Apparently yet another rumor
Posted By: Just me on 2008-10-20
In Reply to: Someone shoots McCain/Palin's Straight Talk Bus... - sm
Update: The McCain campaign hasn't heard anything about the report of a bus being attacked. This makes the following report seem highly unlikely. Neither Raton police nor state police have received reports about such an incident.
The blog item below was posted by Mark Williams, former talk-radio host turned spokesman for Our Country Deserves Better PAC, a group committed to working against an Obama quest for the presidency. He has been on the group's Stop Obama tour, which arrived in Raton about a day after a McCain/Palin bus came through, he said. Williams said he heard the story from several residents of Raton, who said the bus had a shattered window when it arrived in town, and that it had been shattered by some kind of shot during its trip up from southern New Mexico, but he never saw the bus.
A Raton Police spokesperson, who said he's been on his phone all day long with reporters, said if the incident happened, it happened far south of Raton. Several calls to offices south, such as Chavez County Sheriff's Department and the Roswell Police, however, turned up nothing. Looks like this one is firmly in the debunked rumor pile for now, and not likely to move anytime soon.
A report from New Mexico:
We learned at this morning’s Stop Obama Rally here that the McCain/Palin Straight Talk Express came through town yesterday. It arrived with a window shattered by a .22 caliber weapon. It had also been hit by an unknown number of paint balls from a paint ball gun or guns. There were reportedly no injuries and neither candidate was on board.
Get ready for the media saturation! The wringing of hands, the concern about "incitement," the indictment of Obama and Biden for daring to criticize McCain and Palin in such a way that would drive their supporters to this.
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
Maybe the rumor was right
When I saw the news I remembered my earlier post here regarding my friend's son (who is on active duty in Iraq) predicting the next war would be in Pakistan. Interesting coincidence causing my half-awake brain to fill with paranoid "was this staged by our own govt as a new excuse for a new war" conspiracy theories, LOL. I better get some caffeine and clear out the cobwebs.
That is a rumor, and did you ever think...
what effect it is going to have on that 16-year-old when she hears that kind of thing, finds out she has been made political fodder?
rumor has it
has malodorous feet... can anyone confirm this? 
I heard a rumor
From a friend with a son in Iraq, who supposedly told her that Pakistan is the next targeted place for war. Supposedly it would be considered a "new" war and as such would give Bush a loophole to stay in command of the armed forces as "commander in chief" for an extra year....I'd never heard of this so I don't know if my friend is nuts or what. Is there such a provision that if a president starts a new war in the last year of his term he gets to hang out an extra year to supervise it?
Unfortunately he did say it - not rumor - and not funny!
This is not rumor or heresay, this is fact. People who dislike Obama so much will not want to believe it, but as unfortunate as it is, it is true. And yes, it is true that Hillary called Bill many names equal to the "c" word (and right in front of Chelsea and others as they stood on the stairs in their mansion), and on multiple occasions used the "F" word toward the secret service. These were not unsubstantiated rumors you seem to think are funny (lol), these are hard facts, and nothing worth laughing at. It is also unfortunate that in this day and age too many people let the swear words fly out of their mouth as their everyday language, and worse is when they don't respect their peers or spouses enough not to use that kind of language towards them (especially in front of other people). As for McCain admitting to it? Give me a break...of course he's not going to admit that especially in light of the election coming up. Also don't you think it's a bit odd that if it wasn't true she (Mrs. McCain) sure is not denying it and if it were untrue both he and his wife would be coming out stating these were rumors they are not true, lies put out by my competitors, blah, blah, blah. But they are not denying it, they are doing everything they can to keep that out of the news and avoiding the issue. So leads one to assume they wish it never happened.
As for people speaking in anonymity....it has come out that people will not go on the record for fear of retaliation. It's similar to this board here. People will remain anonymous because they get attacked a lot.
You have no proof that this is a rumor!
Hoping something is not true doesn't make it so! Did you see the pictures? Her daughter looked much more pregnant that Palin did!
Prove to me that it is a rumor!!!
.
Because the rumor factor has taken this to mean
nm
There is a rumor going through the press that........ sm
Rahm Emanuel turned him in. I'm not reporting this as fact because I haven't checked it out yet, but I have seen that mentioned.
This is a false rumor
Check out emails like this that you get on snopes.com. If you go to snopes website and type in AIG bailout congress pension you will get the real truth. So many emails I get are totally false I never forward anything until I check it out on snopes.
My point is, like Clinton's it is a rumor.
Why put so much stock in these rumors......because you want to believe the rumors.
I do not believe anyone is trying to start a rumor. Just something we noticed.
and hopefully it is nothing serious. but it was noticeable.
