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 take back what I said sort of - see message

Posted By: icytoes on 2009-02-13
In Reply to: Ok, you got me there - see message - icytoes

I keep reading more and more websites that say the Wetland project in SF IS in the bill. I've been trying to find a link that will give word for word what is in the stimulus plan but I can't find anything. Since you said it's not in the plan can you give me a link that shows what exactly is in the plan?


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

This sort of thing is not subject to Presidential trickery of that sort. nm
nm
Thanks for link (just now getting back here). No message.

Well I'm not getting anything back - which I knew - see message
all along that there were no tax breaks for the under $250K crowd. It was a huge campaign stunt (similar to the Clinton gas credit that she thought if she said that people would vote for her) but this got way out of hand and there were/are some unfortunate souls who still believe what he spewed. I knew all along that the middle income (under $250K would have to pay more in taxes - NOT less). But for the unfortunate fools that bought into his stunt that you're not going to have to pay more or you'll get a break or pay lower, that's all it was...a publicity stunt. But I'm paying for it. I owe from last year (which I know is not the current admins fault so in no way am I placing blame on them for what I owe from last year (which is close to 4K), however, last year made the same amount as the year before and my taxes worked out fine the year before and I paid the same amount (and got money back), why not last years I have no idea.

However....with that said my taxes this year have more than doubled than what I was paying last year and with the tax hikes this current place is putting on everyone my tax lady said to expect my taxes to go up more and it might be a good idea to be sending extra so I don't get stuck with a huge tax bill at the end of the year again.

It's just very sad, and even worse that people will have to pay more but they don't care.
I hope you come back to read this message
I agree with you 100%. I too am not happy, but as I heard someone say - what are you going to do about it. What's done is done. However I find that even though the democrats won they are still so bitter they have to post horrendous bitter nasty posts about Palin and GW and us that supported the republican ticket. I'm thinking blimey! Give it a break. Your guy got in there, let it go. I'm like you. I want issues. I want to know what's going on, who is he picking for his cabinet, what is their experience, what promises is he going to keep and what promises is he breaking. I've already read that he broke one of his promises to get rid of (or re-do) the Patriot Act but now he's keeping that stronger than ever.

I come to read articles and post articles that show other points of view. I visit a lot of websites written by people in other countries and I'll tell you, there are not a whole lot of countries that are NOT in support of him (except our enemies that is). I agree with your whole post.
Time to come back to reality - see message
First and most importantly you do not have your facts correct. Sarah Palin and John McCain never once started any assassination conspiracies. I believe if anyone it was Hillary Clinton as the whole country heard her say it on camera.

Can you not grasp the difference between talks of assassination and candidates getting up talking in their rallies bringing up issues about their oponents (both sides). M/P got up and spoke about Obama's shady background, his friendships with the people like Ayers (a known terrorist), ACORN, Rev. Wright, etc, etc, etc. This list goes on and on and on. They spoke about Obama's viewpoints on abortion and his voting record. And Obama/Biden did the same thing. Whatever the supporters think up in their own minds is nobody's fault and you will have a few nuts who will say terrible things. But face reality - it is on both sides. There is so much hatred being spewed against Palin and her family for no good reason. You take one part of her interview and claim she can't make sentences but you ignore the fact that when Obama speaks it is usually with um, er, uh, um, um, er, um, etc. Then he can't even speak without pre-written speeches and teleprompters.

What I'm trying to say is there are violent people on both sides. You're coming off as though everyone who is supporting Obama/Biden are peaceful people that all just want to get along and have a big group hug. OH PLEASE!!! What that video showed you is that there are violent people who were trying to attack and overturn Palin's motorcade. And if they were successful they would have dragged her out and beaten her to death. Remember Reginald Denny? There are violent people are on both sides.

Also, the so called "thousands and thousands at a Palin rally" is a bunch of hooey. Never heard on tape and secret service reported they never once heard anyone yell anything against Obama that the Obama supporters are claiming they did. You can't make up something that didn't happen. Well actually you are making up something that didn't happen but it doesn't make it true.

As for Obama supporters "responding in kind". Oh please....the Obama suporters spewed nothing but hatred and lies against the M/P camp, AND we saw that in Obama's attack ads. As for negative campaigning. Both did negative campaigning. The first we saw of it was Obama. Look at what he did to Hillary.

As for the entire media/press...they were too busy having a love fest with Obama they got away from reporting news and kept spewing out their opinions. Lets talk about the liberal TV and radio stations (I watch them all). The liberal stations never reported one negative thing about Obama or Biden. Not one thing!!!!! Yet they kept badgering and spewing their lies and hatred against M/P - hence Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman were held back from reporting the main political stories - MSNBC & CNN lost a lot of viewers because of their vicious lies and not reporting facts anymmore.

As for saying Palin made a fool of herself. Well looks like you didn't even listen to anything she ever said. You probably only listened to what MSNBC or CNN reported about her. She has more experience as Governor than Obama has as a junior senator. And did more good things for her state and has around a 90% approval rating. And while she was doing this where was Obama? Sitting in a hate-filled sermons of Rev. Wright twice a month, having the terrorist Ayers jump start his political career. And hanging out with people like Rezco, Daley, and others. Truth is Palin was never given a fair chance by the media. Watching her interviewed by the people who wanted to see her fail was the worst journalism I have ever seen and those two (Couric and Gibson) should be fired. They have shown they have no journalistic qualities. Talk about getting a free ride - that's where they elevated Obama and Biden. Whenever Biden made a gaff (and BIG ones) they let him slide. They never gave Obama the tough questions. And they never reported on him saying there are 57 states. All that was conveniently pushed under the rug to try to be forgotten. So yes I found it very irresponsible that they treated Obama like he was king while they trashed Palin/McCain.

Like one poster said...if M/P won you would hear about assissination attempts coming from the Obama people. And still when I pull up article after article after article I am not seeing Palin supporting an assassination as you are trying to claim. I am however seeing Hillary's name come up time after time.

If you want to talk about behaving like a 5th grader look no further than the mirror. I am addressing issues and have been. I read all articles, listen to all TV/radio stations whether I agree or not. You're just repeating what I've already heard on the liberal stations and we all know they cannot be trusted to tell the truth. Maybe a bit of research would be a good thing. I've done it, but then again you have to have an open mind when reading articles.

