Right-wing websites are the only sources I'm finding.....

• It's still interesting to see - sm
  • Don't ya love the silence of the Obama lovers? - trying to process being stabbed in the back!!
    • We're just trying to catch our breath after laughing over some of the blind right posts (and W. i - Cyndiee
      • I posted the illegal bailouts and I'm independent - I would rather NOT bail them out! sm
        • Independent? - Tli
      • I'm independent - nm
    • I'm still trying to get that saber out of my back from W........nm - sm
      • well, in that case, you're about to get a double - whammy with Obama.......nm
        • the double whammy just paid 65% of my COBRA.....yee haa! nm - sm
    • Sounds like those crickets you hear...(sm) - Just the big bad
      • You don't know it's not a good idea for BIGGER - government = MORE money from YOU!!!
        • The difference between me and you...(sm) - Just the big bad
          • Not in a position to give more - long-time MT-NY
        • And George supported bigger profits for bigger business and richer people, that was soooo much bette - Cyndiee
      • They obviously are hearing voices..... - sm
      • My God! Where have you been? Are you just dense? - look it up.....not hard to find
        • So enlighten us, I love to learn, the past 8 years were a hard lesson indeed.....nm - Cyndiee
          • No, you really don't want to educate yourself - you are one of those ..........sm
            • And that was a crude, ignorant, presumptuous, pompous remark.....sm - Cyndiee
  • I'll believe it when I see it..............nm - sm
    • you obviously won't......it's already been handed over - liberal dems bragging about it all day!!
    • you'll believe what? the bailout money has already - been given.....275 million
  • 1 MILLION ILLEGALS have mortgages!! - be a good American and pay it for them!!
    • And your source is????? nm - Just the big bad
      • Steven Camarota....director of research for Immigration - Studies in DC.........a 3rd grader could find this
        • Right-wing websites are the only sources I'm finding..... - sm
          • You don't mind paying for an illegal mortgage? - You're too ashamed to answer the question......
            • No more than I mind paying for yours. - -nm
        • They can APPLY ----- - sm
          • They not only can apply, they receive mortgages - you are now paying for......
    • yeah, okay, I'll take your word for it - sm

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

My son-in-law emailed me this, and this is what I sent him in response:

Thanks, Mr. Bush. 

(I can't understand why they must keep lying.)

Lawmakers Cite Weapons Found in Iraq

Thursday, June 22, 2006; A10

Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), chairman of the House intelligence committee, and Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) told reporters yesterday that weapons of mass destruction had in fact been found in Iraq, despite acknowledgments by the White House and the insistence of the intelligence community that no such weapons had been discovered.

We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons, Santorum said.

The lawmakers pointed to an unclassified summary from a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center regarding 500 chemical munitions shells that had been buried near the Iranian border, and then long forgotten, by Iraqi troops during their eight-year war with Iran, which ended in 1988.

The U.S. military announced in 2004 in Iraq that several crates of the old shells had been uncovered and that they contained a blister agent that was no longer active. Neither the military nor the White House nor the CIA considered the shells to be evidence of what was alleged by the Bush administration to be a current Iraqi program to make chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

Last night, intelligence officials reaffirmed that the shells were old and were not the suspected weapons of mass destruction sought in Iraq after the 2003 invasion.

-- Dafna Linzer

I got it from blogsforjohnmccain.com.  Not sure where you get your info.  In fact, I don't even know how I got that story, as I'd never been to this site.  Here's an interesting one, too:  informationvault.com.  The resources are endless.  It amazes me that the so-called news stations are in business with their pathetic, identical news coverage.  Judge for yourself.  They always have exactly the same stuff, and the exact, same attitude.

As for FNC, that's why it constantly leaves all the rest in the dust.  While I like Alan Colmes okay as a lib, his remark about Sarah was what I thought to be out of character for him after watching Hannity & Colmes all these years.  I'll be writing Roger Ailes/FNC to remind them that FNC is way above those tacky networks, and that this won't be tolerated.

Susan Estrich, another FNC lib I like, has gone after the libs for what they've done to Palin.  She's a fair lib.  She's wrong on politics, but behaves with class while debating.

Actually this may be more accurate:

Katrina Victims Welcomed in Massachusetts

Massachusetts to take about 2,500 refugees from hurricane” – The Associated Press

“Massachusetts will take in about 2,500 Hurricane Katrina refugees in coming days, sheltering them on Cape Cod for up to two months and likely resettling some permanently in the Bay State, Gov. Mitt Romney said Sunday.

Romney said federal emergency officials told him Sunday to prepare for the evacuees, who will arrive in two to three days, and will be temporarily housed at Camp Edwards on Otis Air National Guard Base on Cape Cod.

Otis has many amenities to accommodate the large numbers, including beds, a school, medical facilities, a gymnasium and a movie theater, he said.”

/

I'm sorry I go back to this subject and it might have been discussed but can someone tell me the following.  I am really curious because I keep seeing posts with people cutting down others and making fun of them and telling them the sources are not credible, but they will post their own sources.  So...

What makes a credible source?

Why is MSNBC/CNN more credible than Fox News?

