Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

As we can see, there is no reliable source. Twisted, misleading passages out of context

Posted By: don't win elections. on 2008-10-28
In Reply to: reliable source for this please. nm - don't belive it

rasberries


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

Repeat - Factcheck is not a reliable source, Repeat - no reliable
You keep citing Factcheck and we keep having to tell you Factcheck is not reliable. Why is it not reliable? Because it is funded by the Annenberg Foundation in which Obama is part of. AND because Obama was Chairman of the Board. It really is like talking to a wall. So let me repeat and read this nice and slow. Factcheck...not a reliable source. Cheese-o-Pete...you might as well just say you asked Michelle Obama and she said it's real. Additionally....the b/c they put up there was found to be a forgery. So...once again...factcheck not reliable...b/c submitted was a forgery.

So are you a fortune teller? You don't know if he will be elected or disqualified and neither do I. If the SC comes back and says he is legite I will drop the subject. If they find anything out of the ordinary then I will most likely say I told you so. If they say he's not legite but we'll change the constitution just for him, then I will be madder than a hornet and you'll hear from me. But all in all I will be satisfied with what the SC says. We won't know what their decision is until they make it.

If it comes back that he is ineligible and he lied, he better do some explaining to this country about why and he better calm his worshippers down. I think overall the country will be okay. For as many supporters that he has there are an equal number of people who don't support him and view him to be ineligibile. There are even people who support him, but are saying...wait a minute here, things are not adding up. Just show us the certificate and be done with it. In fact more so now since all this info came out and many people upset about it that they didn't know ahead of time.

As for what I think will happen. I really don't know. I do believe that quite possibly Hillary will step in and become President because she is the one that he wronged by campaigning when he knew he did not meet qualifications. So I believe probably she will become the next President and Biden will remain VP, or Biden will step in as President and she becomes VP.

I highly doubt the SC will just elect McCain because the republican party did not win and now that we have a congress/senate that's all democrat (or mostly democrat) they would prevent that somehow.

As for McCain? Heck no I didn't want him in there. I wanted one of the following - Chuck Baldwin from the constitutional party (but he had no chance whatsoever). I was also interested in Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich. I really like Dennis Kucinich. I agreed with a lot of his ideas (especially impeachment of Bush) and I have agreed with a lot of what he has voted on in the past.

So maybe what I would really like to see happen is if the O is disqualified to have another "mini" campaign. All the candidates can run again and then the public decides after one or two months of campaigning. So, instead of having a President inaugerated in January they could be inaugerated in February or March. It would be different, but nothing like this has ever happened before.

I'll just say this on the whole b/c issues and this is why I say this and I hope you can understand where I'm coming from.

1. Let me first say I voted for Obama in the primaries. So in no way do I hate him or a racist or whatever else people want to throw out. I voted for him because he has some ideas I thought were good (thought is the key word).
2. After he was elected I read about the stolen election from Hillary (even though I was way so not supportive of her). I started learning about his lies to the people. His dealings with Ayers, ACORN, Wright, Farrakhan etc, etc.
3. He funds different groups who create websites to detract from the issues.
4. The media treated him like a prince while trashing McCain/Palin. I was no fan of theirs by all means but what happened to them was uncalled for.
5. The b/c he put up on the "factcheck" site was found to be a forgery.
6. We find out he's born in Kenya and legally goes and has the records sealed, along with his school records. He is hiding something and that is not very reassuring for over half the country here.
7. His grandmother was in the room when he was born along with his sister and brother.
8. His sister mentions multiple hospitals he was born at, while Obama mentions something totally different.

Those are only a few of the issues that are my concerns about his legitimacy.

On the other hand you have the issues/policies of his that I don't agree with and am finding out more and more how unsafe our country is going to be.

The incident in India has the you know what scared out of me and the thought of that happening here in our country is a real issue for me.

I was in the US Army. I spent 8 years in the service defending the country. It just makes me a bit upset to hear that people don't care if the Constition is not upheld, just so Obama gets in no matter what. All I want is the Constituion protected. That's all I'm asking for. Our founding fathers created it for a reason and we need to abide by it and not change it. I saw where Barney Franks tried to change it so that a foreign born could become president as long as they had been a citizen for 20 years (it was quite odd timing because not too much longer after that Obama decides to run and then we find there is a forged b/c. Timing of all this is just way too suspicious. All I say is let the supreme courts decide. That is what they are there for. I have read articles that say The Supreme Courts job is to protect the constitution and even if it means that a decision they make is not going to be popular, they are bound by their duty to defend the Constitution and they will.

