I mean Dean is a real republican, not like the ones today.
Posted By: double wow on 2006-07-20
In Reply to: What about them? sm - MT
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
As a Republican I was not real impressed...
by Palin last night. I thought she spoke well and had a good speech getting the crowd going, but I was sad to see so much bashing from the speakers last night. I guess as a Rep. I think we should be above that.  . One of the things that bothered me was Rudy and Sarah going after Obama for his work as a community organizer. Excuse me, but shouldn't that be a good thing. I also wished she would have stayed away from the whole bridge to nowhere considering she was all for it until the heat came on that it was pretty much a joke and then she decided she was all against it. I'm not saying I am crossing party lines but I am not completely sold on the McCain/Palin ticket, and last night's speech certainly didn't clinch it for me either. I just hope that soon that junk will be pushed aside on her her so we can get to the issues and some actual hardline questions and answers. Below is a blog post from The Dallas Morning News. I know, it is just a blog but I thought it had some good points. Read on.
9:04 AM Thu, Sep 04, 2008 | Permalink |
Yahoo! BuzzMichael Landauer ![](http://www.dallasnews.com/blogs/images/email-icon.jpg") E-mail Suggest a blog topic
I really don't understand the mocking of Obama for being a community organizer as a young man.
Giuliani last night: "On the other hand, you have a resume from a gifted man with an Ivy League education. He worked as a community organizer. What? He worked -- I said -- I said, OK, OK, maybe this is the first problem on the resume."
Palin last night: I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a "community organizer," except that you have actual responsibilities.
Now, the truth is that, starting at age 23, Obama ran a faith-based charity called the Developing Communities Project.
It was made up of eight Catholic parishes when he got there and had one staff member. He was its director, meaning he was in charge. He made decisions about it, including staffing, budgets, etc. And when he left in 1988 to go to law school, he had grown its budget from $70,000 to $400,000, its staff from 1 to 13 people. More important, he created a job training program for this community and a college prep tutoring program.
As mayor, she built a hockey rink/rec center using eminent domain (because apparently there just isn't enough land in Alaska).
And keep in mind the timeline here: Obama did this as a young man BEFORE going to law school, becoming a successful lawyer and a law professor.
I don't think it's right to attack someone for working in a faith-based charity out of college. I think we all have some embarrassing first-jobs in our past. I would not make fun of Palin for being a beauty queen and sports reporter out of college during these same years. Although, I do think Obama's experience shaped his political future a bit better ...
What's Ron calling himself today? Libertarian? Republican? Or has he moved on to something else
and, puh-leeze, LewRockwell.com as a source of anything but lunatic fringe "news"? LOL
The Real Face of Satann Coulter and Republican Party
http://satanncoulter666.cf.huffingtonpost.com/
Yup, the Real Republican Party will rise again....new blood is definitely needed, that's for sure
Howard Dean is also an MD
so he's just a stupid "crat?" Who's stupid?
James Dean? No way!
Did not know that
article from john dean
Was Pat Robertson's Call for Assassination of a Foreign Leader a Crime?
By John W. Dean
FindLaw.com
Friday 26 August 2005
Had he been a Democrat, he'd probably be hiring a criminal attorney.
On Monday, August 22, the Chairman of the Christian Broadcast Network, Marion Pat Robertson, proclaimed, on his 700 Club television show, that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez should be murdered.
More specifically, Robertson said, You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, referring to the American policy since the Presidency of Gerald Ford against assassination of foreign leaders, but if he [Chavez] thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war, and I don't think any oil shipments will stop.
We have the ability to take him out, Robertson continued, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with.
Robertson found himself in the middle of a media firestorm. He initially denied he'd called for Chavez to be killed, and claimed he'd been misinterpreted, but in an age of digital recording, Robertson could not flip-flop his way out of his own statement. He said what he said.
By Wednesday, Robertson was backing down: I didn't say 'assassination.' I said our special forces should 'take him out,' Robertson claimed on his Wednesday show. 'Take him out' could be a number of things including kidnapping.
No one bought that explanation, either. So Robertson quietly posted a half apology on his website. It is only a half apology because it is clear he really does not mean to apologize, but rather, still seeks to rationalize and justify his dastardly comment.
