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

I agree too. Former Reagan Republican here.sm

Posted By: Donna on 2006-05-24
In Reply to: I'd vote for him - an observer

I agree with what you are saying. I voted for Bush the first time, sorry I did. 16 years of corrupt politics, lies, and scandals is hard to deal with. Clinton turned the White House into a ho house and Bush is turning it into the Reichstag. Think the country would be better off if Larry the Cable Guy was President.

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

Agree and believe republican ticket will be McCain and
xx
agree with you....soap-opera republican...nm
nm
Yes, I would agree Rove is loyal to the Republican party...
he is still not one of my favorite people. And yes, he is brilliant as far as politics are concerned. Frankly, I think he said the stuff about Romney because he figured McCain would not pick him. I really never thought he would. They just don't fit, in my opinion. In a lot of ways, and if you are going to run this country with someone, basic ideas need to be the same. That is why the #1 most liberal senator and the #3 most liberal senator are running on the Dem ticket.

Of course, Rove is toeing the party line now and saying that Palin was a good pick, but still saying he thought it was going to be Romney. So we will see...all I can speak for is myself, but I would not have been nearly AS energized for a Romney pick as I am for Sarah Palin. I would still have supported McCain...but not as enthusiastically.
The Anti-Republican Republican Who is Really a Republican
The whole anti-Republican Republican ruse might have succeeded, were it not for the fact that McCain's rhetoric was at odds not merely with his own voting record - 90 percent with Bush - and his own Bush-on-steroids agenda.

    Even as he was pledging to "change the way government does almost everything," the senator from Arizona announced his commitment to much, much more of the same.


    He pledged to maintain endless occupations of distant lands that empty the U.S. Treasury of precious resources that might pay for infrastructue renewal, housing and job creations initiatives for hurting Americans.


    He outlined trade and tax policies that would extend, rather than alter a failed economic status quo.


    He reintroduced flawed proposals for health care, education and entitlement reforms that Americans have wisely rejected.


    And he threatened to achieve "energy independence" by declaring:


    "We will drill..."


    "We'll drill..."


    "More drilling..."


    McCain's rhetoric was that of a liberated man declaring his independence from his party's failed president and corrupt Congresses.


    But his platform was that of Republican candidate who, for all of his talk of reform, offers the crudest continuity to a country that is crying out for change.


http://www.truthout.org/article/the-anti-republican-republican-who-is-really-a-republican

Ron Reagan
Is great and tells it like it is.  Keep spreading the TRUTH, Ron.
Non-Reagan is an idiot. sm
He's a disgrace to his father's memory and to his living mother.  He knows nothing!  Come on people.  You can do better than this!  I would accept Alan Colmes or Dan Rather, but NON REAGAN????  Unbelievable!
And Reagan?..he armed
was fighting Iran. We were in bed with Saddam, when Reagan was president...have you forgotten that? What does that make us?
When your hero, Reagan,
he apparently made you blind. Remember this when more of our infrastructure (already started with levees in Louisiana) falls apart and you wonder why there are more pot holes and you can't afford basic necessities. Look around, it's already happening.

Poverty Increases as Incomes Decline Under Bush

September 21, 2005
By Gene C. Gerard

The day after Hurricane Katrina hit, exposing much of the public to the tragic conditions of poverty in America, the Census Bureau quietly released its annual report entitled, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States. In some respects, it provided a demonstrable backdrop to the pockets of poverty common to New Orleans and other cities. It also explained why, despite President Bush's assertion last month that, Americans have more money in their pockets, many people aren't faring as well as they once did.

The report indicates that in 2004 there was no increase in average annual household incomes for black, white, or Hispanic families. In fact, this marks the first time since the Census Bureau began keeping records that household incomes failed to increase for five consecutive years. Since President Bush took office, the average annual household family income has declined by $2,572, approximately 4.8 percent.

Black families had the lowest average income last year, at $30,134. By comparison, the average income for white families was $48,977. The average pretax family income for all racial groups combined was $44,389, which is the lowest it has been since 1997. The South had the lowest average family income in 2004.

