Another excuse of a lie - but it wasn't even a good attempt at one
Posted By: me on 2008-08-30
In Reply to: your back - weepaws
No politician's child has ever been "hauled around and raised by a succession of nannies". You've been watching too many movies. Maybe in the past (like the 1800s) a child has had a nanny with them but not a succession of them. Had to laugh at that one.
Next, her family is with her. Sorry guess you don't consider her husband (the father of this child) to be somebody important enough to be with them.
This is not political ambition for her. She wasn't out there going at it day after day after day like Barack, Hillary, Biden & McCain. Her name was one of many that they were looking at. It was a job interview just like other jobs (just a bit more prestigious). I guess then if you go apply for a job you better think about it if you have kids before you put your ambitions before them.
Lastly and most importantly by doing this she IS putting the needs of her child first. As VP she will be able to make the decisions and vote on the issues that will make the country a better place for her children (all of them - not just her special needs child). That to me is putting her children way before herself.
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 hope she has a good excuse...
nm
Good to know I wasn't asleep
Well I went to girl scout camp when I was younger but I know it didn't cost my parents $10,000. HA HA HA.
Is an interesting election that's for sure.
I love a good laugh...but this just wasn't funny!
Maybe you better go back to the conservative wacko drawing board!
McCain wasn't desperate and wasn't behind in the polls
In fact, they have been neck and and neck, and McCain has been gaining in the polls while Obama has been slipping. McCain could have taken the easy way and kept the stable course and picked safer, sure. Instead, he picked a maverick leader like himself, who isn't afraid to get in there and make changes even if it goes against their own party. I believe he wanted to say that the Republicans are the party for change, and wanted to make a bold statement. I've seen statements at "other sites" as well where people are absolutely joyous at this pick.
desperate attempt
to snag the unhappy Hilliary supporters. They predicted this last night -- if McCain felt desperate after watching the Dem convention, he would pick a wild card candidate. If he felt safe, he would go with Romney. Tthanks for showing your cards, Mac. Hill's people are progressive, they won't vote for a ticket that is against women's rights just because one is a woman.
My guess is that this is an attempt....(sm)
to actually help the country. It's called putting pressure on the current president who is just happily sitting on his behind and doing nothing to stop or slow down this economic masacre we have going on right now. I can't wait to see the total job loss by the end of the week.
It becomes my business when they attempt to
Laws affect everyone. They don't want "rights"...they have rights. They just want to change laws to somehow prove they are legitimate, as if the fact they are human doesn't make them a legitimate human being already? I have every right to make it my business when they want to change the laws to suit their lifestyle.
I read all this and will attempt to verify...
but somehow the "She has hated me since 1996" comment makes me a little doubtful....if you wanted to be taken seriously, why would you include that? It makes it sound like payback.
At any rate, I have read, and will be looking into the accusations. Thanks for posting!
To clarify your misguided attempt
I am not a republican, I do not care for Hannity, and I don't particularly care for McCain either. As far as Obama, I know a skunk when I smell one.....
Sorry to pop your bubble.
Fox makes an attempt to be balance
but that's just one network vs. the many left-leaning rest of the major media.
How is that balanced? NEWS should be FAIR and BALANCED, not a thrill up your leg. Now THAT's disgusting.
FOX makes no attempt to be balanced, they just SAY that
It's so obvious, my goodness.
You're right. I wouldn't attempt to reason this through with anyone...nm
x
First, this is not an attempt to attack or belittle Obama...
but he said before he went that it was not a "political" trip, because that would be "inappropriate." Yet his campaign people put political posters up at the Western Wall in Jerusalem. Of course it was political. Can't we just be honest about things? On both sides.
And to be fair...the American media as a whole wouldn't cover McCain right now unless he keeled over and died...and THAT is sad. I am not a big McCain fan, but the bias is astounding.
And as far as the dairy aisle in a grocery store...at least he is talking to Americans. They ARE, after all, running for Presiden of the United States...not President of Europe. Just an observation.
Last but not least...it is concerning to me that Obama was going to visit Landstuhl and wounded troops...and at last minute canceled because it would be "inappropriate." I don't get that, to be honest. It is appropriate to talk to the German people in a political speech, but not to visit wounded American troops...when is it ever inappropriate to visit wounded American troops? I honestly don't get that one.
Obviously I am not an Obama fan either. Going to be one of those lesser of two evils years for me. :-)
What you are seeing below is a weak attempt at damage control 101...
