Hmmm....why are you so caught up in what's on

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Biden caught in a lie

This really couldn�t have come at a worse time for Joe Biden. Speaking on Fox and Friends, Sen. Biden, the Democrat VP nominee denied reports from ABC news that if elected, he planned on pursuing criminal charges against the Bush Administration.

�That�s not true. I don�t know where that report�s coming from,� Biden told Fox & Friends.

Here you go Joe. See if this jogs your memory just a bit.

Poor old Joe. I expect the �Dump Biden� movement to pick up steam in the next few days.

h/t FreeRepublic

little dig there. I got that you were saying that Obama is ahead but his being black will doom him. I didn't miss your sneaky way of signalling your fellow Rothschilds.

While in the Illinois State Senate, Barack Obama sure seems to have played footloose and fancy free with the taxpayer's money, to the benefit of his own circle of family and friends.

$75,000 to FORUM, a group who helped Obama pay off the debt from his failed 2000 Senate race.

Yeah, THIS is the guy I'm going to trust with 'changing' the way government does business.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=6BA619B2-88A2-4245-8617-AA0A07F47068

He finally said the words "SPREAD THE WEALTH" when asked by a plumber about raising his taxes. THe plumber told him he could not afford to have his taxes raised because that would keep him from being able to expand his business, EMPLOY more folks, etc. Obama told him yes he would but ONLY to help "spread the wealth" and make it fairer for others. That man couldn't care less about small businesses. If that isn't about the most ignorant/self-absorbed/SOCIALIST thing I have ever heard. Anyone who still thinks he's a good deal needs a reality check.

Even the Wall Street Journal says his policies are going to put businesses OUT OF BUSINESS because they cannot afford these ridiculous policy mandates. This man is looking out for only one people and definitely NOT the country. Now, he is going back and asking his "advisors" to REDO ANOTHER ECONOMIC POLICY so the one everyone is jumping on as WONDERFUL NEWS...be advised, it is changing again!!!

He is now wanting MORE money to give to MORE people so we can keep MORE PEOPLE on the welfare roll. KEEP IT UP BUDDY.....SOCIALISM, SOCIALISM, SOCIALISM!!

Hey, kids! Do you ever get tired of Fox News' crops? I don't mean the food
they might be literally growing, in Glenn Beck's Doom Room, in preparation for
Imminent Socialist Panic. I'm talking about the way they manipulate video to
make it look like people are just straight up saying the opposite thing they
actually said. Well, it's been bothering the media critics at Media Matters For
America for some time, and they have, for a long time, been cataloging "examples
of Fox News hosts and correspondents cropping comments by progressives and
Democratic political figures in a manner that misrepresents them." A new mash-up
video offers some side-by-side examples of what they're talking about.

Some constructive criticism? I think the third example -- Obama's "empathy"
criteria for Supreme Court justice -- isn't the best example of a Fox cropping.
While it's certainly true that Major Garrett's statement, "That aggravates those
who feel that justices should follow the Constitution and legislative intent,"
seems to neatly ignore the fact that Obama's next statement was "I will seek
someone who is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our Constitutional
traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process, and the
appropriate limits of the judicial role," the fact is, just about every news
organization honed in on the "empathy" part of the statement. It became the
sound bite from that press exchange.

In a more lengthy report, however, Media Matters has other candidates that
are fitting examples of these games with videotape, well worth reviewing. Key
examples include Sean Hannity's intentional omission of Obama's admonishment of
Europeans' "casual...insidious" anti-Americanism to make it look like Obama was
apologizing for the United States, and Wendell Goler's splice-happy report that
made it look like Obama was in favor of "European-style health care," when he
was actually specifically opposing it. Also close to my heart is Fox's
misleading insertion of an out-of-context Joe Biden clip into a report, for
which the network eventually had to apologize. At the time, I opined:

It's very sad, and weird, because Fox News would have made their point just
fine if they hadn't included the misleading part of this clip. All they've
really done is demonstrate that they do not have enough faith in their own
editorial premises to avoid bolstering them with falsehoods. But more to the
point, whoever is responsible for putting this video together needs to accept a
new prevailing reality, that stupid little lies like this will be debunked and
exposed very quickly, so they may as well just cut out this nonsense
entirely.

The Democrats have suddenly developed a keen sense of morality. John Edwards has been banned from making a speech at the democratic convention for having an affair and lying about it.

And Rep. Broun really thinks congress, the senate, the supreme court and any other government branches I forgot would let this happen? People would not protest? Does he (and you, OP) really believe America has become that weak? Never underestimate Americans, my friends.

GR said, "I would wager a bet that if we were back in the 50s and 60s people wouldn't be hiding behind the smoke screen of birth certificates, Ayers, abortion, gay marriage, etc."

Jan 3, 2005 | Elisabeth Bumiller of the New York Times paid a recent visit to the Washington headquarters of President Bush's inaugural committee, where 450 paid staff members have been busy planning concerts, balls and other events for the three-day swearing-in extravaganza.

The Bush camp has been taking some heat for the estimated $40 million it will raise and spend on the big party; such criticism seemed especially apt before the White House upped its initial paltry sum of $15 million for tsunami relief to $35 million, and then again later to a more worthy $350 million. (Though there are still plenty of ways to measure even the latter as modest at best.) Others had already taken note of what the $40 million could buy for some of the woefully underfunded U.S. troops in Iraq.