Interestingly enough, as the Economic Policy Institute notes in their analysis of the Census Bureau's report, not all families did poorly last year. Although the portion of the total national income going to the bottom 60 percent of families did not increase last year, the portion going to the wealthiest five percent of families rose by 0.4 percent. And while the average inflation-adjusted family income of middle-class Americans declined by 0.7 percent in 2004, the wealthiest five percent of families enjoyed a 1.7 percent increase.

Earnings also declined last year. This is despite the fact that Americans are working harder. Since 2000, worker output per hour has increased by 15 percent. Yet for men working full-time, their annual incomes declined 2.3 percent in 2004, down to an average of $40,798. This decrease was the largest one-year decline in 14 years for men. Women saw their earnings decrease by 1 percent, with an average income of $31,223, the largest one-year decline for women in nine years.

Women earned only 77 cents for every dollar earned by men last year. Clearly, the gender gap remains real and pervasive. In all major industry sectors, women earned less than men. In the management of companies, women earned 54 cents for every dollar earned by men; 57 cents in finance and industry; and 60 cents in scientific and technical services.

Not surprisingly, the report revealed that poverty increased last year. There were 37 million (12.7 percent) people living in poverty, an increase of 1.1 million people since 2003. This was the fourth consecutive year in which poverty has increased. In fact, since President Bush took office, 5.4 million more people, including 1.4 million children, have found themselves living in poverty. There were 7.9 million families living below the poverty level in 2004, an increase of 300,000 families since 2003.

The average income last year for a poverty-stricken family of four was $19,307; for a family of three it was $15,067, and for a couple it was $12,334. The poverty rate increased for people 18 to 64 last year by 0.5 percent. The South experienced the highest poverty rate of all regions.

The Census Bureau report also demonstrated that health insurance coverage remains elusive for many Americans. Those covered by employer-sponsored health insurance declined from 60.4 percent in 2003 to 59.8 percent in 2004. Approximately 800,000 more workers found themselves without health insurance last year. The percentage of people covered by governmental health programs in 2004 rose to 27.2 percent, in part because as poverty increased, more Americans were forced to seek coverage through Medicaid. The percentage of the public with Medicaid coverage rose by 0.5 percent in 2004.

Last year was the fourth consecutive year in which employer-sponsored health insurance coverage declined. A total of 45.8 million Americans are now without health insurance. The uninsured rate in 2004 was 11.3 percent for whites, 19.7 percent for blacks, and 32.7 percent for Hispanics. Not surprisingly, the South had the highest portion of the uninsured population, at 18.3 percent.

Although we haven't heard President Bush say it much lately, he came into office as a self-professed compassionate conservative. But as the report by the Census Bureau suggests, which was sadly symbolized by the plight of many poor residents of New Orleans, the country hasn't seen much of that compassion in the last five years.

Many Americans are working harder, earning less, and without the benefit of health insurance. It's easy to understand why the report was released a day after the largest natural disaster in a century, when much of the country was distracted.
Bush and Reagan....
Each had one known accusation...the woman who accused Bush had definite mental problems (see below) and the accusation against Reagan was in the 50's...one accusation. Clinton has had several of all kinds of sexual allegations made against him. Like I said, I know Juanita Broaddrick. Bottom line, Reagan and Bush had one isolated allegation against them...see below for the one against Bush. Not hardly the same thing at all. I did not say Clinton was morally bankrupt because he was a Democrat...he is a Democrat who happens to be morally bankrupt. Was and still is.

George W. Bush Rape Allegation

In 2002, Margie Schoedinger of Missouri City, Texas, a writer of Christian books, filed a pro se lawsuit against George W. Bush alleging that Bush had raped her in October 2000.[9]. The complaint also claims that she had been harassed, that she had been drugged and sexually assaulted numerous times by Bush and two other men purporting to be FBI agents, that her bank account had been interfered with, and that she had been threatened and beaten. There was no substantiating evidence for any of her claims. The suit also claimed Bush raped her husband, Christopher. Christopher allegedly served a year in prison after pleading no contest to assault charges against his wife. He later filed for divorce.