That announcement sucked all the air out of the big speech, everyone is talking about Sarah Palin, not Barack Obama. And the best they can do is take potshots at Alaska and that she was in a beauty pageant...and oh I thought the rampaging moose thing was REALLLYYYYY funneeeee. Obama is not the only one front and center that people are excited about...and if these folks think the PUMA folks are going to fall into line because the DNC tells them to....they have another think coming. Just my opinion of course....
your attempt at a funny retort is in fact
nm
No, I didnt misstype....attempt at irony. lol. nm
nm
You can google his taxation attempt in March
I see what is really going on here. For weeks I heard Obama won't tax us, he's gonna save the middle class, yaddda, yadda, yadda, and you call all facts lies. Now, I'm so sorry you think the actual bill on capital hill which he helped propose is a lie, which means you think he is a lie, but his vote is there.
Get off your lame brain duff and googgle it, if you dare!
In your response, what I see if someone who truly does not care about this country at all but chooses to believe you are going to get a bigger free ride. If you think his taxation attempt on YOU, the poor middle class or whatever, is going to get a tax cut, I dare you to look it up for yourself. I know you won't....you don't want to see the truth about this man.
Your pathetic attempt to try to cover up the fact...(sm)
that there is no basis for the comment above (that being that Obama is taking rights away) by trying to distract the conversation by attacking me personally does nothing but show the absolute absurdity of the republican party's talking points.
Lots of hidden references in that little attempt....sm
at comedy, at which he miserably failed. How wonderful does he think he is? And arrogant: I think they need to put a new page in the dictionary with his picture on it for arrogance! If he would get trying to get attention for himself and concentrate more on those JOBS HE PROMISED, I'm sure the country will be more appreciative and sure as heck a lot better off!
I don't see how a conservative, prolifer could attempt to defend his statements...nm
x
Another lame attempt to try to not get people to read the article
Your computer got a virus, yeah right!!!!
You don't like that I'm not drooling all over the O like you are then fine, but to come out and say that articles that are not praising your god gives your computer a virus is a bunch horse hockey.
Sheesh, I would have expected a better excuse than that.
P.S. - Am anxious to hear the supreme courts ruling. They are meeting on the 5th. Although I know that all the O worshippers will try and cut it down for some insane reason. The SC's ruling will determine it. Let's just wait and see.
Despite your attempt at spin - Afghan and Iraq are 2 different wars.....nm
x
Cheney? All whatt he is saying now is just a lame attempt to justify all the
evil he did during this 8 years.
At least Bush keeps silent. I think Cheney was worse than Bush.
I bet Cheney has nightmares.
No wonder that he is so concerned with the security of this country, he is afraid somebody might 'get' him.
time for the lefties to pile on and yuk it with your poor attempt at humor.nm
I just don't have the energy to fight anymore, I guess. This was lame attempt!
I need to work anyway. 
Excuse me.....
How can it be easy enough to prove with ISP numbers if the ISP numbers are not available? Yes, I may be blowing this out of proportion but you seem to be contradicting yourself and your posts, as well as some others did raise the specter (sp?) of this being a nonsecure website.
I do know such outings' with a lot more info that just ISP numbers have occurred on other political forums, i.e., proteswarrior.com (although I am bracing myself right now for the retaliation this mention will bring from right-wingers).
Golly, I kind of feel like this forum is in the midst of being hijacked by the conservative in-your-face folks somewhat.
Excuse me, but I'm AO.
You are careless. Even a small brain like mine can see there are major differences in gt and ao's writing styles. Check it out. Besides, we don't even live in the same part of the country. I'm sure the administrator can verify that for you if it makes an important difference in your life.
Also, AO is not Another Observer, in case that was your next accusation. See, there's more than one of us out here.
Excuse me but it should have said *did not*
Geesh, I forgot that this forum doesn't like apostrophes. Do you ever make a mistake? I don't make fun of people's typos, but evidently because you can't stick to the subject or respond directly to my post without calling names it's just a rabbit trail to discredit me. You know, whatever, you've proven that you're not worth my time.
See ya...
Excuse me, but it's a law. sm
She was asked to comply by the police and she IGNORED THEM. She is not above the law. None of us are. Everyone should be concerned about this behavior. Bush had nothing to do with it! My gosh, the things you say.
Excuse me.