From the moment I heard Robertson's remark, on the radio, I thought of the federal criminal statutes prohibiting such threats. Do they apply?
For me, the answer is yes. Indeed, had these comments been made by a Dan Rather, a Bill Moyers, or Jesse Jackson, it is not difficult to imagine some conservative prosecutor taking a passing look at these laws - as, say, Pat Robertson might read them - and saying, Let's prosecute.
The Broad Federal Threat Attempt Prohibition Vis-à-Vis Foreign Leaders
Examine first, if you will, the broad prohibition against threatening or intimidating foreign officials, which is a misdemeanor offense. This is found in Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 112(b), which states: Whoever willfully - (1) ... threatens ... a foreign official ..., [or] (2) attempts to... threaten ... a foreign official ... shall be fined under this titled or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
The text of this misdemeanor statute plainly applies: No one can doubt that Robertson attempted to threaten President Chavez.
Yet the statute was written to protect foreign officials visiting the United States - not those in their homelands. Does that make a difference?
It would likely be the precedent of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit that would answer that question; the Fourth Circuit includes Virginia where Robertson made the statement. And typically, the Fourth Circuit, in interpreting statutes does not look to the intent of Congress; it focuses on statutory language instead.
And in a case involving Robertson, to focus on language would only be poetic justice:
Robertson, is the strictest of strict constructionists, a man who believes judges (and prosecutors) should enforce the law exactly as written. He said as much in his 2004 book, Courting Disaster: How the Supreme Court Is Usurping The Power of Congress and the People.
Still, since the applicability of this misdemeanor statute is debatable, I will focus on the felony statute instead.
The Federal Threat Statute: Fines and Prison for Threats to Kidnap or Injure
It is a federal felony to use instruments of interstate or foreign commerce to threaten other people. The statute is clear, and simple. Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 875(c), states: Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. (Emphases added.)
The interstate or foreign commerce element is plainly satisfied by Robertson's statements. Robertson's 700 Club is listed as broadcasting in thirty-nine states and the District of Columbia, not to mention ABC Family Channel satellites which cover not only the United States but several foreign countries as well. In addition, the program was sent around the world via the Internet.
But did Robertson's communication contain a threat to kidnap or injure Chavez?
First, Robertson said he wanted to assassinate President Chavez. His threat to take him out, especially when combined with the explanation that this would be cheaper than war, was clearly a threat to kill.
Then, Robertson said he was only talking about kidnapping Chavez. Under the federal statute, a threat to kidnap is expressly covered.
As simple and clear as this statute may be, the federal circuit courts have been divided when reading it. But the conservative Fourth Circuit, where Robertson made his statement, is rather clear on its reading of the law.
Does Robertson's Threat Count as a True Threat? The Applicable Fourth Circuit Precedents Suggest It Does
If Robertson himself were a judge (or prosecutor) reading this statue - based on my reading of his book about how judges and justice should interpret the law - he would be in a heap of trouble. But how would the statute likely be read in the Fourth Circuit, where a prosecution of Robertson would occur?
Under that Circuit's precedent, the question would be whether Robertson's threat was a true threat. Of course, on third reflection, Robertson said it was not. But others have been prosecuted notwithstanding retractions, and later reflections on intemperate threats.
Here is how the Fourth Circuit - as it explained in the Draby case - views threats under this statute: Whether a communication in fact contains a true threat is determined by the interpretation of a reasonable recipient [meaning, the person to whom the threat was directed] familiar with the context of the communication.
This is an objective standard, under which the court looks at the totality of the circumstances surrounding the communications, rather than simply looking to the subjective intent of the speaker, or the subjective feelings of the recipient. So even if Robertson did not mean to make a threat, and even if Chavez did not feel threatened, that is not the end of the story.
In one Fourth Circuit case, the defendant asked if [the person threatened] knew who Jeffrey Dahlmer [sic] was. Then the defendant added that, he didn't eat his victims, like Jeffrey Dahlmer; [sic] that he just killed them by blowing them up. This defendant's conviction for this threat was upheld.