Many believed Schoedinger suffered from mental disorders. Among American newspapers, Schoedinger's ordeal was covered only by the local Fort Bend Star, whose editor is said to have off-handedly opined, I had heard she was a nut case. [10]

This lady later committed suicide.
no--Reagan was generalizing
it just applied to Obama. We can learn from things that people have said in the past.
If you can't spell REAGAN, I don't want you to have a gun nm
nm
man, I left out Reagan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHXq8TRejow&feature=related
Former Reagan official: Is another 9/11 is in the works?

(There is NOTHING this administration could do that would surprise me. )












March 16, 2006


Is Another 9/11 in the Works?


by Paul Craig Roberts


If you were President George W. Bush with all available US troops tied down by the Iraqi resistance, and you were unable to control Iraq or political developments in the country, would you also start a war with Iran?


Yes, you would.


Bush’s determination to spread Middle East conflict by striking at Iran does not make sense.


First of all, Bush lacks the troops to do the job. If the US military cannot successfully occupy Iraq, there is no way that the US can occupy Iran, a country approximately three times the size in area and population.


Second, Iran can respond to a conventional air attack with missiles targeted on American ships and bases, and on oil facilities located throughout the Middle East.


Third, Iran has human assets, including the Shi'ite majority population in Iraq, that it can activate to cause chaos throughout the Middle East.


Fourth, polls of US troops in Iraq indicate that a vast majority do not believe in their mission and wish to be withdrawn. Unlike the yellow ribbon folks at home, the troops are unlikely to be enthusiastic about being trapped in an Iranian quagmire in addition to the Iraqi quagmire.


Fifth, Bush’s polls are down to 34 percent, with a majority of Americans believing that Bush’s invasion of Iraq was a mistake.


If you were being whipped in one fight, would you start a second fight with a bigger and stronger person?


That’s what Bush is doing.


Opinion polls indicate that the Bush regime has succeeded in its plan to make Americans fear Iran as the greatest threat America faces.


The Bush regime has created a major dispute with Iran over that country’s nuclear energy program and then blocked every effort to bring the dispute to a peaceful end.


In order to gain a pretext for attacking Iran, the Bush regime is using bribery and coercion in its effort to have Iran referred to the UN Security Council for sanctions.


In recent statements President Bush and Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld blamed Iran for the Iraqi resistance, claiming that the roadside bombs used by the resistance are being supplied by Iran.


It is obvious that Bush intends to attack Iran and that he will use every means to bring war about.


Yet, Bush has no conventional means of waging war with Iran. His bloodthirsty neoconservatives have prepared plans for nuking Iran. However, an unprovoked nuclear attack on Iran would leave the US, already regarded as a pariah nation, totally isolated.


Readers, whose thinking runs ahead of that of most of us, tell me that another 9/11 event will prepare the ground for a nuclear attack on Iran. Some readers say that Bush, or Israel as in Israel’s highly provocative attack on the Jericho jail and kidnapping of prisoners with American complicity, will provoke a second attack on the US. Others say that Bush or the neoconservatives working with some black ops group will orchestrate the attack.


One of the more extraordinary suggestions is that a low yield, perhaps tactical, nuclear weapon will be exploded some distance out from a US port. Death and destruction will be minimized, but fear and hysteria will be maximized. Americans will be told that the ship bearing the weapon was discovered and intercepted just in time, thanks to Bush’s illegal spying program, and that Iran is to blame. A more powerful wave of fear and outrage will again bind the American people to Bush, and the US media will not report the rest of the world’s doubts of the explanation.


Reads like a Michael Crichton plot, doesn’t it?


Fantasy? Let’s hope so.


 


 

Actually most of those laws were NOT done by liberals but in the REAGAN ERA sm
in an effort to cut and gut "big government". Don't blame us liberals, baby - blame your "great communicator".
Reagan's Socialist Legacy

An interesting article that expounds on several decades.......for a complete review, here's the link:  http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090323/scheer


 


Reagan's Socialist Legacy


by:  Robert Scheer


Although gan's we still have a way to go to catch up with the good parts of the European system, including universal healthcare, high-quality public education and decent working conditions, we do have a system that is now as socialist in budget size as Europe's. That part I get when I listen to the right-wingers on Fox News bemoaning the reversal of the Reagan Revolution. But what I don't understand is how in the world they can blame this startling turn of events on Barack Obama.