Don't you get that ignoring facts shows how little you research, how biased one is hence none of your arguments are valid.

Creating conspiracy theories is not how America is going to be able to move forward...don't you get that?
sort of
If an abortion is survived and the child "takes breath," then yes, I believe G-d has given a soul to that child.

As for Obama's vote in that matter, there is a lot more too it than you are posting. I have researched the bill, the votes, etc. I certainly don't believe he was condoning murder with this bill.
I sort of agree with you, but I think.....sm
that we won't necessarily be a third-world country, but rather a non-existant country. He is always talking so much the Europeans and how we should be so much more like them, and like you said, it seems he wants to be the president of the UN... I wouldn't doubt his trip over there had something to do with putting the wheels in motion for the US to join the European Union. JMHO of course.

I don't disagree with a lot of what he says as far as helping others, etc., but I can't afford to pay more taxes! We are in that middle ground where we're not poor enough to pay no taxes or get any of the freebies, yet make just enough to pay so many taxes we can't afford to do anything other than pay our bills with what's left.

I'd love to help the homeless, the infirm, the disabled, but I simply can't afford to do much more than volunteer a little time now and then and put a few coins in a fundraising can, but if Mr. Obama gets his way, I'll have to take away from mine to give to them anyway.

I'm so sick and tired of seeing friends and acquaintances who have little or no job, get food stamps and free babysitters for ''respite'' time for themselves, get free medical and dental care and TAKE HUGE VACATIONS that I could scream!! I work full time plus and my husband is self-employed working 24/7 too and we can't afford to take a vacation. We can't afford to get sick or need medication. I need new glasses badly right now, but I simply can't afford it. There are people in our area who are on all the programs and go and get into fights in bars and get their glasses broken and go to the eye doctor the next day and just get new ones. I just don't think it's fair.

But I also think that that is the plan... get us all to start believing that our lives will be easier if we let the government take care of us (and it would be!), but once we're all on the dole, watch out... because then that's when the free things will stop and you'll be sorry.

I'm not saying I favor one candidate over an other right now, I'm still waiting for the debates. I'm not anxious to hear what they can ''do for me'' but rather what they are going to do to help me help myself. I've run out of ways to make my money go any further. We don't live fancy, never have. We don't go out but maybe once or twice a year to dinner, never to a movie or club. Our home is old and plain and almost paid for and we have no other debt. We have worked very hard over the last 28 years to get to where we are today and I feel like the rug is being pulled out from under us. I just want to vote for whoever is not going to take away what I have worked so hard for.
my point exactly - well sort of
Why HC & JM dropped it? - I have no idea. We do know that BO and HC had private meetings, so who knows what went on there. I'm sure she was told to drop it (by the people funding BO) and offered a high ranking position, but we will never really know. JM - probably dropped it because if he pushed it they would have found that he too was not of legal standing to run for the position. But he was so weak and in no way had any of the funding that BO did and therefore was totally destroyed by BO. The party should have been smarter and picked somebody better, but then again GW's presidency (even though decisions are controlled by congress and the COB and the President is only a talking head) was such a failure I don't think any decent republican even had a chance at winning.

The media dropped it plain and simple. The MM is an organized propaganda tool. (Do you wonder why they don't report on 80% of the top stories going on). Maybe once or twice over the holiday weekend did they report on the situation in India. Even then it was given only a few moments. Then they had to go back to reporting about the Hollywood crowd and prisons in America, etc. Also, this is a very hot topic, and people who have been trying to get to the bottom of the issue have been met with death threats and have had to change their name. One guy even found a dead rabbit hanging on his porch and his auto destroyed with a warning to stop his investigation. Therefore, with all the violent tempers, this is one story no media is going to touch. That's why we have to hear (read) about it on the internet.

As for people posting articles. As with any of these sites here if people think an article is worthwhile to post they should be able to post. If it's just someone ranting on an on and giving nonsense opinions that's one thing, but these articles are written by journalist, lawyers, and people who have been following issues closely. When people post articles about food shortages, or Canada going crazy in their elections, or mad cow disease or any of other numerous articles not related to BO, they are never met with the same response of "your article is not credible". It is only when an article is posted of what's happening with Barky that people will say its not credible and then cite a pro-Obama site.

Posting an article we want to has nothing to do with proving we are MTs or not being allowed to post to this forum. It is an article we find of interest. If some don't like it, then read it and as they say "move on", but to come back and say that the articles are not credible sources but theirs are, well that's were it just gets too silly.
This is the sort of person
who should be put in front of "our boys" should there ever be an attach on our soil!
Right. It's sort of hidden, but we will ALL
nm
Why, to facilitate and sort of

ORGANIZE the whole volunteer process, you know?  I'm sure there'll be lots of green stuff to learn, like how to rat out your dumb, stubborn parents for using the wrong kind of light bulbs.  How to spot non-organic produce.  We'll love it.  It'll be great.  You'll see!  Soon we'll wonder how we ever got along without it.


And in the words of Ronald Reagan (yeah, another dead guy...everybody get over it, OK?)   'A government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever know on this earth.'


Wow...that is sort of confusing.
I guess if I were gay and had a partner, I'd just swap rings on my own and throw a party.  The love two people have between each other means more than a legal piece of paper, IMO.  I wouldn't travel to another state to get married just to go back home and it not mean anything legally.  As often as people get divorced, you gotta wonder if straight people really get marriage.
A poll of a sort........... sm

What, in your opinion, originally defined right behavior from wrong behavior? 


This not only applies to the discussion below but also any wrong behavior such as stealing, murder, rape, or any one of the other blights on the face of mankind.  Please explain your answer citing whatever source of information supports your argument. 


So you have to be some sort of HUMANITARIAN to be nominated.

That explains Bush's exclusion on that list.  How embarrassed and ashamed should America be to see the leader of another, presumably poorer country try to provide humanitarian aid to Americans because our own president believes humanitarian aid begins with oil companies and ends with those intent on eliminating American freedom?