So, once more I want to repeat that Factcheck is not reliable source because Obama/Annenberg Foundation and Factcheck are one in the same.
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.
Exactly what would you consider a reliable source? n/m

As far as I know it is a reliable source, but not
totally. At least, so I guess, it is controlled for neutrality, whereas other sources just smell partisan.


The b/c issue - Stating factcheck as a reliable source
Since they are all one in the same.  Factcheck is not an independent source.
There's more (and misleading ads)

Check out this station.  I think they have been truthful in checking out the ads and stating the facts. Each week they have done this for the past month or so. I watch this station so I feel they are truthful, but all of you can make your own decision. At first, they only did it every Thursday, but I think this link includes everything.


http://www.wgal.com/politics/17597035/detail.html


Very misleading....in actuality....sm
people under a certain range will receive a one-time check rebate....all other taxes on all other items will go up....far more than what this little oneside slide show makes it seem like you will get under Obama's so called "tax cut"
Misleading and incorrect....this is not a tax cut....sm
It is a one-time payout to poor people. Everything else under the sun that you buy in the future will be taxed higher.


People are so gullible.
Good grief....talk about misleading....
economic ruin? Look again at the first 4 years after we were attacked. The economy COULD have crashed, but it did not. We had record low unemployment and the economy GREW during those 4 years. What is happening now has nothing to do with 9-11. It has to do with relaxing borrowing standards on housing so that "everyone" could realize the "American dream" and whether or not they had a good credit history or could afford what they were signing on did not matter. Well come to find out, it did matter, when the floating interest rate kicked in and there were mass foreclosures, and rolling on from that the mortgage companies failing. That is what happens when you try to artificially encourage people to engage in things they cannot afford. Government should NOT do that, and that is what Obama wants more of...socialization. Here, let the government get you in over your head and keep you in that lower income bracket so you will keep voting for us because we promise we will get you out of the bracketbut somehow never do. Instead we shower you with gimmes to keep you there, instead of trying to help you OUT of there. sigh.
Obama campaign cracks down on misleading TV ads...sm
I can find no liberal comments on this, either blogs or liberal media. So my guess is that liberals think this is okay to do and enforce.


The first link below is the local Missouri spot on their website


Obama campaign cracks down on misleading TV ads

http://www.kmov.com/video/?z=y&nvid=285793&shu=1




http://www.webcommentary.com/asp/ShowArticle.asp?id=zieves&date=080927

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZmZmZDg3NjkzMTk3OGZiMjc0YjVhOWUyY2I5YjY1ZTE=

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=76308
this message is misleading - she is not for killing innocent soldiers and civilians in Iraq
You lumped killing innocent wildlife and killing soldiers and civilians in Iraq into the same line. She is not for killing innocent solderies and civilians in Iraq.

As distasteful as it is killing wildlife she is definitely not for the other. That is totally absurb.

Show me the proof where she said she is for killing innocent soldiers and civilians in Iraq.

You may hate her but making up totally false statement is outrageous and why once again I see the "political rape" of Sarah Palin. If you can show me proof I take back this last paragraph and eat my words, but I need proof. Saying something like that is like saying because Obama is a Muslim he is for killing all american if they don't convert to the muslim faith. Plain idiocracy.
And you twisted what I said also....
the reason we have to abort not 100-200 a year but 1.2 million a year is because of the permissive society liberals have ushered in...no accountability...no right or wrong, only shades of gray...near porn in prime time, all in the name of freedom of expression. Have sex with anybody, as many anybodies as you want, anythings you want, freedom to express yourself...with no consequences because we stand ready to abort 1.2 million "oopses" a year.

Nice cigar hole remark. However, I think another permissive or should I say prominent promiscuous liberal has that one sewed up.


Right, because they are so much more reliable.
Note sarcasm.
...of twisted logic.