The vast majority of money allocated so far on President Obama's watch is an extension of Bush's banking bailout, which has committed trillions to failed Wall Street conglomerates. I certainly don't want to defend the bailout and personally think the banks and stockbrokers deserve to go belly up, but what does that mess have to do with Obama, who was in college when the Reagan Revolution launched the deregulation that allowed Wall Street to run wild?

Never heard of rape charges against Reagan or GW. sm
Also, Kaye Summersby, Ike's *supposed* mistress said that they were very close but never consummated anything. 
and when Ronald Reagan was prez, NANCY was
Actual entry in Reagan's diary
Beneath is an actual quote that Reagan wrote about George "W" in his
diaries, recently edited by author Doug Brinkley and published by Harper
Collins
 
"A moment I've been dreading. George brought his n'er-do-well son around
this morning and asked me to find the kid a job. Not the political one 
who lives in Florida; the one who hangs around here all the time looking
shiftless. This so-called kid is already almost 40 and has never had a
real job. Maybe I'll call Kinsley over at The New Republic and see if they'll
hire him as a contributing Editor or something. That looks like easy
work."
 
From the REAGAN DIARIES------entry dated May 17, 1986.

 

So, Ronald Reagan is a black liberationist
The windfall profits tax was not actually a tax on profit. Please read up on it's history. It was an excise tax which was enacted April 2, 1980, during the last year of the Carter administration. Interesting to note that it was not repealed until August 23, 1988. It stayed in effect for 7 years, 4 months and 21 days under Ronald Reagan; in other words, for 92% of his entire time in office. So does that make Ronald Reagan a Marxist/socialist black liberationist too?
Noonan (reagan speech writer) on

caught with microphone still on.  Speaking with Mike Murphy, a repub talking head about SP's qualifications.


 


http://www.newsday.com/services/newspaper/printedition/thursday/nation/ny-usnoon045828642sep04,0,1097812.story

A quote from Ronald Reagan that I thought was appropriate
There are those in America today who have come to depend absolutely on government for their security. And when government fails they seek to rectify that failure in the form of granting government more power. So, as government has failed to control crime and violence with the means given it by the Constitution, they seek to give it more power at the expense of the Constitution. But in doing so, in their willingness to give up their arms in the name of safety, they are really giving up their protection from what has always been the chief source of despotism — government. Lord Acton said power corrupts. Surely then, if this is true, the more power we give the government the more corrupt it will become. And if we give it the power to confiscate our arms we also give up the ultimate means to combat that corrupt power. In doing so we can only assure that we will eventually be totally subject to it. When dictators come to power, the first thing they do is take away the people's weapons. It makes it so much easier for the secret police to operate, it makes it so much easier to force the will of the ruler upon the ruled.
Ronnie Reagan, the man who cut all the programs for mentally ill and sm
that is when you started seeing all the homeless people on the streets. During his reign of terror. A horrible president.
Obama apolgizes to Nancy Reagan

We all know Obama has a sense of humor.  He's likeable and funny and I enjoy hearing him speak.  But he really should think before he speaks, and not try to make jokes.  Americans are needing issues to be solved, not seeing how funny our President elect is.  This is a very serious and grave time for America and we need some reassurance that he will do what he promised on his campaign trail.  He spoke of Hope through his campaign.  Now we need to see the hope turn into reality.  I had read a lot of articles from both liberal and conservative sources that he doesn't do well with "off the cuff" comments and I think he should stick to the speeches that are written for him. 


Like I said - I like Obama.  He's a good speaker.  But his comment about Nancy Reagan whether you like her or not was indeed making fun of her and unecessary.  He should have just said, "I've talked to the past presidents" and left it at that.  By him having to state they were alive??? The public is not so stup!d that we wouldn't know he didn't mean the "dead" Presidents.  I hope that's not what he thought.  I'm just glad he called her to apologize.