I wonder if he views our president as an oppressor and if he plans to invade and occupy our country to save us from Bush and to spread his superior form of government to the United States. 


Sorry.  I was just being silly.  No credible leader in the world would ever do anything like THAT.....WOULD HE????


Sort of like Confederacy currency?

The economic summit was held behind closed doors.  The politicians on both sides are probably gleefully aware that the American people are so busy blaming Democrats/Republicans they can't take time to see what is really going on.  BOTH parties are to blame.  I expect Bush made a deal behind closed doors and he'll pass it off to Obama who will continue.  My opinion is we are no longer a free nation, we just haven't been informed of the new rules yet.  He who has the gold rules and the foreign nations certainly have the gold. I don't personally expect Obama to make any great change, I just hope he will change some things that he can which might actually benefit the middle class but I honestly doubt it.  WE, the "sheeple" have let this great country get in this condition and WE are going to have to fix it...if it isn't too late.  I expect our forefathers are turning in their graves because of how we've squandered the freedom they fought and died to give us.


your reply is sort of cute....nm
nm
This was meant to be a sort of black humor!! nm
nm
I'm just sort of in shock. I'm not even going to post a link. nm
x
I guess I would say more center because I have sort of walked (sm)
the line between democrat and republican all along, so that would be more along with my thinking. I guess as far as what I would want to lose to get more to the center, I would have to say that I would want partial-birth or late term abortions to be illegal unless it was a threat to the mother's life. I would want unwanted babies who are born alive to have human rights to receive appropriate medical care. The other issue I have with O is his associations, but of course that has nothing to do with whether he is farther right or left, so I guess abortion is my only right/left issue.
The Post (sort of) issued an apology.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Sharpton_Post_editor_insulting_public_with_0219.html


Ironically (LOL), when I read some posts on this board denying this is blatant racism by the Post, the mental image I get is this (hoping it prints):


Hear


They're always putting out this sort of thing, actually.
...just round-file it.
Sounds like a fine man voting his conscience, sort of like
nm
Bush was sort of in national guard but never showed for the physical... that counts? Cheney was nev
duh?? ya'll?
get on back, neocon, get on back
Tell ya what, sweetheart, last I checked this is the LIBERAL BOARD and I havent been banned, as I dont break the rules, so I can stay as long as I want..Seems to me, conservative, you are the one who should mosey on by and get back to drink more Kook-Aid. 
Go back then
So, *Really* or whomever you are..I have a thought, why dont you go back to the conservative board and have some fun discussing how you are gonna save America and the world from terrorists or whatever you think we are accomplishing with this war.  Bye..bye..**BIG HUG**
Did think you could come back on that
except to call names. If you can't defend yourself just call names...that's how it works, right?

It's funny and predictable how you all react when you're called on the carpet about your hypocrisy.
*Did think you could come back on that*??

You don't consider *unhinged liberal* calling names?!


All you do is come here and pick, pick, pick, fight, fight, fight.  You're boring, and you're terribly unfriendly and unpleasant to be around.  For that reason, I don't think I'm going to continue to provide an audience for any more of your attention-seeking temper tantrums.


Other than that, I'm having trouble understanding what you mean by *Did think you could come back on that.*  Is English your second language or is your anger and hatred causing you to become a bit *unhinged* yourself? (Was just a rhetorical question. No need to respond. I won't be reading it.)


We should just go back to

ignoring them, Democrat.


Their own board is dead because they can't stand to AGREE with each other and just be NICE people.  They have too much venom that they need to purge or explode, and they've been doing it here.


Not one of them (assuming there is more than one) has posted anything that deserves a response.  Not one.


They're just pitiful, bitter, angry, hateful people, and the more we feed them, the fatter they get.


OMG, they are back
The neocons are back..the administrator tells them not to post here but THEY ARE BACK!!  A fungus is among us!
Welcome back...nm

Welcome back! You are definitely not alone ...sm
I think anyone who is still able to think for themselves can see it, it is almost predictable actually. Because of all that is going on lately, the translation for that propaganda is:

You need to vote for Republicans so you will not get killed by terrorists.
Back at ya....

Not flip-flops by one person...but several:


1. 


WASHINGTON - House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi continues to prove that she is willing to say or do just about anything in attempts to gain traction for Democrats. Now, Pelosi is even warming up her rhetoric for summer using the tried-and-failed, Democrat style of flip-flopping.

According to Roll Call, writing in February to members of the Democrat caucus, Pelosi andthe four elected leaders of theDemocratic Caucus ... urged Members to continue a drumbeat of criticism of theprogram, which went into effect on Jan. 1. 'We ask you to use the upcoming February District Work Period and the following weeks to hold town meetings, visits to senior centers, and other public events to drive this message home,' the leaders wrote. (Roll Call, 2/13/06)

Yesterday in a massive course alteration and in the face of positive polling, Pelosi said that Democrats have been out across the country encouraging seniors to sign up for a prescription drug plan by May 15th. (Pelosi Statement, 5/9/06)

If Nancy Pelosi thinks the Medicare prescription drug program should be criticized in February, why is she saying in May that Democrats are encouraging seniors to sign up for the program, National Republican Congressional Committee Communications Director Carl Forti asked.

Nancy Pelosi is flailing in her attempts to call the prescription drug benefit a program that is 'borne of corruption,' because she knows millions of Americans are in fact saving money, so instead she s taken to her tired routine of playing politics with America s seniors, Forti added, in reference to Pelosi s Sunday appearance on NBC s Meet the Press.

 

2. 
Pelosi and Reid Flip Flop on Implementation of all 9/11 Commission Recommendations


Despite the fact they voted against many of the most important recommendations of the 9/11 Commission over the last few years, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid made the implementation of all their recommendations one of their more prominent campaign promises this year...


Well, now that they've won, promises don't mean a thing, and Speaker-elect Pelosi, in response to a reporter's question, now says you can't do them all.

REPORTER: But your promise though was to enact all of the 9/11 recommendations.


PELOSI: What I am saying to you is that they presented several different options and with the goals they have in mind, we have come up with this proposal which removes the barriers between the house appropriators and authorizers, makes the oversight stronger and makes the American people safer, so if they are giving you different alternatives, implicit in that is that you can't do them all.

