Please explain to me how my legitimate questions
Posted By: have been hateful....sm on 2008-10-28
In Reply to: I stated in my post that I had - Chele
I am simply trying to get somebody to help me make some sense out of Reagan's statement and what the devil it has to do with anything under heaven.
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
Or not smart enough to have a legitimate
xx
Okay, that argument aside, here's a legitimate
What will be your thoughts, and more importantly - your ACTIONS - if the candidate of your choice doesn't win?
Where do you go from there?
Do you have a plan as to what you will do, or not do, or change, or flee, if your candidates lose the election?
I do think the other question was legitimate (sm)
but requires some thought before answering. I think I would like him to be more centrist because that is where I tend to fall in my own beliefs. However, the "what things would you lose" part of the question requires more thought and if I am going to answer, I want to answer honestly. Where you get your "verbal assasination" bull from is beyond me.
That is just it. If Obama IS legitimate, he should just
nm
Or how many 100s legitimate sources you
Didn't check hundreds, but did check conservative figures on this before posting in an effort to be fair.
Still looking for legitimate source on the OP claim.
No comment on the inconsistency between NM, Saks and the hypocritical Joe the Plumber message?
If we don't have a legitimate president, you can kiss
nm
Sorry I meant I was listening to all the legitimate stations
You know the ones who are not heavily worshiping Obama, but actually its not just TV. Reading website after website after website and keep seeing Palin as winner.
Get off the war issue - Obama plans to keep the war going too. Haven't you listened to what he's been saying? Guess the Obama worship takes up so much time that people don't listen to his plans.
I love how you cry racist when you have no legitimate point.
So 'Caribou Barbie' is fine.
And 'Obamajad' is bad.
Or do you enjoy looking like a big wind-sucking hypocrite?
Now go back to your pen with the rest of the clueless sheep, "Oh-baaaaaaaaaa-ma."
Then explain his church and minister. Explain that to me. nm
x
More questions...
When and where did Democrat deny in the past being African-American? I don't recall seeing a post to that effect and can't even imagine the reasons or circumstances under which such a post would even be posted. If you want to be believed, produce the post. Otherwise, it's just another necon lie, designed to take the focus off the real problem, which is a racist who apparently is proud to be such a deplorable human being.
More importantly, why are you so aggressive in your defense of such a deplorable human being when your own president has condemned what he said? Sounds like you and Bennett were cut from the same cloth, which frankly isn't surprising.
Better be careful, though. The next inconvenient group of people he might be interested in exterminating could be poor, uneducated, clueless, hateful, bigoted, ignorant white neocons.
Questions....! And more
Yep, cover their ears and yell la la la the whole way, that's the MO of the staunch repubs. What I really want to know is, what all exactly of this Bush admin are they so proud of?? What exactly have they accomplished, or even planned, that would actually succeed?? Health care? Social Security? Prescription program? Job security? Immigration? Judges and other appointees? Mishandling and misbehaviors? The environment? A straight answer for continually dumping billions overseas? But I've noticed any kind of even polite queries on that board get blasted off as usual, like a year and 2 years ago when I frequented these discussions. No direct answer whatsoever, just some name calling of us, the dumb ones. Hmmmm. Like I always say, if you're not outraged, you're not thinking....
Few questions.
I'm curious about a few things.
What do you personally do to help in your community?
What do faith do you have?
Do you have a mortage and what is the status? Been able to make payments on time, behind, lost your home?
Do you have health insurance? If not, why?
Do you have young children?
Were you for the bailout?
Do you have money invested in stocks? Have you/are you going to cash it in?
Think we should bring our troops back?
Now, who do you think you will vote for?
That's what I got, 66.67%, or 22 out of 33 questions right, I think it said...sm
I had a brain freeze on several of them, where several answers seemed right on each one....
Answers to your questions.
Why would I not want you to post here anymore?
I'm happy now and was happy prior to this also. Why do you ask?
Those may be good questions.
