you'll believe
Government does hope this stays as quite as possible until it already happens. Poster who spoke of Kent State knows exactly what I'm talking about. POLICE STATE!
"nonlethal weapons designed to subdue unruly or dangerous individuals without killing them". Citizens' rights are violated every day by our police with "tasers" and other "nonlethal" things but somehow they manage to kill. One guy practically bragging about how big he is and how the taser really hurt him. We already have tasers that police use and abuse. Perhaps you would like to tell me why military needs them on our streets.
If you think it is that benign, what the h@ll do they need equipment for controlling citizens for? Just like national ID sounds benign enough to those who refuse to see it for what it is. There are lots of things that seemed benign to some while your civil rights were being thrown in the toilet and then as time went by and people become complacent, BOOM, all of a sudden you find yourself screwed over and wonder how that ever happened! It was right under your nose.
Of course, it will all seem benign enough until reasons start appearing out of nowhere as to why military need to patrol our streets
"They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control"
hello....wake up!!! We have the police "force" for that. They do a fine enough job of interfering with our civil rights, what do you think the military will do.....hand you a cupcake and milk?
All you need to do is look at history in other countries to see how this seemingly harmless environment creeped into their lives and now their children grow up with military roaming the streets, monitoring "their" every move, until it seems perfectly normal to them....except for those who never accept the fact they are being controlled and those are ones who you see being trampled by their military while they try their best to protest for their freedom from government control.
Little by little by little.......
if ya'll can do about SP
x
I'll help you out here......
The Qur’an dehumanizes non-Muslims, describing them as “animals” and beasts:
Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures. (98:6)
Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve, then they would not believe. (8:55)
Verse 5:60 even says that Allah transformed Jews of the past into apes and pigs. Verse 2:65 continues the theme.
Verse 7:176 compares unbelievers to "panting dogs" with regard to their idiocy and worthlessness.
A hadith says that Muhammad believed rats to be "mutated Jews" (Bukhari 54:524, also confirmed by Sahih Muslim 7135 and 7136).
Verses 46:29-35 even say that unbelieving men are worse than demons who believe in Muhammad.
I'll second that
While Billy was president I could not stand him (I voted for him the first time but after 6 months was disappointed and by the end of the first year with him I loathed him and cringed anyone I saw him or his wife "the anointed one". However, with all that has happened over the past few weeks he is finally starting to make sense.
I just think the country has done such a dis-service to Hillary and voted in a man that came from nowhere (and has done nothing).
I am glad Billy is finally starting to wise up and speak the truth.
sorry-I'll try again
Year Total income Gifts to charity Federal taxes
2000 $240,726 $2,350 $63,732
2001 $275,123 $1,470 $86,072
2002 $260,824 $1,050 $68,958
2003 $238,327 $3,400 $51,856
2004 $207,647 $2,500 $40,426
2005 $1,670,995 $77,315 $545,614
2006 $991,296 $60,307 $277,431
Well, I'll say this.........
making such a big deal out of "Joe the plumber" was pretty juvenile on the part of McCain and Palin. IMHO good ole Joe was probably a republican plant paid to ask that question but then what do I know?
something you'll never see on tv
Love the "disco pants!" Of course, SP would do it in a heartbeat with a smile on her face. They'd have to put Michelle in a straight jacket. Can't you just picture it?
The libs just don't have a sense of humor like the rest of us!
And to add to this so ya'll can
get all your slams on me at once. LOL
I also believe that people should have the right to protect themselves in their homes. If someone breaks into my home, I should have a right to shoot them. In my opinion, they took a risk breaking into my house. I am not going to take the chance of them hurting me or my kids. So don't break into my house because I will shoot you and then I will rip my clothes and beat my head into a wall to make it look like I was attacked and was using self defense. LOL!
I'll ask again.
WHICH question did Joe Biden NOT answer, as you alleged?
I'll add another bet. S/M
IF McCain/Palin get in the White House, I will bet that in 2012 the Republicans will have about as good a chance at getting back in as Hermann Munster!!!
Okay, I'll tell ya
#1. He is black. Never mind he is only HALF black, there are plenty of people who won't vote for him because of the color or his skin but it isn't p.c. to say this so they p.c. and say they WILL vote for him. When they close the curtain on the voting booth, I think they'll have a change of heart and punch the button for the one who is "like them." Remember Palin said he wasn't "like us."