In another Fourth Circuit ruling, the defendant, an unhappy taxpayer, was convicted for saying, to an IRS Agent, that in all honesty, I can smile at you and blow your brains out; that once I come through there, anybody that tries to stop me, I'm going to treat them just like they were a cockroach; and, that unless I can throw somebody through a damn window, I'm just not going to feel good.
Viewed in the context, and taking into account the totality of the circumstances, it was anything but clear that any of these threats were anything more than angry tough talk. The same could be said of Robertson's threats. Yet in both these cases, the Fourth Circuit upheld the defendant's conviction, deeming the true threat evidence sufficient to do so.
For me, this make Robertson's threats a very close question. President Chavez publicly brushed Robertson's threats off, for obvious diplomatic reasons, yet I suspect a little inquiry would uncover that the Venezuelan President privately he has taken extra precautions, and his security people have beefed up his protection. Robertson has Christian soldiers everywhere. Who knows what some misguided missionary might do?
If you have not seen the Robertson threat, view it yourself and decide. Robertson's manner, his choice to return to the subject repeatedly in his discourse, and the seriousness with which he stated the threat, all strike me as leading strongly to the conclusion that this was a true threat. Only media pressure partially backed him off. And his apology is anything but a retraction.
Will Robertson be investigated or prosecuted by federal authorities? Will he be called before Congress? Will the President, or the Secretary of State, publicly chastise Robertson? Are those three silly questions about a man who controls millions of Republican votes from Christian conservatives?
John W. Dean, a FindLaw columnist, is a former counsel to the president.
Here is a synopsis of the Dean interview.
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0714-25.htm
Them's strong words Mr Dean!
John Dean on MSNBC: Dik Cheney may be guilty of "murder"
Investigative reporter Seymour Hersh’s bombshell earlier this week that Vice President Dik Cheney controlled an “executive assassination ring” continues to reverberate throughout Washington, with Nixon aide John Dean going so far as to accuse the former VP of murder if the charges are true.
You still got the wrong Mr. Dean, Darwin
Identifying the CORRECT Mr. Dean since you don't know any better........no child left behind?
Ummm...wrong Mr. Dean, Einstein
Howard Dean was the Vermont Governor who ran in the 2004 election. JOHN Dean was Richard Nixon's Aide - get it?
John Wesley Dean III (born October 14, 1938) was White House Counsel to U.S. President Richard Nixon from July 1970 until April 1973. As White House Counsel, he became deeply involved in events leading up to the Watergate burglaries and the subsequent Watergate scandal cover up, even referred to as "master manipulator of the cover up" by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
Mr. Dean talks thought the mouth of a horse
Yeah, like anything he has to say is valuable. This is the guy who screamed out all those states - HEEEEE-YAWWWWWW?
Mr. Dean is a spiteful crat to the bone and did not do his job properly. He didn't stand on the side of the people, who stood with the big money people.
If he's going to call anyone a murderer he best go back to Billy boy himself with those wars he started that he had no place involving the US troops. Lots of innocent people were slaughtered because of him back then and no he did not follow the Geneva code.
Jon Butler, Dean of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences
HNN History News Network Because the Past is the Present, and the Future too.
12-20-04 An Interview with Jon Butler ... Was America Founded as a Christian Nation?
By Rick Shenkman
Mr. Butler, Dean of the Graduate School of Arts & Sciences at Yale University, is the author of Awash in a Sea of Faith: Christianizing the American People(Harvard University Press, 1990). This interview was conducted by HNN editor Rick Shenkman for The Learning Channel series, Myth America, which aired several years ago.
You hear it all the time from the right wing. The United States was founded as a Christian country. What do you make of that?
Well, first of all, it wasn't. The United States wasn't founded as a Christian country. Religion played very little role in the American Revolution and it played very little role in the making of the Constitution. That's largely because the Founding Fathers were on the whole deists who had a very abstract conception of God, whose view of God was not a God who acted in the world today and manipulated events in a way that actually changed the course of human history. Their view of religion was really a view that stressed ethics and morals rather than a direct divine intervention.
And when you use the term deists, define that. What does that mean?