But I probably won't take the time to research them. Politics and corruption seem to go hand in hand. Democrat or Republican.
Joe McCarthy actually started out as a Democrat.
Oh, I should mention that very big business and corruption also seem to go hand in hand -- often -- not always.
Let me answer your questions:
I'm going to repost your post and answer the questions in context:
I happen to agree with you, but does this also mean:
That all liberals aren't as bad as they are routinely portrayed on the conservative board? I'm sure there are some liberals that aren't as jaded as you and some others here. They routinely show up here only to be labeled a conservative when they don't go to the extremes that you do.
That all Muslims aren't death-seeking people? Maybe there are Muslims that are not death seeking. Where are they? Point them out to me? Why are they allowing their faith to over-run by extremists? Many of us keep waiting for the good Muslims to stand up against the radical Islamofascists, but they are strangely silent which leads me to believe that they are either scared of the extremists or they stand behind what the extremists are doing. I mean, there are a lot of people on many different forums and appearing on television to relay the fact that the *Jesus Camp* is an extreme fringe of Christianity and not true Christianity, but there is not a vocal majority coming out within the Muslim community to say the extremists are not representative of mainstream Islam.
That extremist fringes in any group are bad? I think I made that clear in my first post.
Muslims are routinely portrayed on this board and by the media and by Bush as lumped together in one violent clump. This is unfair, untrue and does nothing to promote peace and understanding.
Again, I don't see how it's unfair or untrue based on the evidence all around us, because the Muslim community is doing nothing to try and counter that they are anything but a religion of war (Jihad). They do not want peace. They do not want understanding They want annihilation of anyone who does not convert. If you can prove to me that the Muslim MAJORITY is peaceful then I will listen, but all the evidence I have studied up to and including some of the Koran proves otherwise.
All religions need to be respected and tolerated in America. Isn't that what America is supposed to stand for? Well sure...that is if the religion is not dead set on destroying America. America is to protect America and the Judeo-Christian beliefs it was founded upon. We tolerate any peaceful religion who wants to tolerate us in return, but if your sole purpose is to destroy America, well, common sense tells you that America has to defend herself and other weaker countries that are susceptable to bullying from the warmongering religion.
A couple of questions...
what proof do you have that the war has anything at all to do with oil...and what do you mean...you "bought" your patriotism? "Served it?" Curious as to what that means. And ya know...I have been kinda tired for YEARS as the terrorists picked off our people by the hundreds until they hit the big one on 9-11 and took out 3000 at one time. Just wondering if you think that was worth fighting over. Just wondering. If not...what? When they kill 8,000? 10,000? How many will it take? Just wondering. How much innocent blood will have to be spilled here to get you as angry at the terrorists as you are at conservatives? Just wondering.....
Few questions......don't sweat...
Who wants to abolish the Federal Reserve?
Who wants smaller government? No more taxes? No government interference in our lives?
Who is for abolishing the IRS?
Who believes that government should only be in place to run our military for OUR safety?
Who wants government out of our public schools?
Character questions
We all know that we can go back and forth on which candidate is the best for our country. We also know that when running for president candidates can promise a lot. Since it is not possible to know how each candidate's economic, tax or any other policy will turn out until they are actually in office, I will be basing my vote on how they feel about moral issues, i.e. marriage, abortion, etc. Each candidate has a platform/an agenda they will be pushing once elected. Their platform can be seen on the internet by googling 2008 Democratic Party Platform or 2008 Republican Party Platform. There is some very interesting stuff in there. Check it out.
Why are they the wrong questions?
Why has he never answered the questions truthfully?
He has answered the questions
by what authority do you determine he has not answered the questions truthfully?
So I'm bringing my questions right along behind you.
Never said you were lying. Simply asked for what you have provided and I was able to finally find on my own. So here is the post you would like to leave buried below while you celebrate your victory. Still need these answers.
