I think the guilt by association thing....(sm)
Posted By: Just the big bad on 2008-12-20
In Reply to: oh pullleease - definitely not the same thing - New Englander
is ridiculous -- from both sides. That being said, I find it hard to believe that Sarah has never even met the mother of her future son-in-law.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
I would believe the guilt by association only...
if his policies did not scream Marxist...straight out of black liberation theology. I can see what he hopes for and the change he wants. I don't want a Marxist socialist government. Perhaps you do.
Guilt by association
"…associations with terrorists, criminals, and racist individuals to me is more telling because these are associations and issues that could raise concern during a presidency.
http://www.startribune.com/politics/30572149.html
Racists / terrorists: Republican Sen. John McCain served on the advisory board to the U.S. chapter of an international group linked to ultra-right-wing death squads in Central America in the 1980s. McCain sat on the board of the U.S. Council for World Freedom. During his tenure (1981 to 1986), the Anti-Defamation League said this organization and its parent organization, the WACL (World Anti-Communist League) "has increasingly become a gathering place, a forum, a point of contact for extremists, racists and anti-Semites." The WACL had ties to ultra-right figures and Latin American death squads. Roger Pearson, the chairman of the WACL, was expelled from the group in 1980 under allegations that he was a member of a neo-Nazi organization.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Keating
Criminal ties:
1. Charles Keating. Keating was criminally charged with having duped Lincoln's customers into buying worthless junk bonds of American Continental Corporation; he was convicted in state court in 1992 of fraud, racketeering, and conspiracy and received a 10-year prison sentence. In January 1993, a federal conviction followed, with a 12-and-a-half year sentence. He spent four-and-a-half years in prison, but convictions were eventually overturned. Thereafter, on the eve of the retrial on the federal charges, Keating pleaded guilty to several felony charges in return for a sentence of time served.
2. McCain appeared at a Oregon Citizens Alliance gathering after Marilyn Shannon had praised Shelley Shannon as a "fine lady." Shannon is an anti-abortion activist, saboteur, rhetorician and sharpshooter from Grants Pass, Oregon. She assaulted Dr. George Tiller outside his abortion clinic in Wichita, Kansas on August 19, 1993, shooting him in both arms. She is serving time in FCI Dublin. Her projected release date is November 7, 2018.
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/McCain_connections_coming_back_to_haunt_1007.html
3. Gordon Liddy, the Watergate break-in mastermind, who spent more than four years in prison for his crimes, has called McCain an "old friend" and hosted the candidate on his conservative talk radio show.
Guilt by association. Really wanna go there?
Just off the top of my head:
1. US Council for World Freedom who got a 20-year sentence for his conviction of conspiracy, burglary and illegal wiretapping in the Watergate fiasco. m (can you say Iran contra?).
2. Phil Gramm, (co-chair of the McCain campaign), champion of Enron tax loopholes and author of Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that effectively neutralized any existing regulation of financial services industry. You remember good ole Phil. He's the one talking on McCain's behalf when he said we were having a "mental recession" and we have a nation of a bunch of whiners.
3. Gordon Liddy. That's the guy
4. Let's don't forget the Keating 5.
5. Richard Quinn, publisher of Southern Heritage ragazine for neo-confederates…unapologetic bigotry.
6. Rick Davis, McCain CEO, lobbyist, paid $15,000 each month for "consulting" from end of 2005 until September 2008.
With a little research, I'm sure I could come up with a few more. Wanna go there some more?
Guilt by association? You are kidding, right?
20 years in the church, man was his mentor, baptized his children...that is an "association?"
Excuse me...my compadre? Are you now saying I am guilty of wanting to leave my country because another poster posted on this board THEY might leave?
Good grief, rip a page out of your own book. If he sat there for 20 years and was truly AGAINST racism, then he is a hypocrit at the very LEAST.
It's that guilt-by-association thingy
O haters have been harping away on that matra for months and months and months and more months while trying without success to make all their endless "connections". What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Another resounding theme from them has been "judgment" about the company one keeps. SP has condoned her own daughter's marriage into a crack/meth (or whatever drug) house. What is with the pubs' adversion to vetting anyway? It's going to be a bit difficult to pull off that one-big-happy-family image politicians like to project.
