I did not see anywhere where there was anybody accused of voting illegally -

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

Show me the post I wrote where I claimed to have *inside info on rapture. She said so* as you accused me of in your post above. Just copy and paste it and show me where I said I have inside info on the rapture.

of being an alcoholic (and there wasn't even a STORY written about her). You do this kind of thing to posters on this board on a daily basis. And you're doing it again to GT. She has said point blank that she DOESN'T wish that on him, but that doesn't coincide with your lying attack against her so once again the truth doesn't count.

Neocons Accuse �Liberal� New York Times of Treason

Monday June 26th 2006, 8:05 am

Michelle Malkin, neocon blogger and concentration camp advocate, has posted a spate of converted WWII posters on her site, taking the New York Times to task for reporting the news, albeit a year late.

According to Malkin and New York representative Peter King, the New York Times stands accused of treason �for reporting last week about a secret financial-monitoring program used to trace alleged terrorists� and disclosing �a secret domestic wiretapping program,� according to CBC News, never mind both programs violate the spirit and the letter of the Constitution. �No one elected The New York Times to do anything,� King told the New York Daily News. �They�re breaking the law to satisfy their own arrogant, liberal agenda.�

In Bushzarro world, newspapers are �elected� to report the news. If newspapers report the trashing of the Constitution, this is treason. In Malkin�s world, it follows that traitors should be thrown in concentration camps, especially if they resemble in any way Arabs or Muslims.

It would seem Mr. King and Malkin suffer from memory loss. It was Judith Miller�s �arrogant, liberal agenda� that brought us the neocon lies about illusory Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. As Antony Loewenstein writes for the Sydney Morning Herald, the �vast majority of [Miller�s] WMD claims came through Ahmed Chalabi, an indicted fraudster and one of the leading figures in the Iraqi National Congress (INC), the group keen to militarily overthrow Saddam. Miller relied on untested defectors� testimonies (usually provided by Chalabi) to write several front-page stories on this information,� stories that did not pass the smell test at the time and have found the memory hole since.

Ahmed Chalabi, convicted bank fraudster installed as a deputy prime minister in Iraq, was a neocon darling. His Iraqi National Congress, created by the CIA, was the primary source of Judith Miller�s �journalism.� In short, Judith Miller was a hack for the neocons, thus making the New York Times a neocon conduit for lies and propaganda.

Even though the New York Times serves as a shameless shill for the �arrogant, liberal agenda� of the neocons, this does not change the fact the newspaper is protected under both the First Amendment and statutory procedure (see the Supreme Court case, Bartnicki v. Vopper). In 1971, the Supreme Court ruled in a per curiam decision that prior restraint (censorship) was not warranted in a government effort to stop the New York Times from publishing the Pentagon Papers. �There�s a tone of gleeful relish in the way they [the Bush neocons] talk about dragging reporters before grand juries, their appetite for withholding information, and the hints that reporters who look too hard into the public�s business risk being branded traitors,� Bill Keller, New York Times Executive Editor, told the Washington Post.

King and Malkin, of course, have nothing but contempt for Supreme Court rulings. It is irrelevant that NSA whistleblower Russell Tice (the source behind revelations published in the New York Times) is protected by federal law. King and Malkin believe the unitary decider and his Machiavellian operatives have the right to look through your financial, medical, and library records, listen in on your telephone calls, read your email, and sneak and peek your computer hard drive and while they�re at it rifle through your underwear drawer because �we are at war� with an enemy never sufficiently documented or designated, an enemy who worked for the CIA in Afghanistan and is not specifically �wanted in connection� with the nine eleven attacks, as his FBI wanted poster reveals.

Obviously, King and Malkin, and the whole of the neocon choir, believe the phony �war on terror,� rechristened the �long war��i.e., it will last a century or more, or long enough to provide obscene profits for the death merchants�gives the �permanent revolution� Jacobins the right to trash the Constitution.

Quite naturally, this brings to mind Hitler�s Erm�chtigungsgesetz, or Enabling Act, an element of the Reichstag Fire Decree nullifying the civil liberties of German citizens after the Reichstag was torched (a fire planned by Goebbels and executed by G�ring, according to SA man Karl Ernst).

Bush, not unlike Hitler, feels he has the authority to by-pass Congress (mostly corporate purchased whores, so this is a moot point) and use the Constitution as a doormat where the unitary decider wipes off his shoes, mucky with the blood a few hundred thousand Iraqis.

No, I wasn't being all that serious. I just don't see how people can preach about an unborn baby's life being the "will of God", but the life of somebody on a battlefield is not the "will of God", the life of all animals euthanized daily in pet shelters is not the "will of God", the life of the chicken in that sandwich you ate for lunch is not the "will of God".

Either all life is sacred (bugs and trees included) or its OK to kill things. According to the Bible, there's times he's really into it, so obviously he thinks sometimes its OK. People who claim to know when its OK (or not) are claiming to know the mind of God and speaking for him, which is presumptuous and egotistical, IMHO.