So, it seems that McCain also has a refundable tax credit in his plan too...larger, in fact than Obama's. $2500 for individuals and $5000 for couples for health insurance. This begs my original question, which yet have to answer.
Whe Obama adjusts taxs rates within our historical progressive tax structure, it's socialism. When anybody else does it, it's not. So, I am wondering...if Obama has a smaller refundable tax credit in his plan than McCain, why is it welfare under Obama and not under McCain?
I agree with you, Lu! So many questions about O.
nm
Here's 3 links. Any questions?
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/EnvironmentFactSheet.pdf
Page 4 of this document. Includes a video.
http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/2007/10/08/full-text-barack-obama-speech-real-leadership-for-a-clean-energy-future/
http://www.jacksonholestartrib.com/articles/2008/03/08/news/casper/doc47d2397a06235615103300.txt
This leads me to other questions.
Think epidemics and isolating towns and/or cities with military.
this is exactly why I asked the questions I did -
everybody else either has to make it on their own or fail - they obviously have been ripping the American public off for years - a quality product could have been made for a lot less money. Why should we have to bail them out now? The problem is they don't want to lose those big bonuses and big paychecks and actually have to get a job like the rest of us do!
No one seriously questions that the attack on
Actually, I'm embarassed that our notion of "torture" is so wimpy. "You can put a caterpillar in his cell, but you must inform him that it is not a stinging caterpillar". PUHLEEZE.
What is pathetic is you liberals calling any of this torture - which you are doing purely to make political points, pure and simple. How people like Jews who survived the Holocaust and who have really been tortured must laugh at your quaint ideas!
"Oooh - they gave a prisoner a nasty look! Oooh - they spoke loudly to a prisoner! Oooh - they piped bad music into their cells! Oooh - they burned the prisoner's toast! Oooh - they didn't fluff the prisoner's pillows! Oooh - they opened the prisoner's mail! Oooh - they didn't give the prisoner a second helping of Beef Wellington!"
You people make me sick, and it makes me sick to think that, thanks to Obama, what AL Qaida actually knows is that our notion of torture amounts to nothing more painful than making them watch old episodes of "I Love Lucy" (with a doctor in attendance, of course, in case the prisoner faints from boredom).
Hey, Bush..soldier wants to ask you a few questions
Hey Bush: Specialist Young Would Also Like to Speak With You...
U.S. Army Specialist Tomas Young has some questions for George W. Bush. He's never met with the Commander-in-Chief who sent him into Sadr City, Iraq in a canvass covered truck during a massive uprising in that city on April 4, 2004. The same city on the same day that Cindy Sheehan's son Casey was killed.
Tomas was lucky. He was only paralyzed from the chest down. Amongst other things he'd like to ask of Bush, is why he won't allow funding for stem cell research which might eventually restore the spine that he lost in Bush's War. A spine which apparently Bush has never had.
Tomas and his new wife Bree (also pictured), came to Crawford from Kansas City on their honeymoon to stand in support of Cindy Sheehan.
You have failed to answer any questions
You have been asked several times by different posters what you would propose to do to keep America safe. You avoid that question. All you seem to be able to do is criticize and insult others and essentially run people off this board who deviate from your extreme views. Sorry I invaded your hatefest.
I can square it because they are questions not statements.
Biblically, only those who accept Jesus as their savior will go to heaven. That is a CHRISTIAN view. Jews have their own Messiah and their own belief as to heaven. As for me, I would gladly welcome all to heaven. But I am not God.
He looks a few questions away from losing control...nm
Answers to rhetorical questions...
You keep saying you guys... again lumping a group of people together which you keep telling ME not to do...
My comment about Lurker was made because you invoke her to beat me over the head with. I did not say you were or were not her *equal.* I did not use that word. I said you were not in her league. What I meant by that is that Lurker, even when angry, makes a clear and concise post, devoid of things like you are delusional, you make me feel defecated upon, to name a few. She makes her point and moves on. She does not engage in derogatory diatribes and post things like they are disturbing in their being out of touch with reality and accusations and they waste my time. In other words, she is not hateful. In other words, you are not in her league, as I stated. Merely an OBSERVATION.