Your theory is twisted
Maybe that's what they teach in the socialized education system nowadays (I heard plenty from my cousin who would tell me what her professors in the university were spewing). But what you stated is not the theory (that after 2 terms of one party the other party is supposed to be elected). What kind of screwed up site did you get that from (probably MSNBC or some other hate-filled station). If that was the case then there would not be a race and the opposite party would just be placed in - which is exactly what the democrats are trying to do.

I do agree that there is both far right and far left wingnuts. That is why the country needs someone who is a moderate. Unfortuntely the country will never elect someone from the Independent, Constitution or other party that is down the middle, but at least John McCain is more down the middle. Obama is the farthest left that you can get. It just astounds me how many Americans would rather have the country move to socialism and live under a dictator rather than have a free country.

Also, people forget that America is a Constitutional Republic, NOT a democracy. Nowhere in the contitution or Declaration of Indpendence is the word "democracy" even mentioned. Our founding fathers were extremely knowledgeable about the issues of democracy and feared it. They understood that the only entity that could take away people's freedom is their own government (which we will see if Obama is elected).

There are people who are bent on destroying our sovereignty by creating the North American Union (which means Canada, US & Mexico will become a single country). The NAFTA agreement was just the beginning of this. Obama admits to support of this. Obama's policies are that of Stalin's. Stalin's economic philosophy was socialism, which involved taking property from the rich in order to redistribute it to the poor. Sounds exactly like what he was telling the plumber guy and others. I think last night John McCain made a very clear connection that Obama's polices and core beliefs are the same as Joseph Stalin's.

We cannot go down that road. We need to continue on as a free country. To think that now that because you have two terms of one party it's the other parties turn is wrong. Especially if the other party is and believes in socialism.

We need to have a republican (or another party other than a democrat) elected as president as the senate and house already are democrat. This is what they call "balance of power". Americans prefer that the checks-and-balances evisioned by the founders be facilitated by having different parties control Congress and the White House. Put in a democrat president mixed with a democratic congress and a democratic senate and you have tyranny. They will pass every pork filled bill possible, tax you more and the country will go down the same dark road we hit with Carter and Clinton.

Yes, the country is in a state of turmoil one we haven't seen for not sure how long. I wouldn't go back to the depression, as we all know Obama is trying to scare people into believing if he is not elected we're going to hit a depression - another blatant lie of his. That is why we need a moderate in the office. We need someone to keep the democratic senate and house in order, that is why we need McCain.

People should not vote for the other party with your theory that if they vote for McCain we are all wealthy. A lot of us are voting for McCain because we don't want to be taxed over 45% of our paychecks like we were under the last democrat president Mr. "Liar, depends on what the meaning of is is" Clinton. It is a fact that under Bush most American have received tax refunds (not the richest of rich - people like me and others who make around $25K or so). Something I never saw once under any of the 8 years the last democrat president was in. McCain and Palin have more knowlege of how to run the country. How to create jobs, how to not tax the small business people, how to generate income for America, how to win the war and not rush everyone back because you think more people will vote for you if you keep pushing that, when in truth you will turn around and after elected send them all back.

I say if you want to be free. If you want to be able to start your own business or have any money left from your paychecks to build a future for yourselves. If you care that the country is now a safer place since 9/11. If you care that our next president doesn't hang around with people like Wright, Ayers, Farrakan, and has friends in the countries that want to see us wiped off the planet and will do so under an Obama presidency, then vote your conscience and vote John McCain.

After last nights debate no matter who you think won or lost, I'll be voting for a man who has the knowlege and experience to lead the country to better times and will continue to remain free. Otherwise you should learn how people in Cuba and North Korea and other communist/socialist countries feel. Why do you think they're all trying to come to our country. And the ones who immigrated to here to get away from there. I'm sure they will not be voting for someone who will make this country into what they risked their lives to get away from.
No, it might be you who is twisted, sistah!
x
Another twisted notion...
.
Drudge is as reliable as any of the MSM
He routinely/daily posts articles leaning both ways, but when someone doesn't tout the liberal mantra verbatim then you write them off. You don't want anything to do with fair and balanced reporting do you?
I'm sure reliable info is out there somewhere...... sm
but it would be hard to find. Any national coverage for the UAW would be the same, I would think, as the national coverage that Obama wants to put in place for all Americans.
O'Reilly: Twisted spin, again.