Hey, the rumor mill is back!! (sm)
Here's a question for ya. If Bush is tried for war crimes and is found guilty, does that mean that Obama has *palled around* with war criminals? He has been to Bush's house recently....LOL 
This is an unfortunate email rumor that is actually a hoax
nm
Heard the same blather from the Oreilly rumor factor
the NY Times, Rasmussen, Gallup, etc., all in response to his dive in the ratings, taking third place behind KO and RM on MSNBC and AC on CNN. "They MUST be rigged," he blustered in protest. You don't like polls? Fine. Check out the electoral map.
http://election.princeton.edu/electoral-college-map/
It's hunting season here. We have no problems getting ammo. Sounds like a silly rumor to me. NT
.
Care to post the right fringe rumor rag conspiracy theory link
I am not into solving prevarication puzzles. Further comment might be forthcoming if you spit out precisely what you are trying to say here.
apparently
he wanted Lieberman or Tom Ridge. he was informed that if he picked Lieberman, there would be a floor fight on the convention floor to prevent that selection. His campaign is stagnant, so he decided to appeal to the extreme conservative base. It has backfired on him because, in going for those voters, he chose a partner whose lifestyle shows the limitations and consequences of extreme right views such as abstinence only programs and not providing birth control info to teenagers.
apparently
that view is that the left is one big monolithic mind that works as one Kinda like bees.
And apparently they are not the only ones. nm
nm
apparently
one who posts an opinion that differs from the majority here is labeled a "troll." Labels do not deter me from expressing my viewpoint. I am certain that others will agree with my assessment before the day is over.
As far as giving liberals a bad name, pack-think is rather primitive.
Apparently more than you!
nm
Apparently...
Your reality is based on your brother and his friends and their friends and your friends at church. I have a news flash for you. There is a whole country outside of your little town with a much different reality that you know nothing about. So please keep your small-town reality to yourself and stop trying to tell us that we should all join you.
Apparently not who you think I am........ sm
since you seem to think I said you were no better than the rapist. I don't know where the heck you got that, lady, but I never said anything even CLOSE to that.
I did say "a rapist can only have as much control on the victim AFTER THE FACT as she allows." After the fact means after the rape. It does not mean that any woman asks to be raped or that she is on the same level as her rapist. It means that, if a woman allows herself to ruminate on the act for months or years afterward, the rapist still has control over her.
You asked if I feel you should have given birth, too, and my answer to that would have to be yes. I feel that you should have allowed your child to have life, and then if you decided you couldn't raise it (and I would totally agree with that since you were just a child yourself) I believe you should have allowed it to be adopted.
I'm really sorry for your pain as I would not wish that on anyone, and yes, I would go hunting if I had a daughter who was raped. I obviously struck a deep, long buried nerve with you, and I'm sorry for that.
Apparently they don't
However, I think they're dead wrong. There are a lot of voters on both sides (Dem and Repub) who see a major problem with one party having too much power and will vote accordingly to even things up.
You are an ignoramus...apparently you don't know of
anyone who was Viet Nam. There were plenty of problems caused by the war itself....not just what you "read," but then again, I doubt you understand the written word!
Apparently she was covert tho
or none of this would be happening AND the only reason everybody and their 3rd cousin knew where she worked is because someone leaked it. It may be much ado about nothing, but if thats true why take two years to investigate it? From everything I read, Fitzgerald is not a partisian hack for either side, but a real honest to goodness good guy who loves to take down bad guys, politicians or mafia or whoever he is after. I realize that last sentence was a bit simplistic, but you get the general idea. And if indictments do come out of this and they are of anyone in the White House, it is going to be a very very big deal. And in the periphery of all of this, is the lead in to possible mismangement of intelligence in order to lead us into war. THAT is why all the pundits are salivating and why Fox News and Rush L are gettin so upset. It may end up to be a tempest in a teapot or it may bring down the Bush Administration. Only time will tell. Either way there will be a lot of upset people out there, whichever way it turns out.
Apparently you did not look far enough for the quote...
This is from the Washington Post, transcript of the conversation:
Vice President Cheney: Dec. 9, 2001 -- Meet the Press
RUSSERT: Let me turn to Iraq. When you were last on this program, September 16, five days after the attack on our country, I asked you whether there was any evidence that Iraq was involved in the attack and you said no. Since that time, a couple articles have appeared which I want to get you to react to. The first: "The Czech interior minister said today that an Iraqi intelligence officer met with Mohammed Atta, one of the ringleaders of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the United States, just five months before the synchronized hijackings and mass killings were carried out."
And this from James Woolsey, former CIA director: "We know that at Salman Pak, on the southern edge of Baghdad, five different eyewitnesses--three Iraqi defectors and two American U.N. Inspectors--have said--and now there are aerial photographs to show it--a Boeing 707 that was used for training of hijackers, including non-Iraqi hijackers trained very secretly to take over airplanes with knives." And we have photographs. As you can see that little white speck--and there it is, the plane on the ground in Iraq used to train non-Iraqi hijackers. Do you still believe there's no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?