Don't be such a hypocrite. The glee O haters take in salivating over imagined scandals is positively palpable. I'm not that excited, but I'd be lying if I said I'm not highly amused.
Guilt by association tactic is tired, did nothing
In a democracy, even communists are allow to have their own perceptions. It is good news that Sam will be putting time-consuming research into overdrive. Poor pubs. Plain to see they are spinning themselves into the ground. Spin, baby, spin. Nothing you can say will change the fact that the DNC was a phenomenal success and the RNC is a dud so far, plagued by disappearing speakers, scandal and damage control.
Run another guilt by association smear campaign
watch that landslide turn into a monster avalanche. Some people never learn.
If everyone was guilty by association . . .
how many of us would be guilty? There are and have been plenty of Senators and congresssmen who have (or still do) links to the KKK -- if we knew the actual truth, we would be shocked. The point is, I don't have enough information to be able to make a judgment about Obama's choice of church? We all have at one time or another had a friend or loved one whose lifestyle or morals maybe we did not necessarily agree with, but maybe we knew another side of them that overshadowed the bad side. I don't respect or necessarily like my mother because she is a racist, but I still love her for doing the best she knew how.
If one is guilty by association, then let
any one of you who profess your own guiltlessness please step forward. I just wish you people would find something more constructive to do than continuously harp on a moot point. You're welcome to join your compadre who posted earlier about moving to Australia -- but then, I doubt you would have the funds to do that, since they require major $$ to be deposited into their banks in order to get a green card. And then you would find that they really do not care for Americans very much, and then YOU would be the one discriminated against. I would call that poetic justice.
"Guilt by association" is a logical fallacy.
Unless, of course, you're quite prepared to admit that Obama is a domestic terrorist. (Need the associations to support that?)
Please understand. I don't blame you. I blame the public school systems that no longer teach students logical skills.
You can try to guilt.....
the posters on this board but I doubt you will be effective. Jonestown wasn't the only ones who drank 'the Kool-Aid." So did Heaven's Gate. So, it is now a mainstream term and no disrespect is intended to the victims and willing who met this fate. I refuse to be manipulated by others who try to censor my right to free speech.
Then if Obama is not guilty by association, I guess McCain definitely isn't either sm
Racism goes both ways and you know that!
Not sure about the admitting guilt....
Clinton did not require a pardon because he never went to trial It never went to and wasn't convicted of anything, though we all know he did it. It wasn't pursued after he left office. That should go to show that Republicans do not thirst for revenge, as they are the ones who would have to have done it, liberals obviously would not. That being said...not sure. I never heard that Marc Rich or any of the ones Clinton did the *Hail Mary* pardons for admitted guilt. Perhaps they did; perhaps they didn't. I just don't see how liberals could complain if Libby was pardoned if the Republicans didn't go after Bill after he left office, and they could have. I always wondered why Monica never filed a civil suit. I am thinking either she was afraid for her life or banked a ton of Clinton money. But, that is merely conjecture on my part.
Pardons can be handed out for other reasons too I believe...I don't think the border patrol officers would have to admit guilt because they feel they were wrongly convicted. It could go that way for Libby too...who knows. I can see there are issues...no one went after Judith Miller for conveniently not remembering all her conversations. It is just a mess...
But the point is...Libby didn't leak anything. It was Armitage. And who pulls his strings? We might REALLY be surprised about that one. I would venture that it is not even on the Republican side, but came from the OTHER side to set up some of the administration. Would not be the first time and I certainly would not put it past some of Armitage's old liberal buds with a lot of moveon.org money behind it. How's that for a conspiracy theory this fine evening?
So again we agree to disagree...and...lol...I am NOT even going to go there on the ACLU tonight. Too tired...lol.
Have a good night, Lurker!
Pardons....admission of guilt...
According to this that I found, they are saying that if you *accept* a pardon, that is an implicit admission of guilt. A person does not have to say formally *yes, I am guilty.*
In the United States, the pardon power for Federal crimes is granted to the President by the United States Constitution, Article II, Section 2, which states that the President:
shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
All federal pardon petitions are addressed to the President who grants or denies the request. Typically, applications for pardons are referred for review and non-binding recommendation by the Office of the Pardon Attorney, an official of the Department of Justice. Since 1977, presidents have received about 600 pardon or clemency petitions a year and have granted around ten percent of these, although the percentage of pardons and reprieves granted varies from administration to administration (fewer pardons have been granted since World War II than historically had been the case).