They're already breaking promises... Should we have expected anything else from them?

 

3. 
Hillary Flip Flops on Ethanol



Following in the footsteps of Democrat presidential hopefuls, Hillary Clinton has “Flip Flopped” on an issue that will play a significant part in the 2008 elections.  She is now for ethanol fuel, but she voted against it in June of last year. She failed to learn from Senator Kerry that Flip Flops no longer go unnoticed by voters.  

She spoke at the National Press Club and announced her energy plan for the nation. In addition to several user tips like checking tire pressure etc., she espoused the development of ethanol for motor fuel.  She suggested that we put a billion dollars from the strategic energy fund into research aimed at unlocking the full potential of ethanol. She also wants to expand loan guarantees to help the first one billion gallons of ethanol capacity come online. She proposes that we have ethanol pumps at 50% of gas stations nationwide by 2015 and a hundred percent by 2025. 

This is all well and good, but how could she make 180 degree turn from last June when she voted against ensuring that ethanol is treated like all other motor vehicle fuels and that taxpayers and local governments do not have to pay for environmental damage caused by ethanol? The answer is simple, she has flip flopped in order to better her position in Iowa , whose caucus is a crucial start in the primary process in Presidential elections.  In the age of instant information, candidates who change their position with the political winds should take note that their voting record is available to anyone with internet access.  Read the how the votes fell at U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 109th Congress - 1st Session.


4. 


Hillary Flip-Flops on Immigration



Democrats flip-flop on a regular basis, and in the age of instant information it is becoming increasingly difficult to pull it off.  Kerry tripped over his own statements on his way to defeat in 2004, and Hillary Clinton is well on her way to following in his footsteps. 

In an attempt to appear hawkish on immigration in 2003 she said that she was adamantly against illegal immigration:

I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants, Clinton said in a Feb. 2003 radio interview.

Clinton said the U.S. might have to move towards an ID system even for citizens in order to combat illegal border crossings, or implement at least a visa ID, some kind of an entry and exit ID. Story 

She has now come out is in favor of citizenship for illegal aliens and claimed that Republicans want to impose a “police state”.  In typical Democrat fashion, she is adjusting her position according to the direction in which she believes the winds of politics are blowing:


Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a potential White House candidate in 2008, said Wednesday some Republicans are trying to create a police state to round up illegal immigrants. Newsmax
 

This is similar to the strong position she has taken on the Dubai ports deal.  She is adamantly against and Arab company running a handful of terminals at our ports, but is also adamantly against racial profiling.  Playing both sides of the fence is classic Clintonian politics and a tactic she probably learned from her charismatic husband. 


 


5.  Reid Ticket Flip-Flop


The Associated Press reports that Senator Harry Reid has reversed course, and his office acknowledged Wednesday night he misstated the ethics rules governing his acceptance of free boxing tickets and has decided to avoid taking such gifts in the future.

The Nevada senator still believes it was entirely permissible for him to accept ringside seats for three professional boxing matches in 2004 and 2005 from the Nevada Athletic Commission but has nonetheless decided to avoid doing so in the future, his office said.


In light of questions that have been raised about the practice, Senator Reid will not accept these kinds of credentials in the future in order to avoid even the faintest appearance of impropriety, spokesman Jim Manley said.


The announcement came after The Associated Press confronted Reid's office early Wednesday with conclusions from several ethics experts that the Senate leader misstated congressional ethics rules in trying to defend his actions.


According to Reid, it was perfectly okay for him to accept the free gifts because they were from his home state.


 


6.  Pelosi - Murtha


Pelosi, in a letter distributed Sunday to newly elected House Democrats, wrote that Murtha's outspoken opposition to the war in Iraq helped change the electoral campaign for the House this fall. Murtha began calling for a U.S. pullout from Iraq a year ago, and his open opposition to the war made him a focus of intense criticism from Republicans and the White House.


(SNIP)


Pelosi added: Your strong voice for national security, the war on terror and Iraq provides genuine leadership for our party, and I count on you to continue to lead on these vital issues. For this and for all you have done for Democrats in the past and especially this last year, I am pleased to support your candidacy for Majority Leader for the 110th Congress.


Here is a few interesting points about Murtha on National Security.

Murtha on Homeland Security:

Voted NO on federalizing rules for driver licenses to hinder terrorists. (Feb 2005)
Voted NO on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight. (Apr 2006)
Voted NO on adopting the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. (Oct 2004)
Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001)
Voted NO on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
Voted NO on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)
Supports anti-flag desecration amendment. (Mar 2001)
Rated 44% by SANE, indicating a mixed record on military issues. (Dec 2003)

So far, doesn't seem Murtha has shown a strong voice on Security for America. Then again, Pelosi doesn't have to tell the truth, does she? After all, she doesn't even think Iraq is a war... she thinks it is a situation!!!!!

Since it has been reported that al-Qaeda has been trying to enter our country via the Mexican border, lets also take a look at Murtha's record on immigration, shall we?

Voted NO on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment. (May 2004)
Voted YES on extending Immigrant Residency rules. (May 2001)

To be VERY clear here, al-Qaeda has already informed us that they have smuggled materials across the Mexican border, this was reported on Nov. 2006.


A NEWSCHANNEL 5 investigation reveals what the feds don't want you to know. Suspected terrorists are hiding inside the U.S. and they got here by sneaking across the Mexican border.

What we've been reporting for more than a year has been confirmed by a government report just released. (Click here to download the report.)

And a brand new interview by Pakistani investigative reporter Hamid Mir is bringing in more information. Mir has interviewed some of America's most dangerous terrorist enemies.

This time the Al Qaeda commander he talked to gave a grim warning that another attack on America is coming very soon.

We can attack America anytime, says Abu Dawood during the interview. He also told the reporter that Muslims must leave America.


Murtha also flip flops about as much as John Kerry does.

Murtha voted for the 10 October 2002 resolution that as a last resort authorized the use of force against Iraq. However, he later began expressing doubts about the war. On 17 March 2004, when Republicans offered a “War in Iraq Anniversary Resolution” that “affirms that the United States and the world have been made safer with the removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime from power in Iraq, when JD Hayworth called for a recorded vote, Murtha then voted against it.