If you don't want my opinions then don't read them. It's that simple.
Sorry I dared to enter your high and mighty world. I'll leave you to your hate.
Excuse me, but yes you did. sm
I usually don't post here, but here is what you said below. You have posted on our board, so I am posting here. By the way, your temper tantrums and attacks are not doing anyone any favors. Not an attack but an observation. Here is what you said below.
*The neocons, of course, can't have this, so they send our threads to people like you to crash the liberal board, utilizing their very own name calling and intimidation tactics. They never gave a hoot about Israel in the past, but suddenly they see Israel as their new best friend. They're winking at God and saying, See? We're on Israel's side now and won't be one of the groups against Israel, so bring on the Rapture. We've secured our place with God. The Rapture Index has indicated it's fasten your seatbelt time and they can't wait.*
As far as for the rest of what you have said, most of us have always been on Israel's side. You are showing how really and truly uninformed you are by statements like this.
Excuse me.....
the first settlers were not slave owners and came here for religious freedom. The founding fathers were deeply seated in Christianity. The country WAS founded on those principles. However, others came who did not ascribe to those principles, just as there are those who do not ascribe to those principles now. May I also remind you that slavery was introduced here by Dutch traders who bought slaves in Africa and brought them to America...much later. And who sold those slaves to Dutch traders? I believe it was other Africans, who enslaved and sold their own people. The original colonists at first got along with the Indians. It was much later, in the plains, where the near annihilation as you call it occurred. All during that time were present the Christian missionaries who tried to intervene, were often killed for it, by whites and Indians alike. I am Choctaw, I am descended from the indigenous peoples. Indians also killed and enslaved one another. It is not an *American* invention. And...who said I was painting anything as *rosy?* My point was, and still is, and is borne out daily, that the further you travel from Christian principles the more acceptable killing, slavery, and all other ill of the world becomes. Turning the blind eye so to speak. And it is generalizations like you state above, that the entire country is responsible for what a few did...it is that kind of mindset, like the other poster who thinks *Republicans* need to be destroyed. That kind of generalization is dangerous. Blaming an entire country, an entire group of people, for what a few do is not realistic. Not everyone in the country condoned everything. All through history you will see Christians spoke out against slavery, spoke out against what was happening with the Indians, spoke out against segregation, spoke out against abortion, and on and on and on. Perhap I should stop saying *this country* and say *the people in it.* *This country* was founded on Christian principles, and for a long time for the most part most of the people in it followed those principles. As time went on, fewer did. And somehow, the tide has completely turned and Christians are the enemy. But, I do stand corrected. America, the concept of America, has not chnaged. But the people in it most certainly have.
Excuse me again...
See my responses below.
You said: You need to read up on your history of this country.
I say: Right back at you. And you need to look deeply into books published 100 years ago as well as ones published in this century so you get the whole picture.
You said: Why does it matter what the origins of slavery were? The fact is, most of the founding fathers either owned slaves or families' had owned slaves. Washington owned hundreds of slaves, although he freed them as part of his will upon his death.
I say: I never said the founding fathers did not hold slaves. Re-read my post. I said that the original colonists did not hold slaves, and they did not. Jamestown was settled in 1607...slaves were introduced to this country around 1640, several years later. That is the truth and that is what I said. What matters about the origins of slavery is you want to condemn this country for holding slaves. I don't see you railing against Africa for starting the slave trade...if no slaves to sell, none would be bought. If you are going to rail against something, rail at the source. That is like blaming the school child for taking the drugs the dealer sold him.
You said: What do you mean, slavery came much later. Later than what?
I say: See my answer above.
You said: This country still condoned slavery for 100 years.
I say: Please do not say *this country condoned* because this country as a whole did NOT *condone.* Huge numbers of people did not own slaves. You know that. Only the more well to do folks could afford it. And through the years several thousand people did speak out about it and did what they could, and in case it escaped your attention, we finally fought a civil war in which one of the principles was to abolish slavery.
You sid:
As far as the founding fathers and our rights we protect here's some info:
It's important to differentiate the Constitution that the Founding Fathers cooked up from the Bill of Rights. Today when we think of the protections of the American system, we usually think of the shining example of ethics and goodness contained in the Bill of Rights. These are the first ten amendments to the Constitution. They are primarily the work of George Mason (1725-1792). He would have been a Founding Father because he was a delegate to the convention from Virginia, but he refused to sign the Constitution. He realized that it failed to protect individual liberties and failed to oppose slavery.
