I find it interesting that anything negative about Obama is
Posted By: Kendra on 2008-10-30
In Reply to: Why are you McCain people so desperate? You are just like McCain. No plan. Just criticism of the - pc
desperate and anything negative about McCain is truth--yet you call McCain supporters hyprocrites.
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
I find it interesting
that no one here has mentioned the fact that he has ALREADY been in positions of influence in the White House during the Clinton Administration.
Like it or not, Clinton actually did do some outstanding things, personal lack of morals aside, he was a good president. Then came Bush.........
What I find interesting....(sm)
is that the same ones who are making blatently racist and sexist comments about Sotomayor are the same ones who whined about the treatment of Palin. Go figure. I will, however grudgingly, admit though that so far Bill O'Reilly seems to be an exception to that. However, I think this is only because he realizes that pubs are likely to lose a huge voting block with hispanics if they continue this crap.
I do find it interesting
I have a sister who lives just outside of Toronto, and that was not her experience at all. She is very dissatisfied with the system and usually does return to the US for medical care. She does have to pay out of pocket for her care here, but says the waits are way too long at home (in Canada). Perhaps Montreal has figured out something Ontario hasn't.
Thought you all would find this interesting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4fe9GlWS8
Here's an interesting one for ya....many,many more, not hard to find.....sm
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/kfiles/b43926.html
http://www.infowars.com/resources.html
and so many others
Here's an interesting one for ya....many,many more, not hard to find.....sm
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/kfiles/b43926.html
http://www.infowars.com/resources.html
and so many others
Obama's Approval Index hits negative territory
The approval index is computed by subtracting the percentage of voters who strongly disapprove of Obama's job performance from those who strongly approve of it.
Once sporting an index in the +30 range, the Big BO (you may interpret "BO" however you wish) has in a matter of a mere handful of months fallen like Lucifer from Heaven. May his end be similarly appropriate, politically speaking. Let's make this goofy clown a one-term bozo.
It will also be very sad for you all when you find out that Obama will...sm
fail to keep his all of his innumerable promises to you all.
Already, the bar has dropped from the 250,000 down to 120,000.
Tonight alone, the media commentators, are starting to make excuses for Obama, and how he will not be able to do this or that. How will he be able to afford this program and that one without raising taxes? Oh gee, we don't know....and these commentators are liberal media, too.
They are saying they have no idea what his stance are on issues, and how left he may or may not be....as if the had never had the chance to find out.
There was also an interview with an Obama supporter, who really, truly believes that Obama will be paying for all her gas and her mortgage, so she will have no more financial worries...ever.
We non-Obama believers, have also become quite weary of the ignorant masses who have been completely and totally fooled.
Wait till you all wake up with a hangover, with nothing to show for it but broken promises.
Part of me wishes and hopes that I will be wrong, and your hearts won't be broken.
I find it rather disturbing that Obama
is wanting to control executive pay. Why does our government have a right to tell people what they can make? Besides, aren't these the same loser who get a raise every year no matter what. How about we cap what these losers can make and get rid of their benefits and maybe they will actually start working for the American people and not their own person gain. I'm so sick of our government. Nothing but crooks!!!!
Actually, I find the Obama hatred creepy!
xx
Yeah, well it would be nice if Obama could find an
nm
Yeah, and maybe Obama will FIND his birth
nm
Interesting....and I suppose Obama will define
xx
Don't find Obama worship any creepier than this post. nm
I don't see it as a negative. SM
As a matter of fact, it was a case he was assigned when he was in a law firm and his law firm, from what I understand, took pro bono cases from time to time.
A White House spokeswoman, Erin Healy, said Judge Roberts's involvement was minimal. "As in any other case," Ms. Healy said, "it is wrong to equate legal work product with personal opinions."
Don't get too excited. In any case, I don't really care.
There are other choices. I find Obama and McCain equally offensive, so I am voting for Ralph Nader.
Bob Barr might also be a good choice.
okay, not only negative but arrogant!
A bit of humility would be in order.
Good breeding consists of concealing how much we think of ourselves and how little we think of the other person. - Mark Twain
cant prove a negative
pure speculation. Not been attacked by little green people from Mars either.
NEGATIVE CAMPAIGN ADS
Obama has had 61% of his ads negative throughout his ENTIRE campaign........... McCain only for one week.
Obama spent 47 million on negative ads.....McCain 27 million.