Still, in early 2005 Murtha argued against the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. “A premature withdrawal of our troops based on a political timetable could rapidly devolve into a civil war which would leave America’s foreign policy in disarray as countries question not only America’s judgment but also its perseverance”, he stated

On 17 November 2005, he touched off a firestorm when he called for the redeployment of U.S. troops in Iraq, saying, The U.S. cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily.

I guess liberal political opinion flip flops according to what political season it is.

During debate on adopting the rule for the resolution, Congresswoman Jean Schmidt, a Republican from Ohio, made a statement attributed to Danny Bubp, an Ohio state Representative and Marine Corps reservist, “He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message: that cowards cut and run, Marines never do.


 


7. 







Pelosi Flip-Flops on Porter Goss
Nancy

( 8/10/2004 ) CNN quoted the San Francisco Democrat today in saying she didn't support the nomination: But I will say what I said before is that there shouldn't - a person should not be the director of central intelligence who's acted in a very political way when we're dealing with the safety of the American people. Intelligence has to be the gathering and analysis and dissemination of information, of intelligence, without any political, any politics involved at all. Sorry, Nancy. The Republican National Committee has unearthed this from June 5, in the Chattanooga Times Free Press: If Goss is nominated for the post, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California said that she would support him. Pelosi worked closely with Goss during the congressional investigation into the Sept. 11 attacks. Whoever replaces Tenet needs to be independent of political pressure, Pelosi said. Goss, who worked for the CIA before becoming a congressman in 1988, has shown that ability as chairman of the House Intelligence panel, she added.


8.


Kennedy Flip-Flops on Quizzing High Court Nominees
By Jeff Johnson
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
July 28, 2005

(CNSNews.com) - Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts will be expected to answer fully any questions about his views on controversial issues that could come before the court in the future, according to Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.). But, during the 1967 confirmation debate over future Justice Thurgood Marshall, Kennedy argued that Supreme Court nominees should defer any comments on such matters.

In his June 20, floor speech responding to President Bush's nomination of Roberts to the Supreme Court, Kennedy argued that senators must not fail in our duty to the American people to responsibly examine Judge Roberts' legal views.

Kennedy listed a number of issues, including workers' rights, health care and environmental regulations, that he considers important.

Each of these issues, and many others, [have] been addressed by the Supreme Court in recent years, Kennedy said. In many of these cases, the Court was narrowly divided, and these issues are likely to be the subject of future Court decisions in the years to come.

The Massachusetts Democrat said he is troubled by Roberts' strict interpretation of the Constitution's commerce clause and added that other aspects of Judge Roberts' record also raise important questions about his commitment to individual rights.

Because Judge Roberts has written relatively few opinions in his brief tenure as a judge, his views on a wide variety of vital issues are still unknown, Kennedy charged. What little we know about his views and values lends even greater importance and urgency to his responsibility to provide the Senate and the American people with clear answers.

Kennedy listed examples of conservative positions Roberts had argued on behalf of both private clients and as the principle deputy solicitor general for the administration of President George H. W. Bush.

Judge Roberts represented clients in each of these cases, but we have a duty to ask where he stands on these issues, Kennedy continued. I join my colleagues in the hope that the process will proceed with dignity. But the nominee will be expected to answer fully, so that the American people will know whether Judge Roberts will uphold their rights. See Video

During the 1967 confirmation debate over the nomination of then-Solicitor General Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court, however, Kennedy held a different view about the types of questions the nominee should be required to answer. Film footage obtained by Cybercast News Service shows Kennedy's response to the prospect of senators asking Marshall questions about how he might rule in future cases.

We have to respect that any nominee to the Supreme Court would have to defer any comments on any matters, which are either before the court or very likely to be before the court, Kennedy said during a 1967 press conference. This has been a procedure which has been followed in the past and is one which I think is based upon sound legal precedent. See Video

Marshall was serving President Lyndon Johnson as solicitor general when he was nominated in the summer of 1967. Prior to that, he had been an attorney for the NAACP, and had successfully argued the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court case that racially integrated the nation's public schools. Marshall's nomination was opposed by Southern Democrats who feared his confirmation would further the cause of racial equality in the United States, but he was confirmed by a vote of 69 to 11 on Aug. 30, 1967.

Multiple calls to Sen. Kennedy's office seeking comment for this report were not returned.


9.   noted back on the 10th about how Democrats were playing political games with the Iraq war by being before the suggested ’surge’ in troops in Iraq before they were against it. Well guess what? Add another Democrat to the game players: House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes. Via the Washington Times:



On Dec. 5, Newsweek magazine touted an interview with then-incoming House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Rep. Silvestre Reyes as an “exclusive.” And for good reason.


“In a surprise twist in the debate over Iraq,” the story began, Mr. Reyes “said he wants to see an increase of 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops as part of a ’stepped up effort to dismantle the militias.’ ”


“We have to consider the need for additional troops to be in Iraq, to take out the militias and stabilize Iraq,” the Texas Democrat said to the surprise of many, “I would say 20,000 to 30,000.”


Then came President Bush’s expected announcement last week, virtually matching Mr. Reyes’ recommendation and argument word-for-word — albeit the president proposed only 21,500 troops.


Wouldn’t you know, hours after Mr. Bush announced his proposal, Mr. Reyes told the El Paso Times that such a troop buildup was unthinkable.


“We don’t have the capability to escalate even to this minimum level,” he said.


The chairman’s “double-talk” did not go unnoticed. Among others, Rep. Joe Wilson, South Carolina Republican and a member of the House Armed Services Committee, says such blatant “hypocrisy” undermines both national security and the war on terrorism.


Indeed.


And just in case anyone doubts the validity of the WashTimes story about this, here’s that Dec. 5 Newsweek story on Reyes:



Dec. 5. 2006 - In a surprise twist in the debate over Iraq, Rep. Silvestre Reyes, the soon-to-be chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said he wants to see an increase of 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops as part of a stepped up effort to “dismantle the militias.”