On another note I watched the press conference he gave and I would have like to have heard a little more about what he's going to do once he gets in the white house, who he is picking for his cabinet, and what are the first things he is going to do to help Americans and what promises he gave to us that he will be able to keep and work on first.  Not what kind of dog he is going to get or where his kids go to school.  That does not affect American and I like many of my friends don't care.  We care about issues that affect us.

special assistant to reagan sees the picture clearly
Federal Failure in New Orleans
by Doug Bandow 
_Doug Bandow_ (http://www.cato.org/people/bandow.html) , a former special
assistant to  president Ronald Reagan
Is George W. Bush a serious person? It's not a  question to ask lightly of a
decent man who holds the US presidency, an office  worthy of respect. But it
must be asked. 
No one anticipated the breach of the levees due to Hurricane  Katrina, he
said, after being criticised for his administration's dilatory  response to the
suffering in the city of New Orleans. A day later he told his  director of
the Federal Emergency Management Administration, Michael Brown:  Brownie,
you're doing a heck of a job. 
Is Bush a serious person? 
The most important duty at the moment obviously is to respond to  the human
calamity, not engage in endless recriminations. But it is not clear  that this
President and this administration are capable of doing what is  necessary.
They must not be allowed to avoid responsibility for the catastrophe  that has
occurred on their watch. 
Take the President's remarkable assessment of his Government's  performance.
As Katrina advanced on the Gulf coast, private analysts and  government
officials warned about possible destruction of the levees and damage  to the pumps.
A year ago, with Hurricane Ivan on the move - before veering away  from the
Big Easy - city officials warned that thousands could die if the levees  gave
way. 
Afterwards the Natural Hazards Centre noted that a direct strike  would have
caused the levees between the lake and city to overtop and fill the  city
'bowl' with water. In 2001, Bush's FEMA cited a hurricane hit on New  Orleans as
one of the three top possible disasters facing the US. No wonder that  the
New Orleans Times-Picayune, its presses under water, editorialised: No one  can
say they didn't see it coming. 
Similarly, consider the President's belief that his appointee,  Brown, has
been doing a great job. Brown declared on Thursday - the fourth day  of flooding
in New Orleans - that the federal Government did not even know  about the
convention centre people until today. Apparently people around the  world knew
more than Brown. Does the head of FEMA not watch television, read a 
newspaper, talk to an aide, check a website, or have any contact with anyone in  the
real world? Which resident of New Orleans or Biloxi believes that Brown is 
doing a heck of a job? Which person, in the US or elsewhere, watching the 
horror on TV, is impressed with the administration's performance? 
Indeed, in the midst of the firestorm of criticism, including by  members of
his own party, the President allowed that the results are not  acceptable.
But no one has been held accountable for anything. The  administration set this
pattern long ago: it is constantly surprised and never  accountable. 
The point is not that Bush is to blame for everything. The Kyoto  accord has
nothing to do with Katrina: Kyoto would have a negligible impact on  global
temperatures even if the Europeans complied with it. 
Nor have hurricanes become stronger and more frequent in recent  decades.
Whether extra funding for the Army Corps of Engineers would have  preserved the
levees is hardly certain and impossible to prove. Nor can the city  and state
escape responsibility for inaction if they believed the system to be  unsafe. 
Excessive deployment of National Guard units in the  administration's
unnecessary Iraq war limited the flexibility of the hardest-hit  states and imposed
an extra burden on guard members who've recently returned  from serving
overseas. But sufficient numbers of troops remained available  elsewhere across the
US. 
The real question is: Why did Washington take so long to  mobilise them? The
administration underestimated the problem, failed to plan for  the predictable
aftermath and refused to accept responsibility for its actions.  Just as when
the President took the US and many of its allies into the Iraq war  based on
false and distorted intelligence. Then the administration failed to  prepare
for violent resistance in Iraq. The Pentagon did not provide American  soldiers
with adequate quantities of body armour, armoured vehicles and other 
equipment. 
Contrary to administration expectations, new terrorist  affiliates sprang up,
new terrorist recruits flooded Iraq and new terrorist  attacks were launched
across the world, including against several friends of the  US. In none of
these cases has anyone taken responsibility for anything. 
Now Hurricane Katrina surprised a woefully ill-prepared  administration.
President Bush and his officials failed in their most basic  responsibility: to
maintain the peaceful social framework within which Americans  normally live and
work together. 
Bush initially responded to 9/11 with personal empathy and  political
sensitivity. But his failures now overwhelm his successes. The  administration's
continuing lack of accountability leaves it ill-equipped to  meet equally serious
future challenges sure to face the US and the rest of the  world.
This article originally appeared in the Australian on Sept. 5,  2005
"There you go." A Reagan-esque pearl of wisdom.
Bush inherited Powell from Clinton who inherited him from Reagan.
Bush wouldn't have had the sense to pick Powell all by himself. Have you heard the latest on Condi? She's been palling around with senior Hamas leaders, sending them thank you notes and such.