Yea, poor 'ole Obama....... just keeping believing in this guy. He'll sell you to the middle east and you'll be feeding their camels.
what a bunch of negative
nellies. Why even bother getting up in the morning with that burden of resentment on your shoulders?
Funny. I think CNN is negative.
x
Ever try to prove a negative?
The government can ''guestimate'' a number and send you a bill for what you ''owe''. Then I guess it's up to you to prove they're wrong? Not an enviable position to be in.
You are the most unhappy, negative person I have ever seen! nm
You are such a negative person - I saw your other posts.
So hmmmmmm
Iim ignoring all the negative dem psychobabble....
...doesn't change anything for me.
Sam = I'm ready for her to hit a home run tonight. It's the most important speech of her life. Can hardly wait....
Watched Romney talk earlier today, and he is such a class act. Looking forward to his speech tonight, too.
and to anyone thinking it....no, I won't read any negative posts after mine, so don't bother....
One BIG difference....O's negative campaign
the SCARIEST notion of all...4 more years of 90%. He has not engaged in character assassination. He has criticized McC's policies, which is what ANY candidate from ANY party is entitled to do.
Bush's "Active/Negative" Presidency
Bush's Active/Negative Presidency
Recent events provide an especially good illustration of Bush's fateful - perhaps fatal - approach. Six generals who have served under Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld have called for his resignation - making a strong substantive case as to why he should resign. And they are not alone: Editorialists have also persuasively attacked Rumsfeld on the merits.
Yet Bush's defense of Rumsfeld was entirely substance-free. Bush simply told reporters in the Rose Garden that Rumsfeld would stay because I'm the decider and I decide what's best. He sounded much like a parent telling children how things would be: I'm the Daddy, that's why.
This, indeed, is how Bush sees the presidency, and it is a point of view that will cause him trouble.
Bush has never understood what presidential scholar Richard Neustadt discovered many years ago: In a democracy, the only real power the presidency commands is the power to persuade. Presidents have their bully pulpit, and the full attention of the news media, 24/7. In addition, they are given the benefit of the doubt when they go to the American people to ask for their support. But as effective as this power can be, it can be equally devastating when it languishes unused - or when a president pretends not to need to use it, as Bush has done.
Apparently, Bush does not realize that to lead he must continually renew his approval with the public. He is not, as he thinks, the decider. The public is the decider.
Bush is following the classic mistaken pattern of active/negative presidents: As Barber explained, they issue order after order, without public support, until they eventually dissipate the real powers they have -- until nothing [is] left but the shell of the office. Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon all followed this pattern.
Active/negative presidents are risk-takers. (Consider the colossal risk Bush took with the Iraq invasion). And once they have taken a position, they lock on to failed courses of action and insist on rigidly holding steady, even when new facts indicate that flexibility is required.
The source of their rigidity is that they've become emotionally attached to their own positions; to change them, in their minds, would be to change their personal identity, their very essence. That, they are not willing to do at any cost.
Wilson rode his unpopular League of Nations proposal to his ruin; Hoover refused to let the federal government intervene to prevent or lessen a fiscal depression; Johnson escalated U.S. involvement in Vietnam while misleading Americans (thereby making himself unelectable); and Nixon went down with his bogus defense of Watergate.
George Bush has misled America into a preemptive war in Iraq; he is using terrorism to claim that as Commander-in-Chief, he is above the law; and he refuses to acknowledge that American law prohibits torturing our enemies and warrantlessly wiretapping Americans.
Americans, increasingly, are not buying his justifications for any of these positions. Yet Bush has made no effort to persuade them that his actions are sound, prudent or productive; rather, he takes offense when anyone questions his unilateral powers. He responds as if personally insulted.
And this may be his only option: With Bush's limited rhetorical skills, it would be all but impossible for him to persuade any others than his most loyal supporters of his positions. His single salient virtue - as a campaigner - was the ability to stay on-message. He effectively (though inaccurately) portrayed both Al Gore and John Kerry as wafflers, whereas he found consistency in (over)simplifying the issues. But now, he cannot absorb the fact that his message is not one Americans want to hear - that he is being questioned, severely, and that staying on-message will be his downfall.
Other Presidents - other leaders, generally - have been able to listen to critics relatively impassively, believing that there is nothing personal about a debate about how best to achieve shared goals. Some have even turned detractors into supporters - something it's virtually impossible to imagine Bush doing. But not active/negative presidents. And not likely Bush.