The soft-spoken Texas Democrat was an early opponent of the Iraq war and voted against the October 2002 resolution authorizing President Bush to invade that country. That dovish record got prominently cited last week when Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi chose Reyes as the new head of the intelligence panel.


But in an interview with NEWSWEEK on Tuesday, Reyes pointedly distanced himself from many of his Democratic colleagues who have called for fixed timetables for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Coming on the eve of tomorrow’s recommendations from the bipartisan Baker-Hamilton commission, Reyes’s comments were immediately cited by some Iraq war analysts as fresh evidence that the intense debate over U.S. policy may be more fluid than many have expected.


“We’re not going to have stability in Iraq until we eliminate those militias, those private armies,” Reyes said. “We have to consider the need for additional troops to be in Iraq, to take out the militias and stabilize Iraq … We certainly can’t leave Iraq and run the risk that it becomes [like] Afghanistan” was before the 2001 invasion by the United States.


[…]


When asked how many additional troops he envisioned sending to Iraq, Reyes replied: “I would say 20,000 to 30,000—for the specific purpose of making sure those militias are dismantled, working in concert with the Iraqi military.”


[…]


Reyes added that he was “very clear” about his position to Pelosi when she chose him over two rivals—Rep. Jane Harman of California and Rep. Alcee Hastings—to head the critical intelligence post. One widely cited reason that Harman, a moderate Democrat who supported the war, didn’t get the nod from Pelosi is that the Speaker-designate wanted somebody who would be more aggressive in standing up to the Bush White House—which Reyes promises to be on other issues like domestic wiretapping and CIA secret prisons.


But when asked what he told Pelosi about his thinking on Iraq, Reyes replied: “What I said was, we can’t afford to leave there. And anybody who says, we are going pull out our troops immediately, is being dishonest … We’re all interested in getting out of Iraq. That’s a common goal. How we do it, I think, is the tough part. There are those that say, they don’t care what Iraq looks like once we leave there. Let’s just leave there. And I argue against that. I don’t think that’s responsible. And I think it plays right into the hands of Syria and Iran.”


Here’s Reyes’ flip flop, as reported in the El Paso Times on 1/11/07:



President Bush’s announcement Wednesday evening that he would send about 21,500 more soldiers and Marines to Iraq drew a mixed reaction from El Paso residents, and local officials said they weren’t aware he planned to use Fort Bliss Patriot missile units to defend U.S. allies in the region.


Bush had been expected to announce that he would send a “surge” of troops to Baghdad and to Al Anbar Province in an effort to stop sectarian violence and control the al-Quaida insurgency so the country’s fledgling government can establish itself.


“We don’t have the capability to escalate even to this minimal level,” said U.S. Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, referring to the availability of troops. “The president has not changed direction, but is simply changing tactics.”


Reyes, who met with Bush on Tuesday to review the plan, said sending more troops removes any incentive the Iraqi government had to take responsibility for the safety of its own citizens. He added that Bush was continuing his “go-it-alone” approach, rather than trying to find diplomatic solutions.


I wrote this in my intial post on Dem flip flops on the surge, and I believe it’s worth repeating today:



They simply cannot be trusted to tell the truth, nor can they be trusted to be in the driver’s seat in a time of war. That these shameless, dishonest, disingenuous, anti-war, cut and run, stuck-in-Vietnam clowns are going to be micromanaging the President’s every move over the next two years on the war on terror is a travesty of epic proportions, and is already proving to be disastrous.


10.  Dems Flip Flop on Iraq War


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_CepS8u9wQ


A little light listening and watching.



11. 






Democratic hopefuls for 2008 are sensing how vulnerable President Bush is on border control. The latest sign: New Mexico's politically shrewd governor, Bill Richardson, has made a partial about-face on the issue — at least in words — and is throwing money and attention at his state's southern border. If he makes a national comeback from the Energy Department security scandals that all but ruined his reputation in the final years of the Clinton administration, it will owe in part to a seeming shift on border control that mirrors the one that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton made in December and then reneged upon.


The editors then go on to dispel any doubts of the disingenuousness of their rightward tack on immigration and border control by chronicling their flip-flops. Granted: President Bush has been impotent on border security and weak on immigration — one can only assume because he is playing to his Hispanic voter base. So, I grant Bush no amnesty there. But at least he's consistently frustrating on the issue. Richardson and Clinton, however, have been all over the place, but of course pretend that they haven't. (I guess they just assume the American electorate are too stupid to follow their shenanigans… after all, they have election 2004 as precident that at least 48% of the nation could believe anyone, even an alleged war hero.)


Here are some examples of duplicity from The Washington Times regarding Richardson:



In 1996, as a New Mexico congressman, he voted against increases in border-control expenditures and against a work-verification program to discourage the hiring of illegals. His last few years as New Mexico governor have been more of the same. …As the state Minuteman leader, Clifford Alford, put it to local reporters last week, Mr. Richardson has never done anything to secure the border and he's not doing anything now.


This year Mr. Richardson began changing his tune. In March, he appeared on Fox News Sunday with former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and called for tough law enforcement, more border guards, a crackdown on illegal smuggling, better detection of those that overstay their visas, stolen/lost passports.


Last week, after a tour of border areas, Mr. Richardson declared a state of emergency in four counties abutting Mexico, citing growing border-area violence, property damage, drug smuggling and problems with illegals crossing the border. He then invited Chris Simcox, a Minuteman leader, to discuss border control — something Mr. Bush has not done and probably cannot do, having labeled them vigilantes in March — and called on Mexico to bulldoze Las Chepas, a staging ground for illegals and smugglers.


As regards Hillary, the editors refer to her comment last December that [I do] not think that we have protected our borders or our ports… we can do more and we can do better — I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants… People have to stop employing illegal immigrants, and then observe:



Since then, Mrs. Clinton has turned back toward left-liberal orthodoxy. Last month, she gave a fawning speech to the National Council of La Raza in which she endorsed the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minorities (DREAM) Act, which would guarantee illegals in-state college-tuition rates and also grant amnesty to tens of thousands of illegals who graduate from U.S. high schools. The border-control hawkishness had vanished.