The presidential power of pardons and commutations was controversial from the outset; many Anti-Federalists remembered examples of royal abuses of the pardon power in Europe, and warned that the same would happen in the new republic. However, Alexander Hamilton makes a strong defense of the pardon power in The Federalist Papers, particularly in Federalist 74. It is worthy of note that Hamilton called for something like an elective monarch at the Constitutional Convention. President George Washington granted the first high-profile Federal pardon to leaders of the Whiskey Rebellion.
Many pardons have been controversial; critics argue that pardons have been used more often for the sake of political expediency than to correct judicial error. One of the more famous, recent pardons was granted by President Gerald Ford to former President Richard Nixon on September 8, 1974, for official misconduct which gave rise to the Watergate scandal. Polls showed a majority of Americans disapproved of the pardon and Ford's public-approval ratings tumbled afterward. He was then narrowly defeated in the presidential campaign, two years later. Other controversial uses of the pardon power include Andrew Johnson's sweeping pardons of thousands of former Confederate officials and military personnel after the American Civil War, Jimmy Carter's grant of amnesty to Vietnam-era draft evaders, George H. W. Bush's pardons of 75 people, including six Reagan administration officials accused and/or convicted in connection with the Iran-Contra affair, and Bill Clinton's pardons of convicted FALN terrorists and 140 people on his last day in office - including billionaire fugitive Marc Rich.
A presidential pardon may be granted at any time after commission of the offense; the pardoned person need not have been convicted or even formally charged with a crime. Clemency may also be granted without the filing of a formal request and even if the intended recipient has no desire to be pardoned. In the overwhelming majority of cases, however, the Pardon Attorney will consider only petitions from persons who have completed their sentences and, in addition, have demonstrated their ability to lead a responsible and productive life for a significant period after conviction or release from confinement.[1]
It appears that a pardon can be rejected, and must be affirmatively accepted to be officialy recognized by the courts. Acceptance also carries with it an admission of guilt. Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79 (1915). However, the federal courts have yet to make it clear how this logic applies to persons who are deceased (such as Henry Flipper - who was pardoned by Bill Clinton), those who are relieved from penalties as a result of general amnesties and those whose punishments are relieved via a commutation of sentence (which cannot be rejected in any sense of the language - See Chapman v. Scott (C. C. A.) 10 F.(2d) 690).
The pardon power of the President extends only to offenses cognizable under U.S. Federal law. However, the governors of most states have the power to grant pardons or reprieves for offenses under state criminal law. In other states, that power is committed to an appointed agency or board, or to a board and the governor in some hybrid arrangement.
White guilt is right. Too many people...
feel they HAVE to say they would vote for Obama for fear of being called racist. If that's the only way he gets into the White House then it's not a true win. He certainly isn't going to get in based on his stellar political career or experience. Flowery words, promises that can't be kept, keep the poor people poor and dependent on the government, screw the middle class and help out your fat cat friends.
White guilt is "pitiful?" Help me out here.
this statement to be just the teensey-weensiest bit tinged with that racism the reds doth vigorously protest is absent in their campaign rhetoric? Am I the only one left in America that finds this deeply offensive? Flame away if you must. I can take it.
NEITHER SIDE is 100% free of guilt, 'kay?
White guilt drove the election...
plain and simple. Drones didn't want to be called racist for not voting for him so they jumped on the wagon. Too bad it is going to careen off the cliff with them.
Guilt doesn't eliminate rights
There are privileges that can be taken away after being convicted in a court of law, but in our American system of justice, he still maintains his legal rights. Whether we believe we should save the state a lot of money and fry him right now does not really matter. Our American justice system, which is one of the things we tout as making us superior to middle east justice, means that he is entitled to a free trial, where his lawyer will undoubtedly make an insanity defense. In any case, the murderer opening his mouth prejudices his own case, and apparently the prosecuting team wants to make sure this guy does not walk on a technicality.
But valuing over the price of a dollar is a right thing wing thing, so you are on the wrong board. n
x
I never said it's a bad thing, it is a good thing....nm
nm
one other thing though....