Nonetheless, Bush's legion of party planners were ready to defend their cause. Gordon C. James, a deputy director of inaugural events, pointed out that a presidential inaugural has never been canceled, even during world wars. He double-checked the history books to make sure: "The celebrations went on," he told Bumiller, "that's the lesson we learned."

Technically speaking, James is correct, though according to this recent AP piece, at the height of World War II in 1945, Franklin D. Roosevelt "opted for a low-key inauguration to mark the start of his fourth term, with a simple swearing-in ceremony, a brief speech from the South Portico of the White House to a small crowd and a modest luncheon."

Meanwhile, another "senior inaugural official," who according to Bumiller "asked not to be identified," called the unflattering comparisons regarding the $40 million a "political shot." The official added that "people are not going to demand the cancellation of the Rose Bowl parade or the Oscars."

http://dir.salon.com/politics/war_room/2005/01/03/party_on/index.html

Clinton won't be acting on her own accord. She'll be acting on behalf of the Obama administration. So, while she might not like the approach Obama has, she'll just have to suck it up and go with it. I think it would be in HER best interest to go with Obama on this one instead of going renegade, especially if she is still considering running for president in the future. If she does go renegade, the democratic party will eat her alive, especially considering Obama's popularity, something I'm sure she's well aware of.

I personally liked the pick of Clinton for SOS. Actually there really weren't that many differences between her and Obama on most issues. The differences they did have were just emphasized because they were running against each other. That's what candidates do -- point out differences between themselves and thier opponents.

Rember all that talk before the inauguration about how many people would be there? Remember all the people on this board who said it would be a crime fest? Check this out:

We already had a sense that the crime stats were much lower than usual this weekend, and the Examiner reported today that the long, four-day weekend -- at least up until to this point -- has been quite successful in terms of crime prevention. The U.S. Park Police say they have not made any Inauguration-related arrests as of this morning, and MPD spokesperson Traci Hughes told the paper that for the D.C. police, "it's pretty quiet." Obviously, a full evaluation of the weekend can't be accurately completed without factoring in today's activities and tonight's parties to come, but signs so far point to the significant police preparations panning out (even if they're the officers aren't good with directions).

http://dcist.com/2009/01/inaugural_crime_levels_low_so_far_k.php

How about this?

"Zero. There have been no inaugural-related arrest[s] reported by any of our law enforcement partners today," the Secret Service said, as of 5 p.m. ET. [That was on Jan 20]

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Inauguration/story?id=6683899&page=1

I wonder....does your church have nonprofit status? Tax exempt? And yet sooo involved in politics. Exactly how legal was that?

Thanks for the concern, but as I've said numerous times, the fate of the general public does not need to be regulated by an institution that only represents the beliefs of christians.

Since when has there ever been an intelligent conversation on here? This is a place where a bunch of women sit at home with nothing to do. These women aren't out in the real world on a daily basis. Seriously? Hoping for intelligent conversation? Ok, I got popcorn, I'll wait!

Probably just like I'm tired of hearing about the petty complaints about Obama....

Spending: Bush did plenty of spending with no protest whatsoever from pub Senators. Now they are all having a fit about spending all the sudden. Keep in mind that we had a deficit during all this spending. What's the difference in Bush spending and Obama spending? Bush spending included a rubber stamped check for 2 wars, one of which was unnecessary, and he didn't even count the cost of those wars in the budget. This is all money lost -- as in we don't see any results other than deaths from this. Obama spending is more of an investment....infrastructure, new energy sources..etc..etc.. We will see a return from this. Funny how pubs were more than happy to give up money for a unjust war, but when it comes to something like providing unemployment to US citizens they are all up in arms.

Pork: I think there is good pork and bad pork. Why do you think we have representatives from each state in Washington if not to ensure help to their respective states? Granted, a lot of the pork that is on the news is ridiculous, and no I'm not happy about some of the pork that Obama has signed.

Crooks: We all know there are crooked politicians on both sides. I haven't given Blago a free ride. That should tell you something. However, I don't happen to believe that Obama is in the "crooked" category.

Could Obama be doing a better job? Maybe. Do I agree with everything he does? No. But, do I think he's doing a good job overall? Yes, especially when it comes to foreign affairs.

It's not like he has the easiest job in the world. And yes, he is having to "fix" a lot of messes from the Bush admin as well as from the Clinton admin, which only makes his job harder. So, given the circumstances, I think he's doing an excellent job.

I've never heard this point of view before. Marriage has been the accepted word even with non-christians and atheists but the reason for a lot of people not wanting same sex marriage is because of their religious beliefs. Hmm....I will have to think about your point of view. I don't particularly like the idea of all "marriages" becoming civil unions but it would at least leave the actual title of marriage alone though. Hmm. That might be another way to compromise. Civil unions can be between any two people no matter what gender and the definition for marriage can be left between a man and woman through our religious beliefs. I'm sure that will still offend some people but I really do feel that a compromise in this situation wouldn't hurt. But that is just me.

What happens to all the donations O gets from his campaign? Won't that be considered income? You know darn well he's going to have a lot left over.

We will continue drinking Kool-Aid, and you can continue sucking on lemons. Who do you think will be happier? By the way, sucking lemons makes you a sourpuss!

Hmmm....why are you so caught up in what's on

Biden caught in a lie

Team Bush plans to party on

Inaugural Weekend Crime Levels Low, So Far