So, please, find her racist quotes, copy and paste them because I'd love to see them. My guess is you won't find any.

Police in this New Orleans suburb arrested Merlene Maten (search) the day after the hurricane on charges she took $63.50 in goods from a looted deli. Though never before in trouble with the law, her bail was set at a stiff $50,000 and she was shipped away to a state penitentiary.

Family and eyewitnesses insist Maten's prison odyssey was unwarranted, claiming she only had gone to her car to get some sausage to eat when officers cuffed her in frustration, unable to catch younger looters at a nearby store.

Despite intervention from the nation's largest senior lobby, volunteer lawyers from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (search) and even a private attorney, the family fought a futile battle for 16 days to get her freed.

Then, hours after her plight was featured in an Associated Press story, a local judge on Thursday ordered Maten freed on her own recognizance, setting up a sweet reunion with her daughter, grandchildren and 80-year-old husband.

Thousands are rallying behind this guy as the story makes its way around the web. The story is just below the picture.

Please direct me to where in the Constitution that it says that voting is a RIGHT? It is not a right. We have a right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness!!

but I tend agree with you. I think it is sad race still matters all these years later, rather depressing really. You can keep your nose clean, do all of the right things according to society's standards and color still matters. Why? Who cares about color what about his policies? Shouldn't they matter more?

Small polling place, only 4 machines, 1 of which was already belly up and I was just 15th in line. Anyway, vote is in, and I didn't vote a straight party one button. I punched each one separately...I wanted to savor the moment! :-)

I have enjoyed the debate and I for one am glad there are so many in our profession engaged in the process and concerned for the country, no matter which side you fall on. So, hats off to you, and may the best man and woman win! :-)

that your vote is based on the dislike of an anonymous poster on a tiny little chat board, it was not worth much anyway.

From the beginning, I've always known I would not vote for Obama. His plans will not work. He will destroy small businesses with his taxes causing loss of jobs. His plans of taking from the rich to give to the poor will only enable the low-life scum we have in this country to remain lazy and worthless. His associations with certain individuals and his membership for 20 years to a church designed on black power and the hate of whites........I cannot trust this man to be the commander and chief. I do not agree with his plans for healthcare. I do not agree with his extremist view point on abortion. I do not condone gay marriage. I cannot under good conscience vote for Barack Obama. If we elect Barack Obama to be the president, we will sorely regret it.

So bash me as you will. Obviously, from posts below, this is a support Obama political board and should anyone differ......OMG....you should be thrown off of the board. You all have been sucked into this mainstream media love affair with a man that we cannot trust, a man who doesn't have the experience, and a man who promises change that he cannot bring. The one thing I can agree with Obama is this.....his campaign does give me hope.....it gives me hope that enough people get their heads out of their butts and John McCain wins this election and becomes the next President of the United States of America!!!!

Since everyone is at least a bit familiar with John McCain�s record when it comes to strolling through a market in Baghdad with hundreds of his closest guards, or how he wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years (except when he flip flops on that).

But not that many really, truly know just how horrific his voting record is when it comes to the troops. And it is pretty consistent � whether it is for armor and equipment, for veteran�s health care, for adequate troop rest or anything that actually, you know, supports our troops.

This is chock full of links to the roll call votes, and the roll call votes have links to the actual underlying bills and amendments. I present this so that there is support and things that can be rattled off when saying that McCain is not a friend of the military. Feel free to use it as you want, but this can be tied into the "Double Talk Express". But here is a very quick statement - John McCain skipped close to a dozen votes on Iraq, and on at least another 10 occasions, he voted against arming and equipping the troops, providing adequate rest for the troops between deployments and for health care or other benefits for veterans.

In mid 2007, Senator Reid noted that McCain missed 10 of the past 14 votes on Iraq. However, here is a summary of a dozen votes (two that he missed and ten that he voted against) with respect to Iraq, funding for veterans or for troops, including equipment and armor. I have also included other snippets related to the time period when the vote occurred.

March 2004: McCain once again voted for abusive tax loopholes over veterans when he voted against creating a reserve fund to allow for an increase in Veterans' medical care by $1.8 billion by eliminating abusive tax loopholes. Jeez, McCain really loves those tax loopholes for corporations, since he voted for them over our veterans' needs.

October 2003: McCain voted to table an amendment by Senator Dodd that called for an additional $322,000,000 for safety equipment for United States forces in Iraq and to reduce the amount provided for reconstruction in Iraq by $322,000,000.

So there it is. John McCain is yet another republican former military veteran who likes to talk a big game when it comes to having the support of the military. Yet, time and time again, he has gone out of his way to vote against the needs of those who are serving in our military. If he can�t even see his way to actually doing what the troops want, or what the veterans need, and he doesn�t have the support of veterans, then how can he be a credible commander in chief?

you will need to keep things like OBAMA and OSAMA straight. The political system was based on the assumption that voters would know the difference between a tall black man running for president and a tall man in a sheet running for cover. Study up. Only a few more weeks . . . I'm betting you can do it.