Agree with everything you stated, but I am profoundly disgusted also with Rove being able to expose a CIA agent, and nothing is going to be done about it in that I feel he committed treason, as Reagan did with Iran-Contra... Treasonous acts that are let to slide...no big deal huh? Who knows if someone is getting hurt because of his mouth, and yet, nothing... The silence is very annoying...as our country drops into a stinking sea of muck.
One more thing, gt. sm
Of all the people on these boards, YOUR opinion of me is the one I value the least.
Oh, and one more thing, gt. sm
Clnton signed Kyoto in 1997, only because he knew that the Senate would not ratify it. He was right. They voted 95-0 AGAINST Kyoto. Why? Because it would have required signatory nations to significantly cut greenhouse gases resulting from the burning of fosil fuels. Because ratifying the treaty would have required a large reduction in the use of fossil fuels that we use to our our economy. Until there is an alternative fuel source that is better than gold old fashioned coal and oil, restricting our economy's ability to burn these fuels would CRIPPLE US AS A NATION. You are not seeing the total picture here, you simply cannot be seeing it. I know the left's hatred for capitalism has blinded them to the fact that without our economy, we collapse. It really is that simple. We would be reduced to a third world nation in a very short period of time and you and I would not be sitting here writing on our computers because our world as we know it would change. Yes, it really is all about oil. But not the way you think.
and another thing
we aren't controlling anybody. There are several countries in this world where you are controlled, but this ain't one of them.
One more thing:
I apologize for the length of my post, but so far, I still have freedom of speech.
Guess I just feel the need to get it all out before that freedom suddenly disappears, as well. The majority of Americans don't agree with Bush, and we all know how he/his thugs handle people who dare to disagree with him. If you don't believe me, just ask John McCain and/or Valerie Plame.
I'd like to add one more thing.
If these alleged WMDs are so widespread and so easily accessible in Iraq, why aren't any of them being used on our soldiers?
Honestly, that's one of the very first fears I had when I heard we were going to war with Iraq (when I still believed the reasons given by the president and supported the invasion based on those reasons). I had visions of massive troop deaths at the hands of Iraqis and these WMDs.
Did that happen? 
OK. Here's the thing...sm
Because we've been through this before and I feel a repeat coming on. I'm respectful and nice to everyone on these boards 99% of the time. People come over to the liberal board and pretend they are moderates or just want to *debate.* When all the time they are anti-everything liberal and have no intention of seeing the liberal point of view. In the end, they end up *insulted* off of the board and run to the other board and have a sling fest. Yawn. They have revelations over there contrary to the beliefs they portrayed on this board. So really I'm skeptical about debating with the like. You may be 100% different worldfan, but from your posts on the Conservative and News boards it would appear you would be more at home on the conservative board giving them a high five about what's going on over here. Just my observation.
I used to post on the conservative board but I left because they were getting too extreme for my liking. It's that simple. There are some topics over there that I would reply too, but I don't b/c of past comments made over there, which have made me stick to the liberal page. However, on quite a few issues I am far from liberal like abortion and fiscal spending.
I hope you get my points. If not, we don't have anything more to discuss.
Sorry. Here's the whole thing.
I was trying to avoid this but the link is not working for some reason.
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Tuesday, July 04, 2006 |
|
|
Headlines |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Britons Tire of Cruel, Vulgar US: Poll |
|
|
People in Britain view the United States as a vulgar, crime-ridden society obsessed with money and led by an incompetent president whose Iraq policy is failing, according to a newspaper poll.
The United States is no longer a symbol of hope to Britain and the British no longer have confidence in their transatlantic cousins to lead global affairs, according to the poll published in The Daily Telegraph.
...a majority of the Britons described Americans as uncaring, divided by class, awash in violent crime, vulgar, preoccupied with money, ignorant of the outside world, racially divided, uncultured and in the most overwhelming result (90 percent of respondents) dominated by big business. ![src=http://www.commondreams.org/images/endquote.gif]()
|
|
The YouGov poll found that 77 percent of respondents disagreed with the statement that the US is a beacon of hope for the world.
As Americans prepared to celebrate the 230th anniversary of their independence on Tuesday, the poll found that only 12 percent of Britons trust them to act wisely on the global stage. This is half the number who had faith in the Vietnam-scarred White House of 1975.