12.  Massive Al-Qaeda Iraq flip flop


Thursday, June 15, 2006



Democratic Flip Flops on Iraq & Al Qaeda Connection




Today's lesson on How to Beat the Liberals with Facts about Iraq and Al Qaeda focuses on the hypocrisy of the Democrats. The Bush Administration was not the only politicos to link Al Qaeda and Iraq. But to listen to these very same Dems today, you would think otherwise. **Keep in mind that there is quite a difference in claiming ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda versus Iraq in cahoots with Al Qaeda in the 9/11 attacks. The ties between the two terrorist organizations is the issue in question.**

How many times have we heard the KOS kissing former presidential candidate, Gen. Wesley Clark, claim no connection to Iraq and Al Qaeda? But what did Wesley say in 2002???

Tape Shows General Clark Linking Iraq and Al Qaeda
NY Times ^ Jan. 12, 2004 EDWARD WYATT

MANCHESTER, N.H., Jan. 11 — Less than a year before he entered the race for the Democratic nomination for president, Gen. Wesley K. Clark said that he believed there was a connection between the Iraqi government and Al Qaeda.
The statement by General Clark in October 2002 as he endorsed a New Hampshire candidate for Congress is a sign of how the general's position on Iraq seems to have changed over time, though he insists his position has been consistent.
Certainly there's a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda, he said in 2002. It doesn't surprise me at all that they would be talking to Al Qaeda, that there would be some Al Qaeda there or that Saddam Hussein might even be, you know, discussing gee, I wonder since I don't have any scuds and since the Americans are coming at me, I wonder if I could take advantage of Al Qaeda? How would I do it? Is it worth the risk? What could they do for me?


SNIP
In an interview, General Clark said his more recent remarks were not inconsistent with what he said in 2002. In those remarks, he said, he was trying to explain that based on his knowledge of how the intelligence community works, low-level contacts almost certainly existed between Iraq and Al Qaeda, But, he said, that does not mean that Iraq had anything to do with the Sept. 11 attacks.

********************
President Bush was not the first President to claim ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The slick one from Arkansas was numero uno...

Clinton first linked al Qaeda to Saddam
By Rowan Scarborough THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The Clinton administration talked about firm evidence linking Saddam Hussein's regime to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network years before President Bush made the same statements...

In fact, during President Clinton's eight years in office, there were at least two official pronouncements of an alarming alliance between Baghdad and al Qaeda. One came from William S. Cohen, Mr. Clinton's defense secretary. He cited an al Qaeda-Baghdad link to justify the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan...

The other pronouncement is contained in a Justice Department indictment on Nov. 4, 1998, charging bin Laden with murder in the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa. The indictment disclosed a close relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam's regime, which included specialists on chemical weapons and all types of bombs, including truck bombs, a favorite weapon of terrorists...

To justify the Sudanese plant as a target, Clinton aides said it was involved in the production of deadly VX nerve gas. Officials further determined that bin Laden owned a stake in the operation and that its manager had traveled to Baghdad to learn bomb-making techniques from Saddam's weapons scientists.

*************************
Clinton White House Saw Saddam-Osama Connection
NewsMax ^ 7/12/04 Jon E. Dougherty

...The U.S. attorney involved in preparing that indictment, Patrick Fitzgerald, told the federal 9/11 commission the intelligence surrounding the indictment came from one Jamal al Fadl, a former high-ranking al-Qaeda leader who, before the Sept. 11 attacks, gave the U.S. its first real look at the terrorist organization.

Fadl said an associate of bin Laden's, Mamdouh Mahmud Salim (Abu Hajer al Iraqi) tried to reach a sort of agreement where they wouldn't work against each other -- sort of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' -- and that there were indications that within Sudan when al Qaeda was there, which al-Qaeda left in the summer of '96, or the spring of '96, there were efforts to work on jointly acquiring weapons.
Within several months, al-Qaeda bombed a pair of U.S. embassies in East Africa. In retaliation, Bill Clinton used an Iraq-al-Qaeda connection, Hayes said, when he ordered the cruise missile attack on the al Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.


On Aug. 24, 1998, a senior intelligence official was made available by the administration and cited strong ties between the plant and Iraq as the basis for the attack.

SNIP

A day later Thomas Pickering, undersecretary of state for political affairs and one of only a few officials involved in planning the al Shifa strike, confirmed an Iraq-Sudan (and, by proxy, al-Qaeda) connection: We see evidence that we think is quite clear on contacts between Sudan and Iraq. In fact, al Shifa officials, early in the company's history, we believe were in with Iraqi individuals associated with Iraq's VX program.

U.N. Ambassador Bill Richardson (now the governor of New Mexico) made an appearance on CNN, where he talked of direct evidence of ties between Osama bin Laden and Sudan's Military Industrial Corporation.
You combine that with Sudan support for terrorism, their connections with Iraq on VX, and you combine that, also, with the chemical precursor issue, and Sudan's leadership support for Osama bin Laden, and you've got a pretty clear-cut case.


Sandy Berger, Clinton's national security advisor, penned an op-ed for the Washington Times on Oct. 16, 1998. In it he asserted the administration had physical evidence indicating that al Shifa was the site of chemical weapons activity.
Other products were made at al Shifa, he continued. But we have seen such dual-use plants before -- in Iraq. And, indeed, we have information that Iraq has assisted chemical weapons activity in Sudan.


Richard Clarke, the counterterrorism czar for both Clinton and Bush who, in a recent book, laid most of the blame for 9/11 at the feet of the current administration, told the Washington Post in a Jan. 23, 1999 interview the U.S. was sure Iraq was behind the VX precursor being manufactured at the al Shifa plant.
The Post reported: Clarke said U.S. intelligence does not know how much of the substance was produced at al Shifa or what happened to it. But he said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to al Shifa's current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts, and the National Islamic Front in Sudan.


*****************************
Dems connected Iraq, al-Qaida
By Charles D. Ganske 7/5/04

Yet, Clinton's Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, in his recent testimony before the 9/11 Commission, insisted that the owner of the plant had traveled to Baghdad to meet with the father of the VX program. For the Iraqis not to have known bin Laden was a major investor in the El Shifa plant seems to be quite a stretch.