HA HA.. Obama needs to answer MANY questions
nm
He already has answered tough questions and without a
teleprompter. Now it is about time they let Palin answer a few.
Right, Indy! Anyone who questions O is termed a
nm
Questions regarding mail in ballots
Here in OR we mail in our ballots. I filled mine out and signed the back of the envelope as it says its not valid unless signed. However, I signed my husbands envelope by mistake (din't realize they had our printed names off to the side). Do you think it will make any difference if I cross out my name and he signs or do you think the state would have a problem with this and just throw it out?
Just wondering.
My questions are not meant to attack.
So, what freedoms (aside from the ones we have already sacrificed on the altar of the Patriot Act) do you think you will lose? Your right to bear arms is protected by the constitution. Do you have any idea how hard it is to pass a constitutional amendment? Stricter gun control of assault weapons and enforcement of existing point-of-sale checks are hardly going to put a dent in that.
Government already has power over your money...or hadn't you noticed that...especially lately. Revising tax rates, giving tax cut and tax credits is the prerogative of any president. What was it that Bush did that wasn't about controlling your money, by taking it out of your hands and moving it on up the ladder so you could wait for it to trickle down again?
Making health care more affordable and accessible, providing better coverage and giving people a CHOICE to keep their existing policies or enroll in a really good national plan is hardly taking control. The national plan will not be CONTROLLED by the government....it will be offered by them. Otherwise, it works like the existing policy that currently covers Congress, the Senate and federal employees. And by the way, it is a GREAT plan...a whole lot better than anything you will find offered by the MTSOs.
I'm curious. How can we get any more vulnerable than we already are? Got a 401K? Did yours lose 40% in the last 2 months?
MSNBC will be the only station they will allow to ask questions...
they must be talking to Hugo Chavez about how to handle the press.
Wrong questions. Right candidate.
Get over it already.
He was answering the questions posed to him - nm
x
Reporters are supposed to ask those questions....
OUR government is supposed to be transparent....the citizens are supposed to run the government, not the other way around....but our society has gotten so far away from knowing what freedom actually feels like and GOd knows they aren't taught true patriotism through history in school, so most citizens don't realze they have every say in what their government does and says, and the reports have every right to ask those questions. If Obama thinks they are irritating, then he is in the wrong position to begin with; answering those questions is his job. He is supposed to be working for us, as so many have forgotten. Of course, Obama is a dictator and has already shown he doesn't want the press around, unless he hand picks them, he doesn't want talk radio around, unless they are Obama lovers, etc.
What is worse, anyone who questions Obama's
nm
It would have been nice if they would have let him answer their questions
I have never seen the group on The View come down so hard on anybody like they did Glen. All because of a stupid comment he made in his radio program? Wait a minute.....he DID NOT say what they said he said. I listened to the tape and he did not do what they said.
I'm not a real big Glen Beck fan, I like him somewhat, but he does speak about things that concern us...like ACORN and the government. Did you know they have been investigating ACORN for the past week and finding out all sorts of problems with this group from the "horse's mouth" not from his mouth. Probably not because you don't believe ACORN wears a halo.
JMHO
Bush wants to nuke the planet first, ask questions later.
I hope the Congress isn't stupid enough to go along with this idiotic plan and once again trust Bush's lying claims about who has WMD and who doesn't. Bush isn't going to be happy until he blows up the entire planet. It's becoming clearer every day that he meant what he said when asked about his legacy, he responded with, Who cares? We'll all be dead. 
Pentagon Revises Nuclear Strike Plan
Strategy Includes Preemptive Use Against Banned Weapons
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, September 11, 2005; A01
The Pentagon has drafted a revised doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons that envisions commanders requesting presidential approval to use them to preempt an attack by a nation or a terrorist group using weapons of mass destruction. The draft also includes the option of using nuclear arms to destroy known enemy stockpiles of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.