A massive 83 percent of those questioned said that the United States doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks.
With much of the worst criticism aimed at the US adminstration, the poll showed that 70 percent of Britons like Americans a lot or a little.
US President George W. Bush fared significantly worse, with just one percent rating him a great leader against 77 percent who deemed him a pretty poor or terrible leader.
More than two-thirds who offered an opinion said America is essentially an imperial power seeking world domination. And 81 per cent of those who took a view said President George W Bush hypocritically championed democracy as a cover for the pursuit of American self-interests.
US policy in Iraq was similarly derided, with only 24 percent saying they felt that the US military action there was helping to bring democracy to the country.
A spokesman for the American embassy said that the poll's findings were contradicted by its own surveys.
We question the judgment of anyone who asserts the world would be a better place with Saddam still terrorizing his own nation and threatening people well beyond Iraq's borders, the paper quoted the unnamed spokesman as saying.
With respect to the poll's assertions about American society, we bear some of the blame for not successfully communicating America's extraordinary dynamism.
But frankly, so do you (the British press).
In answer to other questions, a majority of the Britons questions described Americans as uncaring, divided by class, awash in violent crime, vulgar, preoccupied with money, ignorant of the outside world, racially divided, uncultured and in the most overwhelming result (90 percent of respondents) dominated by big business.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse
### |
 Printer Friendly Version  E-Mail This Article |
|
|
|
FAIR USE NOTICE |
|
|
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would like to know the same thing.nm
12
The thing that got me was this...sm
This totally counts out everyday Joes. And those with a couple million to run. A half a billion dollars is a lot of money.
One last thing.....
Your argument might hold more water if I thought for one minute liberals understood that it was Michael Moore's OPINION and not the truth (but why should they, because he frames as the truth). I think, if you truly understand that, you are in the minority.
One more thing...
I asked the last poster to bring me one example of a Democrat who, when caught in wrongdoing, has resigned. Just one. She has not come back with one, even though I named several who should have. As I stated, the only Democrat I know of who resigned from anything resigned because he was coming out of the closet, and I find that ludicrous. The man should not have resigned because he was gay. For felony perjury, yes. For obstruction of justice, yes. Remember please the congressman who actually had a homosexual affair with an underage page (male). No Democratic outrage. He stood right up and said he was an adult and it was consensual and that had nothing to do with his job as a Congressman. No Democratic outrage. In fact, he was re-elected. Yes, that was several years ago, but all that proves is that the Democratic moral compass went wonky several years ago. It is not a recent thing, it is just getting worse and worse and worse. Stop please dancing around the subject, and please to bring forth one or two Democrats who have actually resigned and admitted wrongdoing? And while you are at it, Republicans who were caught and still hold office? I would be very willing to read and re-assess. Try for one minute to take off the liberal hat and look at it objectively. It is case after case after case...Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Alcee Hastings, William Jefferson, and on and on the list goes....in fact, Alcee Hastings was removed as a Federal Judge for bribery and perjury..see below.
In 1988, the Democratic-controlled U.S. House of Representatives took up the case, and Hastings was impeached for bribery and perjury by a vote of 413-3. Voters to impeach included Reps. Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, John Conyers and Charles Rangel. He was then convicted in 1989 by the United States Senate, becoming only the sixth federal judge in the history of the United States to be removed from office by the Senate. The Senate had the option to forbid Hastings from ever seeking federal office again, but did not do so. Alleged co-conspirator William Borders went to jail again for refusing to testify in the impeachment proceedings, but was later given a full pardon by Bill Clinton on his last day in office.
Ain't that special?? And just proves the point.
How did I get into this thing..
I have not said anything about regime change for months, years. I said Iraq was on the table before 9/11 solely to illuminate the fact that 9/11 set the stage for what some had been wanting to do for a long time. My intent was to emphasize that this administration used 9/11 as a way to garner support from Congress and the American people for the switch from Afghanistan to Iraq. If 9/11 had not happened, there would never have been support for a preemptive war in Iraq nor do I believe we would have supported going after bin Laden. It took something monumental for the American people to be willing to go to war.