A deist means someone who believes in the existence of God or a God, the God who sets the world into being, lays down moral and ethical principals and then charges men and women with living lives according to those principals but does not intervene in the world on a daily basis.
Let's go through some of them. George Washington?
George Washington was a man for whom if you were to look at his writings, you would be very hard pressed to find any deep, personal involvement with religion. Washington thought religion was important for the culture and he thought religion was important for soldiers largely because he hoped it would instill good discipline, though he was often bitterly disappointed by the discipline that it did or didn't instill.
And he thought that society needed religion. But he was not a pious man himself. That is, he wasn't someone who was given to daily Bible reading. He wasn't someone who was evangelical. He simply was a believer. It's fair, perfectly fair, to describe Washington as a believer but not as someone whose daily behavior, whose political life, whose principals are so deeply infected by religion that you would have felt it if you were talking to him.
Thomas Jefferson?
Well, Jefferson's interesting because recently evangelicals, some evangelicals, have tried to make Jefferson out as an evangelical. Jefferson actually was deeply interested in the question of religion and morals and it's why Jefferson, particularly in his later years, developed a notebook of Jesus' sayings that he found morally and ethically interesting. It's now long since been published and is sometimes called, The Jefferson Bible. But Jefferson had real trouble with the Divinity of Christ and he had real trouble with the description of various events mentioned in both the New and the Old Testament so that he was an enlightened skeptic who was profoundly interested in the figure of Christ as a human being and as an ethical teacher. But he was not religious in any modern meaning of that word or any eighteenth century meaning of that word. He wasn't a regular church goer and he never affiliated himself with a religious denomination--unlike Washington who actually did. He was an Episcopalian. Jefferson, however, was interested in morals and ethics and thought that morals and ethics were important but that's different than saying religion is important because morals and ethics can come from many sources other than religion and Jefferson knew that and understood that.
Where does he stand on Christ exactly?
Jefferson rejected the divinity of Christ, but he believed that Christ was a deeply interesting and profoundly important moral or ethical teacher and it was in Christ's moral and ethical teachings that Jefferson was particularly interested. And so that's what attracted him to the figure of Christ was the moral and ethical teachings as described in the New Testament. But he was not an evangelical and he was not a deeply pious individual.
Let's move on to Benjamin Franklin.
Benjamin Franklin was even less religious than Washington and Jefferson. Franklin was an egotist. Franklin was someone who believed far more in himself than he could possibly have believed have believed in the divinity of Christ, which he didn't. He believed in such things as the transmigration of souls. That is that human, that humans came into being in another existence and he may have had occult beliefs. He was a Mason who was deeply interested in Masonic secrets and there are some signs that Franklin believed in the mysteries of Occultism though he never really wrote much about it and never really said much about it. Franklin is another writer whom you can read all you want to read in the many published volumes of Franklin's writings and read very little about religion.
Where did the conservatives come up with this idea that the Founding Fathers were so religious?
Well, when they discuss the Founding Fathers or when individuals who are interested in stressing the role of religion in the period of the American Revolution discuss this subject, they often stress several characteristics. One is that it is absolutely true that many of the second level and third levels in the American Revolution were themselves church members and some of them were deeply involved in religion themselves.
It's also true that most Protestant clergymen at the time of the American Revolution, especially toward the end of the Revolution, very eagerly backed the Revolution. So there's a great deal of formal religious support for the American Revolution and that makes it appear as though this is a Christian nation or that religion had something to do with the coming of the Revolution, the texture of the Revolution, the making of the Revolution.
But I think that many historians will argue and I think quite correctly that the Revolution was a political event. It was centered in an understanding of what politics is and by that we mean secular politics, holding power. Who has authority? Why should they have authority? It wasn't centered in religious events. It wasn't centered in miracles. It wasn't centered in church disputes. There was some difficulty with the Anglican church but it was relatively minor and as an example all one needs to do is look at the Declaration of Independence. Neither in Jefferson's beautifully written opening statement in the Declaration nor in the long list of grievances against George the Third does religion figure in any important way anywhere.And the Declaration of Independence accurately summarizes the motivations of those who were back the American Revolution.