#2. There have been so many smears against him I really believe that many people who don't care enough to investigate for themselves, just believe it "like sheeple" and so they go down the garden path.
#3. I think there are a lot of people who forget that John McCain is only one of many service men and women who have served their country. He is no more or less honorable than any of them but McCain keeps railing on "I served my country and I have the scars to prove it." and then whining that "all I ever wanted to be is a Navy pilot." So at the end I think a lot of people will feel if they don't vote for him they will somehow dishonor "his" service to our country.
The reason I don't think the Republicans will stand a chance is that after 8 years of Bush/Cheney and 4 more years of McCain/Palin, people will vote for anyone but....and maybe that's a good time for an independent with REAL values and REAL promise of change to show up.
Now, if I'm wrong, boil up the crow, I'll be here to eat it. LOL
I'll say it again
As a Jew, I don't believe there is a soul until the first breath is taken.
But, regardless of what I believe, I don't expect everyone to agree with me. It is clear what you believe and that is fine with me. I would never try to change it. I expect the same courtesy, that people allow me to believe as a Jew, as I was raised and studied, and not try to force your beliefs on me. I don't believe anyone should be forced into having an abortion, but I also don't believe anyone should be kept from having one either.
Again, I'll say it
My husband is there. No, we did not buy the ticket. Yes, he joined BEFORE the war, but he joined the military. It is silly to think that you can join a military and never expect to go to a war. Of course that is where the military sent them. This is their job. They chose their field and most of them support it.
I'll help if I can but can you help me
I'm not sure which post you're referring to but I'll be happy to re-find it for you if I can. I don't always post links because I would hope that people would research everything they can and make the best decision they can possibly make to bring about whatever change they believe in. As I've said, I read a lot but I have made my decisions based totally on what I have heard from the candidate's own mouths. I have come to the conclusion that I will take a chance on Obama versus McCain and that is due ONLY to what I have heard from both of them. McCain's constant reference to his war record has completely turned me off. Not that I don't respect his service but so far as I know we are not voting on "war hero of the year."
And just for the record....every day I am still watching BOTH candidates speeches at their rallies. I could still change my mind in the way I intend to vote if I heard something from EITHER candidate's mouth that would sway me....and that being something of SUBSTANCE that would make me change my mind about which one I am willing to take a chance on. I will continue with that inquisitive mind until about 8 a.m. next Tuesday when I go to cast my vote.....so I guess you could call me one of the "undecided." Maybe the other "undecideds" feel the same as I do. I don't call myself "undecided" because I have made a decision and the other candidate has a couple of days to make me change my mind but I doubt he will because it will take more than railing against "that one" to change my mind.
I'll think about it lol
i'll have to take a vote! :-D
I'll second all the above! (sm)
We need more people like you. Thanks for sharing!
We'll have a few of those on here before it's over with..(sm)
My personal favorite in the video is the comparison of the eyebrows, noting that Osama's brows aren't as full as Obama's. So what do you think, did Osama take time out to wax or pluck is brows? 
So I'll take that as a yes then.
..
I'll believe it when I see it..............nm
v
I'll believe it when I see it......nm
v
You think it's going to get hot? Yes, I'll
agree with that, hotter than anything anyone has ever seen. But then, I've read the first chapter to the last chapter of the Revelation of Jesus Christ...many times, right along with the front page of today's newspaper headlines. Yes, it's going to get much hotter for the lost souls of this world. Of course, it will sneak up on you because you're way too busy following myths, ever being the expert on things that are worthless and will be burned up, following a usurper of the presidency and his satanically controlled minions, so you will be caught unaware of the real danger that lies just over the horizon. Instead of believing the lie of global warming, perhaps you should invest in fire insurance.
I have to agree with the English philosopher, Edward Spencer, who said, "The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools."
They'll NEVER
be accepted regardless of what they do. They can rant and rave or be as polite as they want. That behavior will never be accepted because it is perverse and vile of and in itself. They can vent. It's just a sign of frustration. ;-)
Maybe you'll like the new guy better...(sm)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/30158496#30158496
ROFL. Love this guy. 
|