The Danger of the Active/Negative President Facing A Congressional Rout
Active/negative presidents -- Barber tells us, and history shows -- are driven, persistent, and emphatic. Barber says their pervasive feeling is I must.
Barber's collective portrait of Wilson, Hoover, Johnson and Nixon now fits George W. Bush too: He sees himself as having begun with a high purpose, but as being continually forced to compromise in order to achieve the end state he vaguely envisions, Barber writes. He continues, Battered from all sides . . . he begins to feel his integrity slipping away from him . . . [and] after enduring all this for longer than any mortal should, he rebels and stands his ground. Masking his decision in whatever rhetoric is necessary, he rides the tiger to the end.
Bush's policies have incorporated risk from the outset. A few examples make that clear.
He took the risk that he could capture Osama bin Laden with a small group of CIA operatives and U.S. Army Special forces - and he failed. He took the risk that he could invade Iraq and control the country with fewer troops and less planning than the generals and State Department told him would be possible - and he failed. He took the risk that he could ignore the criminal laws prohibiting torture and the warrantless wiretapping of Americans without being caught - he failed. And he's taken the risk that he can cut the taxes for the rich and run up huge financial deficits without hurting the economy. This, too, will fail, though the consequences will likely fall on future presidents and generations who must repay Bush's debts.
For the whole article go to: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060421.html
I do not think there will be anything negative from family values voters...
I do not believe they will react negatively to this. What kind of man would McCain have been to decide not to choose her just because her daughter was pregnant and not married. What if she was pregnant and married? This whole thing just reeks. Like Obama said...children should not be involved in politics and this will not affect her ability to function as governor or as vice president. At least one on the left is being decent about this.
I agree totally with you. A very negative message. nm
.
By my read, not a single negative response among them.
x
find out. I find sam's posts to the point
nm
I couldn't find that one but I did find this
S.Amdt.4170: To protect families, family farms and small businessees by extending the income tax rate structure, raising the death tax exemption to $5 million and reducing the maximum death tax rate to no more than 35%; to keep education affordable extending the college tuition deduction; and to protect senior citizens from higher taxes on their retirement income, maintain U.S. financial market competitiveness, and promote economic growth by extending the lower tax rates on dividents and capital gains.
NAY: Biden and Obama YEA: McCalin
I.E., this is in the voting record in the public records. There are not too many voting records there for the O since he started his campaign and most of those he voted NAY or say Not Voting.
Well, then, please find me one that you find to be racist.
Find it yourself...
I used to answer all of these posts requiring that I go back and find the names and dates and places of anything that I posted to prove what I was saying. What usually happened was that it would still be discounted for some reason or another as biased, meaningless or just untrue so I have stopped reresearching for the nonbelievers. I read papers. I watch news shows. I watch senate proceedings. David Gergen, Ed Gillespie, William Buckley, Susan Collins, Peter King, Bill Bennett are a few off the top of my head but if you need proof, you do the legwork. I assure you it is out there. C-SPAN is a good source. You can see and hear them in action.
You know what I find to be
OFF-THE-WALL mindboggling about the king's apologists/cultists is that they shriek about illegal immigration with *They're breaking the LAW!*....hmmm, so they don't hold their king to the standard they expect from noncitizens of this country? It's hard work drinking all that Kool-Aid!
Meanwhile, Cheney claims he hasn't seen the senate report re: no connection between Osama and Saddam, and Rice insists there WERE ties and it was all Tenet's fault. HUH?! So now I'm wondering, does this mean Tenet has to return his medal of freedom? After all, it's not like he said he was pressured to manufacture the intelligence to suit Bush and Co.
Took me a while to find this....
And Clinton is a serial rapist. So what is your point? sm
[Post a Reply] [View Follow Ups] [Politics] --> [Conservatives]
Posted By: Brunson on 2006-05-03,
In Reply to: Hitchens is a public and private severe alcoholic - Mind
Everyone knows that Hitchens is an alcoholic. You are adding nothing to this conversation. Act like an adult or leave.
I cannot find it
but I have also seen a picture where Obama is standing on a platform with other people who are pledging allegiance to our beautiful flag with their hand over their hearts, and Obama is just standing there. This is the picture that really made me wonder what this guy is made of, where he is coming from, and where he wants to take us!
I find it odd.....