A quote:


 


O'REILLY: Massive neglect? Let's take a look at that bit of overstatement. Halfway through President Clinton's tenure in office, the poverty rate was 13.7%. Halfway through President Bush's tenure the rate is 12.7, a full point lower.


[COMMENT According to statistics obtained from the U. S. Census site, when Bill Clinton began his term as President in 1993, the poverty rate was 15.1%. By the time Clinton left office the poverty rate was 11.7%. By 2002, under George Bush the rate began to rise again to 12.1% in 2002, 12.5% in 2003 and 12.7% in 2004.


According to the Christian Science Monitor this most recent increase was unforeseen by analysts who expected the number to drop along with unemployment and may indicate a disturbing trend. While the poverty level for Asians declined and it remained stable for Hispanics and African-Americans, the only group that saw an increase was non-Hispanic white Americans living in the midwest. In other words there are 1.1 million poorer red state residents this year than there were last year.]


O'REILLY: In 1996 the Clinton budget allotted $191 billion for poverty entitlements. That was 12.2% of the budget. ... However, the Bush 2006 budget allots a record-shattering $368 billion for poverty entitlements - 14.6% of the entire budget - a huge increase over Clinton's spending. Did the elite media mention that? Jesse Jackson mention that? Of course they didn't. Because it's much more convenient for Evan Thomas and others to imply that America under President Bush has turned its back on the poor. But it's absolute nonsense. Even in the midst of the war on terror [Note: Did he mean the war of choice in Iraq?], this country is spending a massive amount of money tryin' to help the poor. So why the lie? Because political gain can be made off the suffering of others, that's why. Those who oppose the Bush administration don't care about the truth. They only want to advance their own agenda, so once again the No-Spin zone rides to the rescue.


Hard-working Americans are providing the poor with Medicaid, food stamps, supplemental security income - that's free money - child nutrition programs, welfare payments, child daycare payments, temporary assistance to needy families, foster care, adoption assistance and health insurance for children. But, it will never be enough for the Jesse Jacksons and Howard Deans of the world. Never! If they told you the truth, they'd go out of business.


Now, I fully expect to be attacked by the far-left media for tellin' you all this. I'm sure they'll label me a racist, a shill for Bush, stuff like that. But, I don't care. The dollars don't lie. We are a generous nation. And that is the truth.


COMMENT


Most of the poor in this country WORK, many of them hold down two and three jobs. If you want to read a damning book on this topic, I suggest you get Barbara Ehrenreich's Nickeled and Dimed: On (Not) Getting by in America. Ms. Ehrenreich went underground and worked at minimum wage jobs for a year. She discovered a few unpleasant facts about life on the lower rungs of the economic ladder. Self-satisfied, replete, rich men like Bill O'Reilly sit in their posh offices and scare hard-working Americans into believing that their taxes go to indigent scofflaws who sit at home guzzling beer, smoking pot, eating chips and watching TV. Those of us closer to homelessness know this is not the case.


When he mentioned that SSI (social security supplemental income) is free money, he neglected to say that it is money that goes to disabled Americans or that providing health coverage for children reduces trips to the emergency room!

Sometimes I wonder how many poor people Mr. O'Reilly actually knows or has associated with on a long-term basis? For the past 15 years I've been involved in a local program that offers music scholarship to needy families. In that time I've taught 7 different children from 7 different poverty situations and I came to know the families personally. Most of the adults in the family work really hard. Sometimes the kids worked, too, after school. Some had parents trying to break a drug habit (yes, they held down a job) or schizophrenic parents (who were incapable of working) or an abusive parent (who worked, then took it out on the family), but most were blessed with caring parents who were doing the best to provide for their children against almost impossible odds.


So when I hear guys like O'Reilly spout their simplistic tripe implying that the poor are sucking the lifeblood out of hard-working Americans, I see red.


Also, I don't trust O'Reilly's numbers on entitlement programs simply because he never once used the words inflation-adjusted dollars. If he was simply quoting raw numbers, I'd like to remind him that 15 years ago the dollar went farther. Additionally, he did not indicate through graphics or verbally whether or not there was parity between the two budgets, i.e., was he citing figures that included exactly the same programs in both figures?


Given O'Reilly's dubious track record, one cannot accept his statements without independent verification.