*******************************
The final nail in the coffin was signed by many of the Lefties that now claim voting for the war in Iraq was a mistake... You know, people like John Kerry, John Murtha...

AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002
[[Page 116 STAT. 1498]] Public Law 107-243107th Congress
Joint Resolution To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
<>

...Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;...

My my my... how things change when a Republican is President. It was completely believable and promoted by Democrats when Clinton was in office. Yet the only action Clinton took was bombing the pharmaceutical factory at Al Shifa. President Bush's actions have deposed the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. His only mistake - he is a Republican.


13.


BEN NELSON:
Immigration Hardliner? Or Lobbyist for Meatpackers?

NEGOP Questions Democrat Ben Nelson’s Immigration Flip-Flop
***


Lincoln, Neb. – The Nebraska GOP called on Democrat Senator Ben Nelson today to come clean on his apparent flip-flop on federal immigration policy. Nelson announced plans to introduce legislation addressing illegal immigration.

In 1999, former Governor and soon to be candidate for United States Senate Ben Nelson acted as a lobbyist for the meatpacking industry in a dispute with the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). INS was subpoenaing employee records at meatpacking plants across the state, investigating document discrepancies.



  • “Former Gov. Ben Nelson says the crackdown on undocumented workers in Nebraska meatpacking plants is detrimental to Nebraska.” (Nelson critical of Operation Vanguard, Calls it Detrimental; Grand Island Independent; Thursday, June 3, 1999)

  • Nelson said he thinks the INS should start a separate program that would allow temporary visas for undocumented workers. (Associated Press, “Nelson says INS operation draining state’s labor pool”; 6/4/99)

  • [Nelson] said he has been approached by several meatpacking companies, asking for his help in developing a pilot program that would make temporary visas available to undocumented employees. “We need to find more ways to employ people rather than limit them,” Nelson said. (The Grand Island Independent, 6/3/99).

“The issue in this instance is consistency and leadership. In 1999, the year before his Senate race, Ben Nelson lobbied for meatpackers – advocating for programs to permit the importation of foreign workers into permanent US jobs. In 2005, the year before his Senate race, Ben Nelson feigns concern about border security,” said Executive Director Jessica Moenning. “Ben Nelson changes what he thinks from one term to the next based on who he’s lobbying for or what a poll says - that is NOT leadership.”

“Nebraska needs a leader who will say what he means and mean what he says, not someone who changes his position if a focus group says so. Ben Nelson owes the voters of Nebraska an explanation for his flip-flop.”


 


I don't know. Where were you back then??
I was aware because a friend of mine is from Iraq and his mother was a Kurd and was killed. He and his brother had been schooled here and they were working here. His father is still there. I have lost contact with him, the friend. He moved to CA and we just lost touch. I would imagine that his father is probably dead. We worked together in the 80s. I know Mavis Leno (Jay's wife) has been working for Afghanistan women for years. She probably knew and cared a lot and I am sure that the people who did know cared quite a lot a well. I really can't tell you where everyone else was. I would guess most Americans were in the same state of mind about Iraq that they are today in respect to every other poverty-ridden, despot-ravaging, corrupt country, state or region, Asia, Africa, South America...We(some of us) care about Iraq because it has been brought to our attention for the first time, Iraq that is. You will find no dearth of man's inhumanity to man in any corner of this planet you look. Whoever you are, you may or may not know that I am a complete and total pacifist. I can think of no good reason for war...really...but since we've got it, my priority is to end the carnage for both sides ASAP.
Right back at ya..lol nm
nm
your back

I agree.  It would be very traumatizing to the child to be hauled around and raised by a succession of nannies.  The child's needs come before her political ambition.


 


right back at ya...
DIdn't see anything there about God Dam* America for starters. More to follow.
No, sam's right. I can't back it up but I
remember that being on the news almost every night for weeks when Clinton revealed his budget.
WELCOME BACK SAM!!!!! nm
nm.
Yes I did, quite a while back. nm
.
It is always back to that with you and I never
once mentioned anything about her being experienced or not. Yes, she has as much experience as an executive as the rest of them. The point is, it is wasteful.

What truly bothers me is that no matter what anyone says about her, be it justified or not you are always in her defense. Can you admit that she has done wrong? I'm for the other side and can see the not so great about them.
Has Sam still not come back?
I know some of you don't like her, but I sure hope everything is okay!
I think he/she was back
a few days ago when the posting went wild.  Looked to me like him/herself was posting and answering his/her own posts.  JMO.
Welcome back Sam!
How is the hand? Hope you are doing well!
We could go back and forth on this all day. s/m
I find McCain/Palin between them not to have enough COMMON SENSE to fill a thimble.  So let's just agree to disagree.
Right back at ya....

Why aren't YOU listening?  If I hear any more about Joe the non-plumber, I'm going to puke.  That was a Republican plant if ever I saw one.  "Joe" got the answer he was programmed to get and they took it and ran with it.  If you are listening, Obama is NOT proposing to tax people who's GROSS income is $250,000!!!


I do agree with you.  I have long been in favor of a flat rate tax.  No deductions, no exceptions.  If you make a dollar you owe a dime or whatever.  That will NEVER fly because the politicians are ALL about protecting the wealthy.  AND that includes McCain AND Obama.


Welcome back, sam.....sm
Your presence on this board has been acutely missed over the last couple of days.

I guess some of us have an actual life, huh? ;o)
Just got back myself...sm
We have a small polling place as well and a VERY small town/precinct. Still, I stood in line for probably 30 minutes or more.

Our county decided this year, in view of the push for early voting, that they would try decentralized (for lack of a better word) early voting. In other words, early voting had always taken place only at the county courthouse, but this year they set up satellite voting polls in various locations for 1 day of early voting in addition to the regular early voting at the courthouse. In our precinct, we had 169 early voters.

Well, enough of the small-town voting news...LOL. I hope that everyone (not just on this board) is able to get out to the polls today and cast their ballot for the persons of their choice. The next few days will definitely be interesting ones.
Will you be going back over
x
Hey BB..... Welcome back! sm
Hope you had a nice long holiday with much reading time! ;o)
You need to look back a little further!
.
yet you are back?
nm