I find it odd that people won't follow the constitution written about 200 years ago by our founding fathers (people we know what they looked like). They say it's old and archaic and has no place in today's world - times have changed.
Yet...they will follow the bible word for word that was written around 1500 to 400 BC. - which by the way was written by men keeping in the parts they wanted to and not putting in other parts they didn't want to.
Where is the sanity?
why can't they find them?
They have to put the info into a computer somewhere? Why can't it just tell them that it is invalid - my local office was able to tell me within 24 hours that I was okay to vote this year.
Where did you find this?
xx
Once again, you only want to find something to
X
Won't be able to find you and your ilk. You;ll be
living under the same rock you crawled out from under. Bye-Bye, sad Brad.
If you can't find them...well (sm)
you obviously have a problem already. Sources I've used include a direct link to the US Senate, factcheck.org (an organization that even Fox uses), going to bills/legistation directly....etc.
We can find these all day...
long, but until you actually look at McCain's voting record, posts like this (including the one below) are nothing but opinion.
http://vetsforobama.org/
The ones I find concerning:
AIDE TO IRAN'S AYATOLLAH ALI KHAMENEI, ALI AGHAMOHAMMADI
"The president-elect has promised changes in policies. There is a capacity for the improvement of ties between America and Iran if Obama pursues his campaign promises, including not confronting other countries as Bush did in Iraq and Afghanistan, and also concentrating on America's state matters and removing the American people's concerns."
In other words, sit down with us with no preconditions and let's powwow.
RUSSIAN DEPUTY FOREIGN MINISTER GRIGORY KARASIN
"The news we are receiving on the results of the American presidential election shows that everyone has the right to hope for a freshening of US approaches to all the most complex issues, including foreign policy and therefore relations with the Russian Federation as well."
In other words, come into my parlor said the spider to the fly...
The rest kind of backs up his citizen of the world mantra. Will wait and watch for how that plays out.
The one I find amusing:
SUDANESE FOREIGN MINISTRY SPOKESMAN ALI AL-SADIG
"We don't expect any change through our previous experience with the Democrats. When it comes to foreign policy there is no difference between the Republicans and the Democrats."
LOL
They won't find it. LOL (nm)
I always find that the most
vociferous against religion are the ones who are so afraid there is a God that when their time comes and their life is judged, they know what's coming, and feel guilty for the life they are leading.
I don't want to find out what comes after
trillion but if our government continues to spend the money, I fear we may find out the hard way. All I've heard about is how Bush doubled our deficit in 8 years. Well, Obama has been in office not even a full month and wants to add 1 trillion dollars to it....although he continues to say 800 billion in his charismatic speeches. I'm also so tired of the blame game. Obama himself made sure in his speech last night at the democratic retreat (which, BTW, taxpayers helped pay for, thanks O) to mention that government is a group of people throwing out ideas and it isn't one person dictating everything. Yet he continues to blame one person, Bush, for our crisis. This crisis has been a long time coming people and started before Bush, although he didn't help either. I blame government as a whole and I intend to hold both dems and pubs feet to the fire and since the dems are currently in control......they are most definitely getting more criticism from me because they are in charge at this point. Doesn't mean I'm not keeping an eye on the pubs too cuz Lord knows there are crooks in both parties.
Find it For Yourself
.
what I did find out
Each province administers their own so perhaps what I said in jest is actually true. Montreal has figured out something Ontario has not. It seems some provinces have got this down pat, no long waits, no refusal of particular cares, etc., etc., etc., and their residents are extremely satisfied. Costs are quite low, can be as low as $98 per month for a family of four, which covers basically everything except prescriptions. Not to worry, however, as prescription costs are much lower in Canada. Plus most employers cover the full cost for their employees (not the prescriptions but the insurance). All the things we hear of as awful are just not true - in some provinces. However, in other provinces they are true - long waits, no care, etc., etc., etc. If we could but have the good parts of their plan!
Does anyone else find it
interesting that Obama ridiculed McCann for taxing healthcare benefits during his campaign and yet that is now something on the table Obama is considering to help fund his healthcare reform. Funny how something that was once ridiculous to him is now something okay to do and how dare we question him.
Once again.....why aren't democrats holding Obama's feet to the fire here? Lie after lie and broken promise after broken promise. If anyone from any other party flip flopped and lied like this....you guys would crucify him/her. What gives?
|