Spoken like a truly twisted fool nm
nm
Human rights is getting way twisted
I go by the Bible and a much higher authority.
Factcheck not reliable and b/c is forged
Look at it yourself and then read what the experts say.
Finding reliable news sm
If you want facts, the best place is the internet and alternative news sites. Those that rely on the mainstream news for information are not well-informed. The only news I watch on the TV is BBC World.

Here is a good article on the subject:

The Difficulty in Being an Uninformed American.

http://baltimorechronicle.com/2009/010909Roberts2.shtml
a spokesman for M/P issued the last paragraph so not sure how reliable
that would be. Odd how they added it at the end but did not say if it was a fact. It was supposed to be an investigative article. There is no way of knowing if that is fact, it is only what the McCain people say is true.

Cannot trust anyone it seems.
Reliable link? More fear mongering I think. You...sm
republicans will believe anything!
Sorry, I missed the part where she said all that, why do things have to get twisted and nasty...sm
when there is an ethical disagreement? Shots below the belt that assume way too much are low, ignorant, and taunting like a little disgruntled child. Perhaps there are others who are misssing a life, it seems to be on here, constantly inflaming, goading, ridiculing, but not saying much in the way of alternative ideas to DO something for this country. Bitter rhetoric just helps to tear things down and cause further division, nothing will ever get done either way. IMHO
time to grow up - both sides have said things they don't mean or regret or get twisted
There's a whole slew of things everyone has said that they wish they didn't and on important issues. One party is not free from that.

EVERYONE has faults. Whether your democrat OR republican, man OR woman, black OR white. They all have said things they don't mean or didn't come out right, or was totally twisted by the other side. Fact of life in politics.

If your going to go there be prepared to listen to all the things "your" candidate has said in the past. Then you'll whine when someone brings it out.
What........your twisted or hateful idea of truth, grow a heart, okay?...nm
nm
Out of context? Hardly, LOL!

Oh, the quote definitely is not out of context and the world and most of America realizes it, that is, the part of America that isnt brain washed by the radical neocons or radical christian movement, you know, the normal Americans, not the Bush sheeple..Posting on other boards?  Many years experience here, also many years experience on Yahoo groups and political chat rooms, so I dont need *lessons*.  Thank you.  Oh, also years experience in the local democratic party and government..Been a political person since high school.


take what she says out of context, yet again....
and go ahead, bring up the beauty accessories, yet again....ho hum....you're the ones that keep it alive and are so transparently unable to talk real issues.
Please put them all in context, then, please...sm
. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Please give surrounding text of these statements.
They don't want to see the context
They say dems don't want to do research, but it goes both ways.
I don't know exactly the context...sm
but I did hear something on the news regarding "white male construction workers" did not need to apply for something...like I said, I am not sure of the context but I did hear something like that on the news.
There is NO CONTEXT that can make it better.
You all keep saying taken out of context but you don't offer one iota of evidence to show this makes a bit a difference, or say why. Anytime someone is quoted the words are taken out of context.

Why don't you put your point on the line and explain why it makes a difference in this case?
Taken COMPLETELY out of context
You liberals will go to any all lengths to take down this president down even lying. Personally, the president can take care of his self, and he doesn't need me to defend him, but you took so many statements out of context here it's not funny. Most people have been thankful for their evacuation, but the media has targeted the ingrates. This is not the issue here though. The issue is that you all have it in for the president, conservatives or any one who doesn't think exactly like you. If someone disagrees or has an opinion different than you you immediately yell attack. Your agenda is very clear, pathetic but clear.
The words out of context...sm
Were the words he spoke himself on NBC Nightly News. His words were not altered. They were followed by an opinion with which he does not agree, but that does not make the documentary a LIE.
The words out of context
When you twist someone's words and give an opinion following that cannot be contested by the speaker, fully intending that your opinion be attributed to the speaker as truth...that, my friend, is a lie. And it is not the only lie in that mocumentary. Michael Moore never has had taste (Bowling for Columbine) and he never will. The fact that people buy into his anger and hatred and gloss it over as a documentary still boggles the mind.
A little context before retreat.

Yes, I know your post appeared before Cease Fire.  As soon as I pressed the Post Reply button, there you were, right back up there taking one last “shot”…your words, not mine.  Cease fire…broken before it even began.  That would suggest that the 3rd person rules of engagement never applied either.  You have made it quite clear that you prefer the garbage-out/garbage in approach…again, just dancing to your tune.  Remember the part about someone always being around to answer bigotry’s call-to-arms?  Thus, the gloves stay off for the time being.  Besides, your rejection of the olive branch is fairly apparent by now. 