There ya go. Meet the Press only has transcripts on line back to 2003. I checked. If you look hard enough, there are other publications who published the actual transcript. Russert said it.
As to the fuselage in the desert: Charles Deulfer, former Deputy Head, U.N. Special Commission for Iraq, told NPR, "There were lots of places in Iraq where training of non-Iraqis, or things, which by our lexicon would be considered terrorism, was taking place. That's why Iraq is on the terrorist list. Having a large aircraft, a 707, in a peninsula, completely visible from the air or from satellite, with no airline runways nearby, that's not there by accident."
As to the smartalecky crack who was in the "meeting"...I posted that I heard him say it during the 9-11 commission meeting hearings and I DID. They were televised and there were certainly more than 3 people present. They asked him about the "slam dunk" comment regarding the intelligence and WMD, and he replied: "I thought it WAS a slam dunk. We ALL did." I don't know what meeting you are talking about with only three present. I am talking about what he testified to before the 9-11 commission in their hearings, which I did hear. And, frankly, I think out of the man's own mouth is a pretty reliable source.
Yes, I agree it is hard to get the real story, especially since the story tellers change their stories like other people change their underwear. Tim Russert is just one of them. Richard Armitage is another. So which time do we believe them? Which time is really the truth? No way to know.
I said the source of the reporting does not matter if the information can be substantiated. I don't discount everything I hear on a liberal station if I can substantiate it. A very simple example: If Fox News printed the sun was shining, and you looked out and the sun was shining...you could pretty well believe it, even if Fox is the one who printed it. That was my point...if it is a fact, who prints it does not matter. Who declines to print or report it though...that also indicates something.
Have a good evening, Taiga!
Apparently the truth over yours as well...
but with your head buried in the sand, no wonder.
Apparently, so does more than 1/2 the country.
nm
Some people are against it, apparently....
there are those on this board who are against it.
And, respectfully, I beg to differ. The "guilty" will never be held accountable. Pelosi has already said the democrats accept no responsibility for this situation. I rest my case. She knows better, Frank knows better, and they get right up there on TV and lie through their teeth. Both of them morally bankrupt if you ask me. And I would be saying the same thing if they were Republicans and the same evidence existed pointing to them. This is not partisan. This is about integrity, about serving the people who elected you. In my opinion, she and Barney Frank, Chris Dodd...have absolutely none. Zip, zero, nada.
Apparently your friends must be among the better off...
Q: What are the current concerns among healthcare workers in the country?
A: The Canadian Healthcare Association, and other concerned bodies, such as the Canadian Nurses Association, have put forward a Common Vision for the Canadian Health System document. It argues that four key areas need improvement in the country's healthcare system: patient waiting times; overall healthcare funding; shortages in personnel and improvement of medical technology; and the expansion of the healthcare system to include home, pharmaceutical, and long-term care.
Moreover, Canadian nurses have expressed particular dissatisfactions with the healthcare system in recent years. In 2002, the Canadian Nursing Advisory Committee delivered a report which recommended increasing the number of nurses, improvements in education, and maximizing the scope of practice of nurses.
The lure of more lucrative salaries has also led to a "brain drain" of professionals to the United States in recent years. Although overall emigration has been relatively small, healthcare professionals constitute a significant proportion of the public sector workers who have chosen to leave Canada for employment in the United States.
Q: What are the current concerns among patients?
A: Waiting times to see specialists and for diagnostic tests have become a point of issue for Canadians. According to a study by the Fraser Institute, a conservative think tank, such waiting times have increased from 13.1 weeks in 1999, to 17.7 weeks in 2003, to 17.9 in 2004. Long waits to undergo elective surgery have also become an issue in recent years, as have crowded emergency rooms in the country's largest cities.
One response to these concerns on the part of patients has been to seek treatment in the United States or overseas. While "medical tourism" is derided by some in Canada as queue-jumping, others see it as a legitimate means of dealing with the healthcare system's shortcomings. The province of Alberta currently reimburses patients who have sought medically necessary physician, oral surgery, and hospital services not immediately available in Canada.
The frequency of adverse events, or errors in treatment that might harm the patient or the outcome of their treatment while hospitalized, has also raised concerns in regards to the country's healthcare system, both among healthcare workers and patients.
Q: What are the current challenges in providing healthcare?
A: In 2004, the federal government and the provinces struck a C$41-billion (US$34.2-billion), 10-year agreement to improve Canada's healthcare system.