Here's how that other thing works. When the fringers stop lying, dems stop denying. It's not that complicated.
Yeah right. Served under Reagan, Bush I and Bush II
x
Republican
Are't you the one posting Democrat? Get over it. After all, thank God John Kerry's not in office, we'd all be dead.

Military Wife.
Just an fyi...I am not a Republican. (nm)
nm
Unfortunately, I'm not the other Me, by the way. I'm the republican me.
LOL
He was the only Republican of the 5....
and he and John Glenn were cleared of any wrongdoing.

The Keating Five were five United States Senators accused of corruption in 1989, igniting a major political scandal as part of the larger Savings and Loan crisis of the late 1980s and early 1990s. The five senators, Alan Cranston (D-CA), Dennis DeConcini (D-AZ), John Glenn (D-OH), John McCain (R-AZ), and Donald W. Riegle (D-MI), were accused of improperly aiding Charles H. Keating, Jr., chairman of the failed Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, which was the target of an investigation by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB).

After a lengthy investigation, the Senate Ethics Committee determined in 1991 that Alan Cranston, Dennis DeConcini, and Donald Riegle had substantially and improperly interfered with the FHLBB in its investigation of Lincoln Savings. Senators John Glenn and John McCain were cleared of having acted improperly but were criticized for having exercised "poor judgment".

All five of the senators involved served out their terms. Only Glenn and McCain ran for re-election, and they were both re-elected.

ANd by the way....I think Obama has the market cornered on bad judgment. lol.
So is all the one-way republican B.S.
Republican too
I am a Republican too, just don't get on politics board very often.  I am praying McCain/Palin win for the sake of our country.
Since when has a Republican? (Unless you
.
I'm not republican....I'm just looking out for my
Unfortunately, I've come to realize the real reason for putting Obama in office has nothing to do with their pocketbook, which is all I heard for weeks, but it has to do only with the color of his skin. I've realized there are so many racists such as yourself on this board that care absolutely nothing about their country...only the color of this man's skin.

How sad for you
What does Republican have to do with it?
@@
I'm not republican but......
the only ones being had by Obama are the ones who voted for him........

that would be you, right? So you mean he played his own democratic party into believing he actually cared about the people of this country, isn't that what you meant? Republicans and independents knew he was lying all along. Too bad you didn't!

ROFL!
So tell me what does a republican look like
I'd like to know how you were able to tell the republicans from the democrats and independents. All three parties were at the rallies, and to me they all look like human beings to me. I couldn't tell one from the other. They all had 2 ears, a head, a body, and most of them had arms and legs (except for a few I would imagine). All I know is there were democrats, republicans, and independents there and they were all patriots. It was a day where parties were put aside and people talked about facts, not parties. Everyone who participated did not say it was one side or the others fault. They said it was both sides fault. This was not an anti-Obama rally, it was an anti-government rally. Didn't you read the signs? I guess not.

You think there are no black republicans. Guess you don't follow politics very closely. As for old and white. First, that is a racist comment. Second if you want to see old and white look at your lord's administration. Every time he has a photo op he is surrounded by old white man. No blacks, no hispanics, no nothing except for old white men. Boy, talk about racism.

As for you not seeing any black faces. Yeah, sure you didn't. Why don't you say something that sounds halfway like a truth.

This is complete and utter bu!!sh!t about it being an anti-Obama rally. This pity party poor us your all picking on us routine is so old.