How do you know Clinton is my favorite president?? I think he was a good president and I was doing a lot better when he was in office but you assume much here. In my lifetime I think maybe JFK was my favorite president (I was about 10 years old and I remember him as bigger than life) and one of the reasons for that was that he inspired us. I don't think anyone has really done that since, made us think and feel like we could do anything. It really has been downhill since Watergate.
I will cease and desist from regime change rhetoric if I never have to hear the words spew or ooze again.
How did I get in this thing....
I have not said anything about regime change for months, years. I said Iraq was on the table before 9/11 solely to illuminate the fact that 9/11 set the stage for what some had been wanting to do for a long time.
My point was that it is not only *this* administration. Clinton felt strongly enough about Iraq and regime change, as did the Congress at that time, to enact a LAW calling for regime change. So Iraq was on the table then. The articles posted would lead you to believe that liberals/Democrats never called for regime change. They are the instigating part of the *some* you speak of. And if you will read Clinton's speech at the time, if you did not know he gave it, you would think Bush might have, because the content is eerily similar. It is just odd to me that liberals were on board for WMD, on board for regime change, on board for force, on board for ALL of it when Clinton was calling for it. How do liberals manage that massive flip flop? I remember Clinton's speech well. It was one of the few times that I agreed with what he was doing and saying.
My intent was to emphasize that this administration used 9/11 as a way to garner support from Congress and the American people for the switch from Afghanistan to Iraq. If 9/11 had not happened, there would never have been support for a preemptive war in Iraq nor do I believe we would have supported going after bin Laden. It took something monumental for the American people to be willing to go to war. Okay. I get it. 3000 people dying here was not enough to make liberals willing to go to war. What, in the name of the Almighty, is, I am wondering.
How do you know Clinton is my favorite president?? I think he was a good president and I was doing a lot better when he was in office but you assume much here. I was being facetious...he seems to be the posterboy for liberals. I apologize. I will not refer to him as YOUR favorite President anymore. Glad though that you validated what I have said on numerous occasions, that liberals are about what is good for them individually...I am glad you personally were doing better when he was President.
In my lifetime I think maybe JFK was my favorite president (I was about 10 years old and I remember him as bigger than life) and one of the reasons for that was that he inspired us. I don't think anyone has really done that since, made us think and feel like we could do anything. It really has been downhill since Watergate. Maybe it has gone downhill for you since watergate. Personally I think it started downhill then, and made a huge massive slide with Monicagate and a sitting President committing felony perjury. However, I do not hold the country responsible for that as you seem to. I hold the individuals...Nixon and Clinton...responsible. At least Nixon had a modicum of grace to say he was wrong and resign when caught. Clinton has done neither and his party has not expected him to and has in fact defended him. You will never hear me defend either of them.
I will cease and desist from regime change rhetoric if I never have to hear the words spew or ooze again. I believe it was one on the liberal board who started the *spew* and *ooze* and the only time I have used those words was again, being facetious, in reply to the ones who used them. I personally did not start the use of those. In fact, I think her words were *spew venom* (ick). As to cease and desist, go ahead with the regime change rhetoric if you like. We know it did not originate with Bush, not opinion, matter of law. No spin, hard fact.
Have a good day.
The right thing to do is...
allow everyone to vote. No one needs to step down. And I do not support either of them. I supported Ron Paul when he was in the race.
One more thing
He keeps flashing a pic of himself when he was a young guy in the military. Almost every commercial of him shows him when he was younger, and in fact one of his ads on this website shows him a young guy in the military. He's now old and he should have a current picture. What's next, Barack putting up adds with his high school senior pic? How about Hillary running with a picture of her in grade school. The guy is old and if he's so confident in himself he should have a current pic of him. He's no longer younger and he doesn't have the mind of someone younger.
You did no such thing since he never said that.
I did do my research and so did the author of "comparative drug use." above. FYI: Crack/free-base cocaine and cocaine hydrochloride are not the same. One is pure, the other a compound. The addition of hydrochloride gives the intranasal compound a completely different chemical make-up that does not have the same effect. It is slower on the uptake and clears the system much faster than the cocaine base (giving it less of an addictive potential) . The pure free base/crack cocaine DOES NOT WORK when it is snorted, since the absorption is obstructed when it is attacked by enzymes via the nasal route. Method of delivery does matter, in terms of drug effect, absorption, drug life and addiction potential. If you are an MT, you know where to go to verify this information.