At the center of this agreement is an attempt to reduce waiting times. A Wait Times Reduction Fund has been instituted to help the provinces accomplish this. The fund allows the provinces to increase the hiring of healthcare professionals, clear backlogs, increase capacity, and expand ambulatory and community care programs. The provinces have themselves agreed to set targets for acceptable wait times, and have also agreed to cooperate in establishing a common set of criteria to measure wait times across the country.
Tell me, when the long waits to see a specialist, elective surgeries, etc., happen here...where will the canadians go? Where will WE go?
Just asking.
Yes! Of course they should have done that all along - apparently now they can't afford it ...lol
x
Apparently, you are not as clever as you think you are! (nm)
:p
apparently I can't use the little icons so......
;o)
"gay" as such apparently has been around
since bibilical days, since the Bible mentions in layman's terms that men should not sleep with men, also remember Sodom and Gomorrah???
Well, since you are apparently my poodle.. sm
Do you want pink bows or red ones? HAHAHAHA
And apparently humorless ones
x
But apparently, we care very much
about every aspect of their lives. Go through the grocery line and scan the magazines and tabloids. We apparently MUST know the latest about Brad and Angie, if they are going to purchase their next child or breed another one. And since Madonna's latest bid for a kid was rejected, what will she do? I mean, I think she was looking to complete the set and now she's been thwarted. And is Brad calling Jen late at night to cry on her shoulder, and will they maybe get back together if Jen breaks up with what's-his-name? This stuff is on the covers. Lord knows what's in the story! Don't get me started on Jess or Brit. Brad, Jen, Angie, Jess, Brit, Sean. I love that first names only are used, often shortened names, to make these folks seem like your best buds.
So it follows that a certain sort of person will lap up the celebs' opinions on political issues. Actors talk real good (it's, like, their JOB) and obviously these actors are rich and successful and so must know lots of stuff the masses don't. The actors start believing their own press, and so think that their opinions actually have value.
Reminds me of the parental warning about show-offs: Don't look. It'll only encourage him.
Apparently you do define yourself that way.
By your own description, sex is determined by gender. Therefore, by your definition, describing yourself as female describes your sex life. So quit talking about your sex life with us. We don't want to hear it, and, if your postings are any indication, it's either really really boring or, more likely, probably kinkier than I could stomach.
I was referring to the fact that you apparently
think your opinion is the only one and you know all.
I'm on the board I belong to and I rarely post but you just seem like a board bully.
Apparently, from the posts above, I'm not the only one feeling that way.
Apparently food is not the only thing she
She has no class whatsoever...maybe she is the love child of Pat Robertson and some cheap hooker?
Check this out: http://www.bettybowers.com/coulter.html#Anchor-Thi-12323
A little over the top but funny.
Apparently you have not been wartching the dates...
or the snippets of the Democratic candidates...lol. They curl up their lips like Elvis when they have to say the word "Republican." It's all politics. It is a political season. They say "The Republicans" the same way you would say "the pillaging raping dregs of society." LOL. Funny how you don't see that or hear that from them? Some of the Republicans do it too, of course they do. It is politics. They will say that on camera and then hug each other and laugh off camera. All politics. I don't believe a word ANY Of them say, and laugh at the jokes on both sides. It is so juvenile and ridiculous, and we all just yuck it up like the future of the country was not at stake..and it is. I would like ONE reasoning adult in the race. On either side. Just one. Tell me what is good about YOU. Not what is BAD about the other guy. Don't keep saying "hope" and "change." Tell me what you are going to do, and how you are going to pay for it without hitting my paycheck harder than you alreaedy are. Don't dangle issues in front of people with promises of the "big fix" like universal health care. Tell me how it is going to work...tell me how we are NOT going to be like Canada or France or England...and tell me how you are going to do it without taxing me into poverty (that is how the middle class is disappearing!!). Tell me THAT without lying through your teeth.
Tell me what your agenda REALLY is.
THAT is what I would like. From EITHER side.
apparently i totally agree
but it threw me off cause the first sentence in the reply to me said "so it is your business right"? SO yea i was a bit confused :)
Apparently you turn a blind eye
nm
Apparently abstinence and no sex-ed are not working.
More failed policies?
Apparently this post went right above your head!
Either you are just plain ignorant or you have been drinking a little too much Sam Kool-Aid these days if you interpret the above post as proving Sam's point.
Get on the net and search. Apparently there are a lot of schools...
who ban such things.
Apparently NOT. Your claim. Your citation.
no credibility. Got it? Just wondering what other verifiable examples you can come up with to support you claim of "Christian discrimination."
Well apparently he has some on this board fooled. nm
xx
Apparently that is happening in a lot of places...sm
I posted below about a change in polling places in a city here in Texas.
There was a person at the polls today that was not on the list as a registered voter. I happened to overhear part of the conversation from where I stood but did not hear the solution to the voter's problem.
|