The document, written by the Pentagon's Joint Chiefs staff but not yet finally approved by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, would update rules and procedures governing use of nuclear weapons to reflect a preemption strategy first announced by the Bush White House in December 2002. The strategy was outlined in more detail at the time in classified national security directives.
At a White House briefing that year, a spokesman said the United States would respond with overwhelming force to the use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States, its forces or allies, and said all options would be available to the president.
The draft, dated March 15, would provide authoritative guidance for commanders to request presidential approval for using nuclear weapons, and represents the Pentagon's first attempt to revise procedures to reflect the Bush preemption doctrine. A previous version, completed in 1995 during the Clinton administration, contains no mention of using nuclear weapons preemptively or specifically against threats from weapons of mass destruction.
Titled Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations and written under the direction of Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the draft document is unclassified and available on a Pentagon Web site. It is expected to be signed within a few weeks by Air Force Lt. Gen. Norton A. Schwartz, director of the Joint Staff, according to Navy Cmdr. Dawn Cutler, a public affairs officer in Myers's office. Meanwhile, the draft is going through final coordination with the military services, the combatant commanders, Pentagon legal authorities and Rumsfeld's office, Cutler said in a written statement.
A summary of changes included in the draft identifies differences from the 1995 doctrine, and says the new document revises the discussion of nuclear weapons use across the range of military operations.
The first example for potential nuclear weapon use listed in the draft is against an enemy that is using or intending to use WMD against U.S. or allied, multinational military forces or civilian populations.
Another scenario for a possible nuclear preemptive strike is in case of an imminent attack from adversary biological weapons that only effects from nuclear weapons can safely destroy.
That and other provisions in the document appear to refer to nuclear initiatives proposed by the administration that Congress has thus far declined to fully support.
Last year, for example, Congress refused to fund research toward development of nuclear weapons that could destroy biological or chemical weapons materials without dispersing them into the atmosphere.
The draft document also envisions the use of atomic weapons for attacks on adversary installations including WMD, deep, hardened bunkers containing chemical or biological weapons.
But Congress last year halted funding of a study to determine the viability of the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator warhead (RNEP) -- commonly called the bunker buster -- that the Pentagon has said is needed to attack hardened, deeply buried weapons sites.
The Joint Staff draft doctrine explains that despite the end of the Cold War, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction raises the danger of nuclear weapons use. It says that there are about thirty nations with WMD programs along with nonstate actors [terrorists] either independently or as sponsored by an adversarial state.
To meet that situation, the document says that responsible security planning requires preparation for threats that are possible, though perhaps unlikely today.
To deter the use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States, the Pentagon paper says preparations must be made to use nuclear weapons and show determination to use them if necessary to prevent or retaliate against WMD use.
The draft says that to deter a potential adversary from using such weapons, that adversary's leadership must believe the United States has both the ability and will to pre-empt or retaliate promptly with responses that are credible and effective. The draft also notes that U.S. policy in the past has repeatedly rejected calls for adoption of 'no first use' policy of nuclear weapons since this policy could undermine deterrence.
Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.), a member of the House Armed Services Committee who has been a leading opponent of the bunker-buster program, said yesterday the draft was apparently a follow-through on their nuclear posture review and they seem to bypass the idea that Congress had doubts about the program. She added that members certainly don't want the administration to move forward with a [nuclear] preemption policy without hearings, closed door if necessary.
A spokesman for Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said yesterday the panel has not yet received a copy of the draft.
Hans M. Kristensen, a consultant to the Natural Resources Defense Council, who discovered the document on the Pentagon Web site, said yesterday that it emphasizes the need for a robust nuclear arsenal ready to strike on short notice including new missions.
Kristensen, who has specialized for more than a decade in nuclear weapons research, said a final version of the doctrine was due in August but has not yet appeared.