There is no danger to your lord. The danger is the fear and paranoia being spewed by the left. The left wing media is like a person who yells fire in a theater when there is none and then whines when people call him on it.

Yes I have heard there are concentration camps here, but how true it is I don't know. I'd have to do more research on it.

But for Pete's sake, turn off Keith Oberfool, CNN (Communist News Network) and the other spew on BSNBC and watch some real news. There are many many channels to choose from. Listen to both sides. Not just spew from the hate filled and spiteful left.

And this "I saw no black faces in the crowds". Sorry, I don't buy it. By reading your post I'll bet you were not even watching any of it.
I think I said right off what a republican
convention looks like, old and white. So you have bought into the concentration camps here in America also, how sad. What is wrong with everyone? Oh, I saw some of the pictures from the teabaggers outing, not on any of the channels you name but on the internet and they are so just horrific. I saw no diversity in the pictures (by the way, Fox was the only channel that was playing any of the outing that day so that is where I watched about 5 minutes or so). In all my 60+ years and remembering as far back as Eisenhower, the country has never to me seemed so rabid, pure unadulturated hysteria. Just insane. People have the what if syndrome. Someone posted about what are you going to do in 2011. News flash- you might be dead. I know there are some black repubs but only a token few. Just does not fit into the picture of the good ole boys.
AND he's a Republican
.
Republican chant says it all!
Mercenary pro-war trolls chanting to Cindy Sheehan, shouting "We don't care! We don't care!" Well we knew that all along:)
republican baloney
Whew..have heard the right wing frightening baloney for years and years and dont want to hear it any more..cant wait till next year when the people vote their displeasure of the republicans..Gonna be party time..
A Day in the Life of a Republican

A DAY IN THE LIFE OF JOE REPUBLICAN Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of coffee, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to insure their safety and that they work as advertised.


All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because *some liberal* union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packingindustry.


In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.


Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.


Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home or go hungry because of his temporary misfortune.


It's noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.


Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and hisbelow-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime.


Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuckhis nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.


He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.


Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day.


Joe agrees: We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have.

OOPS, THAT SHOULD BE REPUBLICAN!!! SORRY!!
XX
More Republican lies...

but this one is actually funny!


http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/attytood/archives/003008.html

I am a Republican and I don't believe I minimized anything.
..
That is what I heard. Do you mean Republican? sm
Most of the conservatives I know are Libertarian.
Are you sure you're not a Republican?

Yes, but you did say to me and another person(s) that we were not telling the truth and that is to be taken that you thought we were lying = liar.


Your reasoning appears impaired, your ability to recall what you said and when appears impaired and your ability to define and decipher what is truth and what are lies appears highly suspect.  I think you most definitely are a Republican!!!!  (with nixon and clinton thrown in just for a laugh).....


End of story.

Outsourcing is NOT just Republican...
I'd advise you to check out the outsourcing that happened during the "glory" years of Bill Clinton. As to Democrats beating ol' McCain's posterior...don't count your chickens.
I am not a Republican....but two years is...
plenty of time for the Democrat majority to have done SOMETHING...and they have done nothing...including taking their vacation instead of voting on an energy bill and they claim to care about gas prices. Pardon me if I doubt their sincerity.

I am not a Democrat either. But I know Barack Obama is as much or more invested in Europe as he is in the US, and that does not give me a warm and fuzzy. His Chicago connections, his voting record, his writings, his wife's writings, his pastor, his friends...all of those things send up huge red flags to me. What he is saying now is not anything like what his history and life have been to this point. So I don't trust him. He is way left of Clinton...most liberal voting record in the senate.

McCain has butted heads with Bush several times over the years...he is not a repeat of Bush. All one has to do is look at his record, if one is so inclined. He is not my favorite either; I have some issues with him as well. However, I know he would protect this country and I am not so sure Obama would.

The best thing I can say about George W. Bush is thank God he was President when we were attacked on 9-11, and not Kerry!
Never heard of her either. Not a Republican but would not
change parties just because there is a woman there now. Is that what McCain thinks will happen. Sad if he does.
© Copyright 2001-09 MTStars.com All Rights Reserved