I am aware of what he said and did not say in his book. I have nothing to add to the "comparative drug use" post in that regard. Furthermore, there is nothing inaccurate in my original post. There is a pervert on a right-wing fringe blog who made these unsubstantiated claims about his witnessed account of "sharing" cocaine with Obama and having homosexual sex with him. He has also been discredited and has a wrap sheet a mile long. Does not seem like a credible observation from a credible source. That's all I said. I did not deny, nor did I acknowledge whether or not Obama used cocaine. My comments referred to how information is extracted from legitimate sources (in this case, straight from the horse's mouth), twisted and manipulated by perverts and right-wing blogsters in desperate efforts to smear somebody's character when they are unable to engage themselves directly in legitimate policy issues. The "character" card, whether played by one party or the other, is really a lame strategy that prevents productive, progressive approaches to issues and solutions to problems of dire importance to us AS A NATION, not as party affiliates.
That is the best thing you
can come up with? Let us forget Obama's association with Ayers or his 20-year membership to a church that preached hate messages......let's just focus on McCain calling his wife a C unt shall we. Sheesh......If he thought so little of women, he would never have chose one to run as his VP.
In all seriousness though, why is c unt such an offensive word? Who dictates words and which ones are bad? Who decided that the F bomb was bad? Who determined what words were considered swear words? If I called someone a poop head and then called someone a c unt, they are both supposed to insult...are they not.....so why is one worse than the other and who determined that?
At least she is doing the right thing
She is going to have the baby and not kill it
well, the one thing that the VP has is...
the deciding vote if there is a tie in Congress, and with a majority dem congress that is not a bad thing.. :)
Yep, I agree with the "gimme" attitude. I call it being all about me, me, me. Don't get me wrong, I believe some social programs are necessary because there are people who, through no fault of their own whether mental disability or physical disability, cannot work. And I think we should take care of our fellow man to that extent. However, those who are fully capable of working and choose not to, and we have to subsidize their housing, their groceries, and give them a check every month...that needs to stop.
Have a wonderful day!
yes, SP did the right thing!!
x
One more thing....sm
McCain isn't "my hero" per se.... -- my first choice was Romney, and we all know where that went....lol....
But John McCain is this country's hero, whether you agree or admit it. He simply is, and was. Period. You can't take that away from him.
And I'll tell you who "sat around and watch a city drown." I think that pretty much covers what the entire nation did, as the nonstop coverage of that event was depicted...actually, I think the whole world watched, not just us. One of our tragedies, but you can't lay that completely at McCain or Bush's feet. It's been covered before her ad nauseum, and I think most agree, if the dem gov and dem mayor would have acted preemptively, as happened this weekend in both LA and TX, a lot of that would have been averted. No need to cover this ground again, really. I get your point of view though, so no need to expound.
Bummer....now I betcha won't answer my other question on SNL....rats, I really wanted to know too....lol....I used to love SNL with the first crew was on there with Chevy, Belushi, Gilda Radner, and all those first not ready for prime time players.
LOL! I can add one more thing to that -
To paraphrase the Beach Boys:
'and she had fun, fun, fun,
'til her mommy took her condom a-wayyyyyy!!!'
Is that a bad thing?
Should he have just attacked, attacked, attacked? Doesn't matter what he does, it is wrong, I guess. I would rather have somebody who can say Yeah, we disagree on some things, but here is where we agree. Isn't that what bipartisanship is about?
Whatever they do there is one thing for sure
It will not benefit "we the people." This bail-out is absurd. Our local bank president is a personal friend. Talking to her the other day she said there are no problems there and it's business as usual, loans being made just the same. Now that doesn't add up to the scare tactics we hear from the jerk-off politicians. JMO but I think this is G.W.'s last great assist to his Wall Street buddies. One party is as bad as the other and they all benefit from what goes on on Wall Street. They'll pass some kind of bail-out and this country will be bankrupted. No money, no jobs. Their bail-out is not going to help the situation any more than the rebates did. Just borrow more money and throw it away. I hope eventually enough people will get totally disgusted and then maybe we can take back our government. Everyone wants "help." Well, those who bit off mortgages they couldn't afford, tough toenails, suffer the consequences. We may as well start learning to spell GREATER DEPRESSION, worse than the 30s because, folks, that is what is coming. The Republicans will keep on blaming the Democrats and the Democrats will keep on blaming the Republicans. ALL of our elected politicians ought to be tried and hung for treason!! The best I know to do is vote against EVERY incumbent. I am far from excited about Obama but I will vote for him because he is not a Republican. Any Democrat running for anything I will vote for the Republican. That's the best I can think of at the moment to try to change. We all need to quit bickering about "Republican" and "Democrat" and start thinking as AMERICANS! If someone can build a better mousetrap than what I plan to do I'll be first in line to buy it. Something HAS to be done and we don't need to start in arguing about who should get a free handout. The truth is NO ONE should get a free handout, other than the aged and infirm!