This doctrine does not deliver on the Bush administration pledge of a reduced role for nuclear weapons, Kristensen said. It provides justification for contentious concepts not proven and implies the need for RNEP.
One reason for the delay may be concern about raising publicly the possibility of preemptive use of nuclear weapons, or concern that it might interfere with attempts to persuade Congress to finance the bunker buster and other specialized nuclear weapons.
In April, Rumsfeld appeared before the Senate Armed Services panel and asked for the bunker buster study to be funded. He said the money was for research and not to begin production on any particular warhead. The only thing we have is very large, very dirty, big nuclear weapons, Rumsfeld said. It seems to me studying it [the RNEP] makes all the sense in the world.
Cheney Fields Tough Questions
I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency. --Vice President Dick Cheney, on the Iraq insurgency, June 20, 2005
Hmmm, so I guess now we've progressed to the *FINAL* last throes ???
Associated Press
Update 1: Cheney Fields Tough Questions From Troops
12.18.2005, 03:18 PM
Facing tough questions from battle-weary troops, Vice President Dick Cheney on Sunday cited signs of progress in Iraq and signaled that force changes could come in 2006.
Cheney rode the wave of last week's parliamentary elections during a 10-hour surprise visit to Iraq that aimed to highlight progress at a time when Americans question the mission. Military commanders and top government officials offered glowing reports, but the rank-and-file troops Cheney met did not seem to share their enthusiasm.
From our perspective, we don't see much as far as gains, said Marine Cpl. Bradley Warren, the first to question Cheney in a round-table discussion with about 30 military members. We're looking at small-picture stuff, not many gains. I was wondering what it looks like from the big side of the mountain - how Iraq's looking.
Cheney replied that remarkable progress has been made in the last year and a half.
I think when we look back from 10 years hence, we'll see that the year '05 was in fact a watershed year here in Iraq, the vice president said. We're getting the job done. It's hard to tell that from watching the news. But I guess we don't pay that much attention to the news.
Another Marine, Cpl. R.P. Zapella, asked, Sir, what are the benefits of doing all this work to get Iraq on its feet?
Cheney said the result could be a democratically elected Iraq that is unified, capable of defending itself and no longer a base for terrorists or a threat to its neighbors. We believe all that's possible, he said.
Although he said that any decision about troop levels will be made by military commanders, Cheney told the troops, I think you will see changes in our deployment patterns probably within this next year.
About 160,000 troops are in Iraq. The administration has said that troop levels are expected to return to a baseline of 138,000 after the elections, but critics of the war have called for a significant drawdown.
More than 2,100 troops have died in Iraq since the U.S. invaded in March 2003.
The round-table with the vice president came after hundreds of troops had gathered in an aircraft hangar to hear from a mystery guest. When Cheney emerged at the podium, he drew laughs when he deadpanned, I'm not Jessica Simpson.
Shouts of hooah! from the audience interrupted Cheney a few times, but mostly the service members listened intently. When he delivered the applause line, We're in this fight to win. These colors don't run, the only sound was a lone whistle.
The skepticism that Cheney faced reflects opinions back home, where most Americans say they do not approve of President Bush's handling of the war. It was unique coming from a military audience, which typically receives administration officials more enthusiastically.
Cheney became the highest-ranking administration official to visit the country since Bush's trip on Thanksgiving Day 2003. It was his first visit to Iraq since March 1991, when he was defense secretary for President George H.W. Bush.
The tour came on the same day that President Bush was giving a prime-time Oval Office address on Iraq. Cheney's aides said the timing was a coincidence, yet the two events combined in a public-relations blitz aimed at capitalizing on the elections to rebuild support for the unpopular war.
The daylong tour of Iraq was so shrouded in secrecy that even Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari and President Jalal Talabani were kept in the dark. The prime minister said he was surprised when he showed up for what he thought was a meeting with the U.S. ambassador and saw Cheney.