Some of the conservatives will say, well, but it does make a reference to nature's God and isn't that a bow to religion?
It is a bow to religion but it's hardly a bow to evangelicalism. Nature's God was the deist's God. Nature's God, When evangelicals discuss religion they mean to speak of the God of the Old and the New Testament not the God of nature. The God of nature is an almost secular God and in a certain way that actually makes the point that that's a deistical understanding of religion not a specifically Christian understanding of religion. To talk about nature's God is not to talk about the God of Christ.
John Patrick Diggins has advanced the argument that not only were the Founding Fathers not particularly religious but in fact they were deeply suspicious of religion because of the role that they saw religion played in old Europe, where they saw it not as cohesive but as divisive. Do you agree?
The answer is yes and the reason is very simple. The principal Founding Fathers--Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin--were in fact deeply suspicious of a European pattern of governmental involvement in religion. They were deeply concerned about an involvement in religion because they saw government as corrupting religion. Ministers who were paid by the state and paid by the government didn't pay any attention to their parishes. They didn't care about their parishioners. They could have, they sold their parishes. They sold their jobs and brought in a hireling to do it and they wandered off to live somewhere else and they didn't need to pay attention to their parishioners because the parishioners weren't paying them. The state was paying them.
In addition, it corrupts the state. That is, it brings into government elements of politics and elements of religion that are less than desirable. The most important being coercion. When government is involved with religion in a positive way, the history that these men saw was a history of coercion and a history of coercion meant a history of physical coercion and it meant ultimately warfare. Most of the wars from 1300 to 1800 had been religious wars and the wars that these men knew about in particular were the wars of religion that were fought over the Reformation in which Catholics and Protestants slaughtered each other, stuffed Bibles into the slit stomachs of dead soldiers so that they would eat, literally eat, their words, eat the words of an alien Bible and die with those words in their stomachs. This was the world of government involvement with religion that these men knew and a world they wanted to reject.
To create the United States meant to create a new nation free from those old attachments and that's what they created in 1776 and that's what they perfected in 1789 with the coming of the federal government. And thus it's not an accident that the First Amendment deals with religion. It doesn't just deal with Christianity. It deals with religion with a small r meaning all things religious.
What about the conservatives' belief that we need to go back to the religion of the Founding Fathers?
If we went back to the religion of the Founding Fathers we would go back to deism. If we picked up modern religion, it's not the religion of the Founding Fathers. Indeed, we are probably more religious than the society that created the American Revolution. There are a number of ways to think about that. Sixty percent of Americans belong to churches today , 20 percent belonged in 1776. And if we count slaves, for example, it probably reduces the figure to 10 percent of the society that belonged to any kind of religious organization.
Modern Americans probably know more about religious doctrine in general, Christianity, Protestantism, Catholicism, Judaism, than most Americans did in 1776. I would argue that America in the 1990s is a far more deeply religious society, whose politics is more driven by religion, than it was in 1776. So those who want to go back would be going back to a much more profoundly secular society.
What do you make of the politicians who take the opposite point of view. It must make you go crazy.
It doesn't make me go crazy. It makes me feel sad because it's inaccurate. It's not a historically accurate view of American society. It's a very useful view because many modern men and women are driven by a jeremiad, that is jeremiad lamenting the conditions in the wilderness. We tend to feel bad when we hear that we are not as religious as our fathers or our grandfathers or our great grandfathers and that spurs many of us on to greater religious activity. Unfortunately in this case the jeremiad simply isn't true. And I don't think that those who insist it is true would really want to go back to the kind of society that existed on thee eve of the American Revolution.
Americans do become religious in the nineteenth century, don't they? That's what you say in your book.
The American Revolution created the basis for new uses of religion in a new society and that was conveyed in the lesson taught by the First Amendment. If government was no longer going to be supporting religion how was religion going to support itself? It would have to support itself by its own means. Through its own measures. It would have to generate its measures. And this is what every one of the churches began to do. As soon as religion dropped out of the state and the state dropped out of religion, the churches began fending for themselves. And they discovered that in fending for themselves that their contributions were going up, they were producing more newspapers, more tracts, they were beginning to circulate those tracts, they created a national religious economy long before there was a secular economy. You could trade more actively in religious goods than you could in other kinds in the United States in 1805, 1810.