 


He’s my friend, not my therapist.  He still has so many issues of his own, he would be the first one to say that he’s the one who needs the couch.  He is brilliant when it comes to helping others, just not when it comes to helping himself.  We have known each other for 42 years.  He actually seeks my advice, and I his..it’s personal, not professional. 


 


The economics is way to vast to get into for the time being.  May another time, but in terms of what we spend to “support” illegals, that amount is a drop in the bucket when compared to the profits generated for transnational corporations (those guys who actually run the country) in the maquilidoras in Mexico and the cheap labor pool they create once they cross that porous border.  So yeah, I got some 4-letter words on that subject.  Just ask yourself this fundamental question.  Who stands to gain/profit from all this?  As long as the transnationals’ bottom line is in the black, they have no motive to “fix” this “problem.”  Don’t hold your breath.  This is what global economy looks like.    


 


The yada, yada, yada was not referring to the path to citizenship.  I was talking about entering with legal status.  Let’s put a face on a case.  I had a Filipino friend (fellow MT) back in 1983, who entered on a work visa and applied for permanent residence.  That took 3 years.  She waited.  No problem.  Then she tried to apply for her 5 children.  By 1986, the laws relative to family unification requirements had changed.  In 1983, she only would have had to wait another 5 years (AFTER becoming a resident) for approval to sponsor HER OWN CHILDREN.  Whoops.  No so fast.  By 1986, that generous 5-year wait had been doubled to (count ‘em) 10 years for Filipinos.  She traveled back and forth over those years while immigration did its thing to see her children and husband, who had stayed behind to raise them in her absence. 


 


Her kids were school age when she when she started this.  By the time they were all together again, her youngest was a sophomore in college.  She waited.  She did it all nice and legal.  Excuses, excuses, excuses?  Good things come to those who wait?  What’s so great about a mother missing 13 years of her children’s lives?  Was it worth it?  The price they paid was way too high.  They had all become so disillusioned and had lost so much, within 5 years after completing the process, the entire family turned around and went back to the Philippines.  So much for THEIR Ameican dream and playing by the rules.  Maybe good riddance to some, a tragic shame to others.  That’s just one case….and yeah, there are plenty of 4-letter words that reveal just how many others there were.  Things have gotten a whole lot worse since then, but your party still insists these arcane laws are “too liberal” to suit them.  Puh-leeze.  So no, I don’t pick and choose laws that suit me.  Simply stated, bad laws need to be changed, or eliminated all together.  


 


No national spokesperson here.  Just a lifetime of experience (sorry, Sam, you left yourself wide open by trying to be so cute).  U of H, 1967…that pesky urban academic forum you love to hate.  Free speech for all students was encouraged and accommodated back then.  Alongside Viet Nam War, civil rights and nascent women’s lib protests were the highly visible and vocal Arabs and Iranians, here on student visas, nice and legal, the way you claim you like it.  Their issues were:



  1. The 6-day war, when US-backed Israel stepped up its bloodthirsty quest to drive an entire Palestinian population into the refugee diaspora by expanding its illegal occupations of Syria and Egypt.  They created some great future killing fields in Golan and Gaza by rearranging a few borders and chopping up the West Bank like a piece of cheap mortadella, sending millions of refugees fleeing into Jordan, which has never been the same, Syria, Europe and the US.   

  2. The pros and cons of Arab political unity as an appropriate response to such blatant aggression and invasion.  Now this idea scares the pants off the US.  If the Arabs were ever to unify, and especially if they ally themselves with Iran, the world power that would create could crush US superpower ambitions with its eyes shut.  US was really nervous about that prospect.  Not hard to figure why they have spent trillons of dollars since 1948 (Israel's birthday) and turned a blind eye to all that bloodshed in an effort to keep that region just as destabilized as possible.  Where's the outrange over that expense?  Oil makes countries do some crazy stuff. 