I say:
Excuse me, yet again, but isn't this the same George Mason who himself held slaves? Yes, he did. What he did was speak out about the slave trade, but he did not give up the slaves he already had. Don't know if he released them upon his death or not, like Washington did. He was holding slaves at the time he was criticizing the practice. Pardon me if I do not see that as the height of hypocrisy. And you are wrong,because the Constitution did not address slavery is NOT one of the reasons he did not sign it. You are correct that he did not sign it because he did not feel it addressed individual freedoms; but, in fact, he spoke OUT against including mention of slavery in the Constitution (probably because he owned slaves himself). Get your facts straight.
I can find no mention at all of the founding fathers lobbying against the Bill of Rights. Please supply me with the historical references.
You said: Mr. Mason lobbied against adoption of the Constitution just as many of the Founding Fathers lobbied against the Bill of Rights. Most of the Founding Fathers disapproved of giving ordinary citizens such liberties as freedom of religion, freedom from unreasonable search and torture, the right of free speech and so forth. In fact, when John Adams (1735-1826) was president (1797-1801), he took away freedom of speech.
I say: Well, what John Adams did then is no different than what the Democrats are trying to do now in shutting down talk radio. Same song, second verse. Get after them with equal zeal, I challenge you.
You said:
The Bill of Rights is really the people's voice against the Founding Fathers; liberty against conformity.
I say:
You are very liberal with your interpretation.
_________
You said:
As far as the Native American disgrace/slaughter, all I can say is you have an interesting viewpoint that is not shared by many indigenous. Bhoo-zhoo.
I say:
It is shared by many more than you are aware. But remember my friend...we are still entitled to our opinion, whether or not it agrees with yours. Question for you: if you still hold such emnity today, hundreds of years later, what could be done about it? You cannot turn back time. Most tribes are doing very well, have their own lands, pay no federal taxes on those lands, and are among some of the more well-to-do among us. If the Nation does not share that wealth properly with the tribe, then the people should take it up with the Nation, which many of us are doing. Native Americans did not just suffer at the hands of white men. They have also suffered a great deal at the hands of their own, and that has nothing to do with this country and everything to do with human beings. There are the good and bad among us, always have been, always will be...in every culture, every population, until the end of time. And dwelling in the past does nothing to help. Learn from the past, yes; but do not dwell there.
And try to get your information from several sources. Study for yourself, research for yourself. I learned long ago that is necessary.
Excuse me....
Thou shalt not kill - there is a federal law against murder. Thou shalt not steal - there is a federal law against stealing...you will have to do better than separation of church and state. That being said, the words "separation of church and state" are not in the Constitution. It says that there shall be no state-sponsored religion. To my knowledge there is no religion called United States of America. Did that happen while I wasn't looking? Funny to me that the government can pull many laws right out of the Bible, but come to one that that doesn't suit the more liberal ones among us and they start yelling separation of church and state. Go figure.
That being said, most of the laws on the books today have "religious wacko" origins. This country was founded by "religious wackos," or was that missed in history class? Oh yes, I forgot...the more liberal among us stopped teaching that inconvenient truth. However, one can still do searches and read the original writings of the founding fathers...if one is really interested in the truth.
What would folks like in place of "religious wacko" laws? Just let everyone do whatever they want...kill you if you are annoying or a burden to them? Kill you if you are no longer wanted? Steal from you if you have something they want and can't afford to buy for themselves? America was basically a ""Christian theocracy in its infancy, meaning the basic laws all came straight from the Bible. It was also a democracy...the two are not mutually exclusive. And there it goes again, lumping Christians and any other religious group into one group of "religious wackos." Extremely divisive and unnecessary. And, it looks to me like it is not the "religious wackos" on this site who are going bananas when someone doesn't agree with them....
Excuse me?
Excuse me but I do not believe
I bashed SAHMs. I think it should be a personal decision and one should not be looked down upon if they choose to work or choose to stay home. You have no right to bash her any more than she has right to bash you for staying home. I work out of my home because my husband and I need this extra income I bring in. My sister-in-law stays home with her kids and my brother works his @ss off trying to support them and he hardly ever gets to see his kids because he is supporting his family. He wants to spend more time with them but he cannot. So why is it fair for him to never see his kids to support his family working 2 jobs? My mom stayed at home and I hardly ever saw my dad because he was working to support us. Don't you think that sucked with me never seeing my dad or was that okay because my mom was there. If my sister-in-law would get a job, my brother wouldn't have to work 2 jobs and he could see his kids more. If my mom would have worked, my dad wouldn't have had to work that OT and I would have seen him more.