Talabani, his finger still stained purple as proof that he had voted three days earlier, was clearly delighted. He thanked Cheney profusely for coming and called him one of the heroes of liberating Iraq.
Cheney had an hourlong briefing on the election from Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, top U.S. commander Gen. George Casey and Gen. John Abizaid, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq. He emerged saying he was encouraged by preliminary results showing high turnout about Sunni Muslims, who make up the backbone of the insurgency.
His next visit was to Taji Air Base, where he saw tanks that Iraqis had rebuilt and watched while they practiced a vehicle sweep at a security checkpoint.
U.S. forces guarded Cheney with weapons at the ready while Iraqi soldiers, who had no weapons, held their arms out as if they were carrying imaginary guns.
The Syrian border is back under Iraq control now, U.S. Lt. Gen. Marty Dempsey told the vice president, pointing to a map of Iraqi troop locations. When people say, 'When will Iraq take control of its own security?' the answer truly is it already has.
Cheney lunched on lamb kebobs, hummus and rice with raisins along with U.S. and Iraqi soldiers who helped secure polling sites. Then he headed to his third and final stop in Iraq at al-Asad.
Cheney flew over Baghdad in a pack of eight fast-moving Blackhawk helicopters, following the airport road that has been the site of so many insurgent attacks and passing the courthouse where Saddam Hussein is being tried.
The unannounced stops in Iraq came at the beginning of a five-day tour aimed at strengthening support for the war on terror. Stops include Oman, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
Cheney's staff kept the Iraq portion secret from reporters, waiting to reveal the plans when Air Force Two was preparing to refuel in the United Kingdom. Once on the ground, the entourage transferred from his conspicuous white and blue 757 to an unmarked C-17 cargo plane that would fly overnight to Baghdad International Airport.
I feel these questions could have been best answered by Kfir. sm
Frankly, I am not sure how much more evidence you need after the article I posted on the Conservative board regarding Mike Wallace's interview with Iran's president. You made allegations that Christians are only now interested in Israel because we see *the end* coming. That just isn't so. But you state it as fact, not as a personal opinion. Maybe that is where the disconnect lies, that what you perceive has become fact to you. As far as personal attacks, I haven't attacked you. You have to admit, though, that your question to Kfir about why the Israeli army did not fight in Iraq was kind of startling in light of what happened in the Gulf war and in light of the hatred between Israeli and Arab. I would love to debate you, but I don't think we would be debating so much as defending our own belief system. Again, I say this respectfully and this is based on reading your posts here. Your aggression towards Kfir and his defense of his country is puzzling to me. Yet you felt the one attacked. There is just too much emotion here. This milieu is just not conducive to logical debate. People say things they would not ordinarily say in person. I thought the remark you make to Kfir about him not being representative of most Israeli was offensive. I do, believe this conversation has become way too personal, on all levels.
Questions censored on transition site...
For full story: http://www.politico.com/blogs/.....ml?showall
Quote: |
President-elect Barack Obama's Transition today launched "Open for Questions," a Digg-style feature allowing citizens to submit questions, and to vote on one another's questions, bringing favored inquiries to the top of the list.
It was suggested when it launched that the tool would bring uncomfortable questions to the fore, but the results so far are the opposite: Obama's supporters appear to be using -- and abusing -- a tool allowing them to "flag" questions as "inappropriate" to remove all questions mentioning Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich from the main pages of Obama's website. |
She refused to answer the moderator's questions!
Sarah Palin had certain talking points that had been drilled into her, and she was going to get them out tonight by hook or by crook. She decided not to pay attention to the moderator's questions and just respond at whim with the canned talking points word for word. Although, she didn't officially crash and burn, she definitively did not show one ounce of intelligence. She was more like a Chatty Cathy Doll. Pull her string and she will give you a canned talking point. Pull it again...you get another canned talking point! Heaven help the entire earth if this wacko is elected to office!
Racial hatred. Yeah, like anyone who questions O
nm
Lots of questions remain about Obama.
nm
|