One other thing to think about . . .
Also need to think about the what if . . .? What happens if Obama is elected and all these crazy radicals/extremists/racists in this country take him out, or GOD FORBID, if McCain is elected, (and I don't think an 80-year-old man is going to make it through 4 years), then that thing he picked as runny mate would step in as president? Let's see, Palin or Biden? There's a no brainer!!! Mark my words, Palin beliefs would regress his country 30-50 years. We don't need a self-righteous religious fanatic in the White House. What ever happened to separation of church and state??
they run the whole thing
It's the old line "you get what you pay for" here. Imagine it changes to SM tomorrow. You wouldn't have the option to stay with the physicians you now have (unless a pure accident or coincidence). Gone would be the choices you now have, which are pitiful as the system is now. I still long for the days when we purchased our ins. the same as we do our car ins., cable co., etc. In the ྌs and beyond I had BCBS. I selected the doctors I wanted, and didn't worry about looking for who was on my (my list? ha!) list closest to my home, etc.
A friend of mine lived in Canada for awhile and while there her daughter got DXd with cancer and ended up with an amputated leg. She said it was a horrible system, and would never again do it...and she didn't. She had no control over her choices up there. No doubt you've heard of the many people who come here for surgery, etc. for the same reasons. Again, everyone's trying to get IN to the US, not out...
Does that help? Please don't be swayed by the spin. Anytime the gov't controls something, whether it be your healthcare to your home, you're no longer in control of it.
My thing is
that God gives life, not us. We are merely the vessels. Therefore what he gives we cannot take away. Well, excuse me, should not.
I think that if someone doesn't believe in God they are still very much bound by his laws, they just break them left and right.
I have quite a few reasons for not voting for Obama, but on the instance of abortion, I don't believe it is our right to put away what God has brought into being.
What really bothers me though is that Obama supports the "just born abortions" (I can't remember what they are called). To me, if your going to carry the child for 9 months, why kill it at the end? If you've gone through all that, at least give it up for adoption and give it a chance!
I completely agree, Mccain is not much better. I'm sure for the most part it will end up being politics as usual. I think he would like to make changes, but to me the President has become nothing more than a mouthpiece. He will fall in line with the majority. Obama, on the other hand, bothers me because for one, he rose to the top way to quickly. Two, he is not very patriotic and neither is his wife. Three, I think in his pursuit of getting "the people" to cheer him on he is going to do some very stupid things (like sitting down with terrorists. So what, then they can kidnap him and hold him ransom?) Four, there is no way he got to the top that quickly on his own. Therefore, he owes people. It bothers me to think of which ones he owes.
There are others but I'll stop there since a lot of them have already been beaten to death on this board.
To bad we as Americans couldn't all band together and put "one of our own" in there. Write in a middle aged lower-middle class construction worker from Tennessee, or an old cowboy from Texas (not related to Bush of course!) Someone without money, or a background in politics, or a personal agenda. Then we would really see change!
And another thing
What is he going to do about exporting jobs out of our country? Have you checked the job seekers board lately? Over 2000 hits on some of the ads. Read the company board? Seems no one has any work. And McCain promises to be the biggest free trader of all times. Yup, that's very good for the economy.
The thing is....sm
she is trying to show everyone that Obama has terrorist links. Bottom line is no matter what he SAYS he is going to do, if he is a terrorist, you should not believe him. Of course a terrorist would say what you want to hear. Of course they would send someone with the appropriate appearance and eloquence of speech. At this point it does not even matter if McCaine does anything he says at all...because ANYTHING beats having a terrorist as our president.
|