It is great that you can stay at home if that is what you choose to do, but don't bash others for their choice. It isn't like SP is up and walking out of the door to never see her kids again and they do have Todd Palin, their dad, to be with them.
Excuse me, but I think that
"Divine and perfect order" originates in God and only God.
Excuse you. lol. nm
nm
Any excuse at all
Black Republican Activist Bob Parks predicts riots will ensue if Obama wins or loses the election.
Parks, a syndicated writer, talk show host, and Republican activist, lists his reasons in the video, Obama’s America: Win or Lose, as to why he believes an Obama loss would mean “things could get ugly on a grand scale” or that an Obama win would give ‘”punks” the “greatest of reasons” to take to the streets:
“Now what occasionally happens when a city’s team wins a championship? We have riots! There’s looting, hooliganism, vandalism, drunk and disorderliness, assaults, and sometimes injury or death, and this wouldn’t be about one single city. Can you imagine the potential for nationwide rioting by punks, looking an excuse and now having the greatest of reasons to do so?”
Excuse me? I was not the one
who posted that other post about being jealous. So please do not attack me when you don't know what I have or have not posted.
Well, excuse me! I am too new to this
board to be familiar with all the vernacular. I was just responding to a remark made by a poster earlier who spewed out a hateful personal attack on another poster, and someone asked the Moderator to ban that person from the board!
Excuse me....put yourself out there??
Because you ask a simple question that merits a background check and having your life made public? He is not RUNNING for ANYthing!! Do you hear yourself? The more posts I see like this the more I understand the way most socialist countries end up going....freaking amazing.
Excuse you, but...
he has already said that yes, he does fall into the over 250,000 bracket, and while noone likes to pay taxes, he would be paying taxes imposed on that bracket.
Excuse me?
Who gives a rip about medical records. I want proof this guy was born in the USA. I want proof before he can be elected president. Who cares about Palin's health. McCain may have skin cancer, but it is not as bad as lung cancer. Did you know Obama smokes? Shoot he could pass away from lung cancer before McCain's skin cancer. Honestly, cannot compare medical records to birth certificate.
That's the best excuse you have for the
nm
Please excuse me....(sm)
I saw scripture quoted and many references to God on here, so I assumed this must be the faith board. Funny how you didn't have a problem with that.
Excuse me?
Of course, we have the enigma of being home to some of the biggest crooks in the world (Bush, Cheney, Delay, Perry, etc.) but this is a beautiful state. Do not associate this beautiful state with the ugly criminals.
Excuse me, but I think YOU are the one with the
Whenver someone posts something you don't agree with you are quick to jump on and insult them. You have a very nasty attitude and if you don't believe me, go down the board and read some of YOUR comments. You are the one who invites attacks by your nasty attitude and name calling.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...
Excuse me.
Most of us have 401Ks and are anything but "gleeful" that 50% of the value has been wiped out. Pointing out that Obama and his Treasury chief had a significant role in the enormous drop in the market since inauguration day has nothing to do with "glee". It's just simple fact.
And even the Dems wondered when Geithner was going to get off his bony a$$ and show us the "boy wonder" that he was said to be - and isn't. Meanwhile, the markets continued to tumble. There's no disputing any of this.
And the markets have a very, VERY long way to go before any of us get back what we've lost, so I would kindly suggest that you save any and ALL market-related comments for that moment. You should know, thought, that it might be a very long time coming.
It took decades for the market to recover what it lost in the Depression. Meanwhile, of course, there were "up days" and "down days" and "up months" and "down months"...and if you had been living then, it would have been extremely foolish for you to make anything at all out of the little rallies that occurred. Don't make the same mistake here or you'll only make yourself look foolish.
Excuse me again. A little boy wants a
boyfriend and that makes him gay? Little boys have need of friends, maybe not so much as little girls, but they do have need of male friends. Where was the little boy's father at that age?
excuse me but....
This midwesterner wants to know, did you just lump people who do vote Republican and those who read the Bible with people who are illiterate, who do not get past 6th grade and do marry at age 16???
|