What happened in the United States is that the churches actually benefited from this separation of church and state that was dictated by the First Amendment. In addition to which America became kind of a spiritual hothouse in the nineteenth century. Not only did the quantity off religion go up but so did the proliferation of doctrine. There became new religions--the Mormons, the spiritualists--all created in the United States. New religious groups that no one had ever heard of before, that had never existed anywhere else in western society than in the United States.
I seriously doubt the Dems would claim you,Zauber. You're another Howard Dean.
No, goofy. Republicans are REAL people, real
nm
If the real folks, with real hope, faith, and
and for our country's future who participate here on this forum were just a tad as healthy, wealthy and wise as this poster considers herself, we probably wouldn't be sitting in front of these silly computers trying to make a living!! Can't figure why she is here other than tell us how healthy, wealthy and wise she is and we are not!
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
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
.
Today is a new day.
I have decided to not even read the conservative board any more, let alone post there.
My suggestion is we respect their board and stop posting there, as they have asked us to do, and that they in turn stop posting on our board, as we have asked them to do.
Anybody want to bet on who can't stay away from which board? 
Where is sam today?
I am missing her viewpoint on today's issues. Sam, are you lurking?
No flaming, please, by the peanut gallery.
the one today at the U of K
The men were charged with disorderly conduct related to the hanging of the effigy. They were also charged with burglary and theft at a fraternity house where police said the materials came from. They were not charged with a hate crime.
UK President Lee Todd said the effigy violates the university's code of ethics, and Fischer faces punishment that could include expulsion.
From what I read, it is not considered a hate crime because: It's also true that as long as it was clear that the hanging figure represented Obama or another prominent black politician rather than a private citizen, it wouldn't be legally actionable as a hate crime. Our laws give broad latitude to clear expressions of political opinion, as opposed to incitements to violence against ethnic groups.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-ed-effigy30-2008oct30,0,4355428.story
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hlnR7kQP7tXQKA0872BAweYKqPFQD9454DIG0
is that as of today?
Is that as of today or as of Nov 4th. I am asking this seriously, not a smart aleck comment. I have read that since 11/4 something like 42 electors have joined in one or more of the suits to order production of the B/C before they vote. No, I am not sure of the actual number, but I know I did read that they had joined in the suits because they felt it would be a constitutional violation to vote until the issue had been definitively put to rest as apparently they felt enough doubt had been raised. What I read said they felt this way because the SC is actually considering the writ of certiorari instead of just tossing it.
Yes, that is as of today.
This is a clear-cut, speculation-free figure.
But they said it was today.
Well, then if it is old, CNN SUCKS.
Where have you been today?
why is it when something you perceive to be negative towards Obama comes to light,you choose to believe it ain't so?
No pot was stirred. Decision was made with the blessings of Obama to basically let the terrorists off the hook who blew up the USS Cole. Now, if you don't know anything about that or you don't have a family member who was blown to he!! on that ship, then I suppose it wouldn't concern you, even though it should. These families were not "organized". They heard the ruling that said all the terrorists who blew up their children will get a free pass!! Bush didn't drop the charges against them! Obama did! Where have you been?
And no, if you were watching your TV, you would see they are not being let back on the grounds; even the liberal cameras are now focusing on that.
Since your head has been in the sand, you might like to know that Obama stirred this pot. He asked the families of those murdered to meet with him. HE asked THEM!
Sorry, but he started this little ball rolling all by his lonesome.
How sad that today
people are so willing to throw their children to the lions. If they're not aborting them, they're encouraging them to engage in a behavior that will mean a multitude of disease, early death or lifelong mental problems, and all under the guise of "tolerance." You should be ashamed. This mother is on the right track.
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.
Hey. I am not a Republican. I could not care less about...
party conventions and all the hooplah associated with it. I care about the candidates and what they are going to do for (or to) this country. So go ahead and sit back and watch the show. geez. lol.
you have no idea what a Republican is.
nm
|