  3. The formation of the OPEC states as organized by the Shah of Iran, the puppet monarch the US backed after their successful early 1950s coup that removed Mosadegh, the secular democratic prime minister who wanted to eliminate Western control and nationalize Iran’s oil.  Democracy in the Middle East?  Right.  “Oil”agarchy?  Nothing new under the sun.  Imperialism?  Old as the hills. 

  4. The subsequent withdrawal of US backing for the Shah when he had the audacity to take a page out of Mosadegh’s book to suggest that Iran should control it OWN oil resources. 

  5. The rise of a multitude of Iranian political parties, including the strengthening and empowerment of those nasty Islamic fundamentalists that eventually seized control. 

  6. The overthrow of the US puppet monarch who, by that time, had systematically imprisoned, tortured and executed his opposition behind the scenes, ultimately turning Islamic party leadership into national martyrs, making it really easy for them to step right in and take over.  Not a great choice for a puppet.  Can you say "human rights?"

  7. The outpouring of refugees from Iran in the aftermath, trying to escape the same-song-second-verse torture, imprisonment and executions under the new leadership.  My husband was one of the lucky ones who made it out in time.  Things were a bit hectic for him in the middle of the blood bath, there being a revolution and all.  No time for a visa.  Declared asylum when he got to  Germany and was approved.    

  8. The 1951-1952 CIA-backed coup has been acknowledged by our own government and US tax dollars transfered from the US to the Israel treasury...a matter of public record, so "frankly, I don't believe it" isn't going to cut it.  I could give you some more 4-letter words, but time is short.  As you can see, this is not exactly democratic party line I'm spouting here.  No mouthpiece on this mouth.  This is information that is not served up by the US news media outlets either.  You can hear a lot about it from news broadcasts from other countries and there is a ton of information to sift through on the net should one feel so inclined.     

This is not some angry tirade or “tude” I harbor.  Not trying to condescend or educate anyone here.  History simply is not your friend, Sam, so keep those elitist accusations on the tip of your tongue where they belong.  In any case, I was just like you, at first.  Beat my patriotic chest, fought tooth and nail, until I finally started to acknowledge my own bias and prejudice against “foreigners” and decided to look into it all.  Started reading up on the subject, listening more and talking less, checking facts, etc.  Picked up a keen interest in all flavors of foreign policy.  Changed my life for the better forever.  Made friends along the way of all sorts and persuasions, over many decades, by now, way too numerous to count.  Studied together, had lots of fun, ate dinners with them and their families, baby sat their kids, went to weddings, house warmings, baby showers and funerals, shed bucket of tears, learned respect for their customs and cultures. 


 


I married once to an Arab for 12 years, went overseas and lived with the family for 2 years in Madaya, a RURAL village 40 miles west of Damascus in the Bekka Valley.  Most beautiful orchards you ever laid eyes.  Too bad the skies over this particular pastoral scene were often darkened by the storm clouds of war.  That was the year Israel tried to push itself all the way to Beruit, a mere 45 miles to the west of us, decimating whole villages in the wake of that land grab (been so many, I've lost count)…but not quite as gory as their most recent offensive into Lebanon.  Israeli fighter jets (bank-rolled by good ole’ American tax dollars,) would often fly so fast and so low under the radar screen they sounded like they were getting ready to crash into the house.  This would send us all scrambling to the floor, nose to the ground and hands clenched tightly behind our heads in a hopeless attempt to somehow feel safer, where we would cower for a couple of minutes until it was over.  Kind of reminiscent of those war photos from Sadr City and Mosul when American soldiers ransacked those villages in search of insurgents, going door-to-door, breaking in with the butt of their rifles, sending civilian old men, women and children dropping like flies in the absence of all military-age male family members (out trying to protect everybody), as the GI planted his boot into the small of an Iraqi teenager’s back, shaking like a leaf.  Just how proud, safe and strong do you think that “should” make me feel? 


 


Later married that Iranian refugee I spoke of earlier.  Got in-laws abroad and here.  My husband has difficulty accepting the idea that he may never see his mother, father, 3 brother(s), sister(s)-in-law, nephew and neice, aunts, uncles and cousins.  We make do with weekly phone calls.  My son is a native-born citizen, with very much of a westernized hyphenated Iranian side to his identity….American-Iranian, according to him.  My sister lives in Tehran with her husband and her own 12-year-old American citizen American-Iranian/Iranian-American son.  Hope they don’t get caught up in the aftermath of the latest nuclear flap and proposed American diplomatic efforts.  You’ll forgive me if I a bit suspicious of Bush’s stunning reversal of “we don’t negotiate with terrorists” mantra.  An “American interests section?”  Indeed.  Don’t look for the Iranian madman to agree to another CIA spy dugout in the middle of his capital city any time soon.  Shades of ignored WMD inspector reports and manufactured “intelligence” (give me a break) findings.  I take little comfort in the fact that he is running out of time for another Middle East invasion/fiasco. 


 


Through it all, I have engaged myself with immigration law, starting back in college, trying to help different nationalities navigate the stormy waters of the LEGALIZATION process.  Furthermore, because of my husband’s political refugee status, we are well acquainted with Homeland Security (DHS) issues.  One of our friends is a DHS regional director.  He is an advocate for immigrant rights and reform, legal and illegal…a position he takes after his retirement from INS after 30 years and 5 years with DHS.  Probably knows a thing or 2.  He can’t wait for the inauguration.  Says his job will be a lot easier and kinder once McCain or Obama take office, since they both support immigration reform.  Looking forward to going to sleep with a cleaner conscience, he says. 


 


Anger?  Not exactly.  Passion?  You bet.  Please forgive me if I feel like I might have something of substance to bring into this debate.  I take these issues very seriously since were are talking about my families, my friends.  In my experience (not some passage out of some old dusty textbook), these are matters of life and death.  I may be a little far out in left field to suit you, but I feel I have at least earned my stripes.  I am no less American than anyone else born and raised here.  Keep in mind that I am not by myself here either.  The last 2 elections were too, too close to support that notion.     


 


You will be relieved to hear this.  That’s all the time I have right now.  One thing we all can see about you is you somehow feel if you get the last word, it must be the best word.  Ain’t necessarily so, but at least for the time being, you can have it your way.  Have no intention to leave the remainder of your slanderous post unanswered.  Debate is suspended from this side due to the job hunt thing, but certainly not finished by any means.  


 


One thing I look forward to is the (un)Cival War discussion.  Maybe you can enlighten me as to how to construe a war which produced more than half a million deaths of various sorts in 4 years was about anything except some of the same fundamental issues that divide us to this day…the economics and human rights issues that surrounded slavery then, the common thread that divides us, then and now, being the bigotry of it all.  Will follow your advice and read up on the Republican party, but before playing the Abraham Lincoln was a Republican card, better bone up on how your party platform has reversed itself on most issues since it formation in the early 1850s.  HisRepublican Party in no way resembles the GOP of today.  Confusing?  Yes.  Alas, another 4 letter word for you. 


 


I appreciate your parting “shot.”  Wouldn’t want to let a little thing like a hurricane sink OUR hot air balloons (pleural). now, would we?  Enjoy your last word and the sabbatical.  Gonna get swallowed up by poverty if I don’t find a job soon. 


 


The real context for this

manufactured outrage is to create the impression that O and media are against SP.  That way, as more and more damaging information is revealed with investigations by reporters in alaska, hopefully the limited-information voters will disregard the facts that are revealed.


 


Let's put it in proper context....
she said if Georgia became a member of NATO, then according to the NATO agreement all NATO signatories (US is one of them) have to come to the aid if any of the NATO countries are invaded. She gave the correct answer.

You do know that Obama intends to see the war in Afghanistan continue and wants to send troops from Iraq there, right? The anti-war candidate?
She didn't take anything out of context. - sm
I saw the speech too, and that's exactly what she said. I'll bet there were a lot of surprised looks and people going 'Huh??' in the audience.
pulled out of any context

whatsoever to inflame prejudice.  shameful, shameful behavior. 


 


then give us the context
and prove your point.
See link for context.
It took one quick Google search to find!

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_obama_write_that_he_would_stand.html
In the true context.
I see you have no comment regarding the blatant inaccuracy of the original post.
in the true context

of the True Believers, oh grand puhba. Everyone grab match.


 


I heard him say it too, and the context he said it in...
so I know what he meant by it.

Wanna talk connections?

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/obamas_iraqi_oil_for_food_conn.html
misquoted and out of context
This is misquoted and taken out of context. See link. It is at the bottom of the page

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/ownwords.asp
Squat in this context being
rasberries for the cry babies