Why is Factcheck (supporters of Obama) more credible than an independent fact checking site?

Why is Keith Olberman, Rachel Maddow, and others liberal talk shows more credible than Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or other conservative rado shows? (although I can't stand Rush and that little pipsqueek leprechaun Hannity), just wondering why the liberal radio shows are more credible than the conservative.

Why are independently written articles by people who some of them do not reside in the US but watch the political and economic scene here in the US, not credible (even though they are giving their opinions of what they see happening), but if there is a good article written about the liberal politicians those articles are credible.

Why is World Net Daily not credible but The Progressive and The New Yorker are?

Why are people made fun of and not called credible because they post articles about UFO's, yet our own Astronauts James Lovell, Frank Borman, and Buzz Aldrin actually did see UFOs when they were in space.

Why will people scream and shout and get so totally upset because Bush has not been impeached (which he should be), but when the people who had the authority to impeach him (Pelosi, Reid and others) never pushed for impeachment the same people screaming for impeachment keep silent.

Okay, my post originally started out to be about why some articles/sources are credible while others are not, but I am curious about the last paragraph and would like to hear people's viewpoints on all the issues.

So, just curious about this. 

I'm sorry I go back to this subject and it might have been discussed but can someone tell me the following.  I am really curious because I keep seeing posts with people cutting down others and making fun of them and telling them the sources are not credible, but they will post their own sources.  So...

What makes a credible source?

Why is MSNBC/CNN more credible than Fox News?

Why is Factcheck (supporters of Obama) more credible than an independent fact checking site?

Why is Keith Olberman, Rachel Maddow, and others liberal talk shows more credible than Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or other conservative rado shows? (although I can't stand Rush and that little pipsqueek leprechaun Hannity), just wondering why the liberal radio shows are more credible than the conservative.

Why are independently written articles by people who some of them do not reside in the US but watch the political and economic scene here in the US, not credible (even though they are giving their opinions of what they see happening), but if there is a good article written about the liberal politicians those articles are credible.

Why is World Net Daily not credible but The Progressive and The New Yorker are?

Why are people made fun of and not called credible because they post articles about UFO's, yet our own Astronauts James Lovell, Frank Borman, and Buzz Aldrin actually did see UFOs when they were in space.

Why will people scream and shout and get so totally upset because Bush has not been impeached (which he should be), but when the people who had the authority to impeach him (Pelosi, Reid and others) never pushed for impeachment the same people screaming for impeachment keep silent.

Okay, my post originally started out to be about why some articles/sources are credible while others are not, but I am curious about the last paragraph and would like to hear people's viewpoints on all the issues.

So, just curious about this. 

I believe we would be better off in the long run not to let government tinker around in our free market system.  Now that they have a foothold, we will never get them out.  They will infest everything from here on out.  I apologize in advance for being so windy with this post, but this is something I feel strongly about. 

I read a LOT of books and a lot of internet material.  I stay away from the mainstream media because it is so biased and trivial that I become annoyed and scream at the TV. Once in a while I’m exposed to it accidentally and this only confirms my opinion.

I can’t link you to the source of my New Deal information.  My most recent reading on this topic is:  New Deal or Raw Deal?  By Burton  Folsom.  You’ll have to hit the library.  And reading this is truly ‘déjà view all over again.’ 

All of the programs that FDR tried willy-nilly over his 12 years (3 terms)  had noble stated purposes, and very bad unintended consequences.  You cannot adjust a single item in our social and monetary system without it causing a cascade of effects.  (And by the way, FDR was the only president to serve three terms, at the end of which is own party introduced a bill to limit presidential terms to two!) 

In the earlier post I mentioned the NRA (National Recovery Act) which set wages and prices in an attempt to ‘put more money in the pocket of the working man.’  There were higher minimum wages legally mandated for workers in various industries and higher prices set for goods to support those higher wages.  The result was that smaller family-owned businesses which had competed on a local level with larger companies through lower prices could no longer do this.  Their workers were willing to stay at lower wages to remain in their small towns with these small companies, but that became illegal – treasonous, even.  Raising wages and prices made it impossible for the smaller companies to compete against national companies with their purchasing power and distribution systems. Defying the mandates sent men to jail.  Businesses closed.  Workers were put out of work, and had to move to large cities for jobs, or go on government relief. Wham!  A generation of nomads and dependents. 

To benefit female workers in Washington, DC, a minimum monthly salary was legislated, but it applied only to women.  The result of this was that women lost their jobs to men who were willing to work for the lower wage.  It was now illegal to pay these women their former lower salaries.  Women were put out of work, another unintended consequence.

Tariffs on imports resulted in a drop in our export business.  Then we had too much farm product being grown, not enough being sold, and prices dropping like a stone. 

The AAA (Agricultural Adjustment Act) was designed to support crop prices and curb overproduction.  Since we had begun taxing imports, fewer countries were buying our exports, so our farm products were rotting in the silos.  The government had to destroy tons of it.  So farm subsidies were instituted:  If a farmer had 1000 acres, he might be offered money to take 10% of that out of production.  The choice of which part of his land to designate as out of production was up to him.  Most farms have wooded areas or poorly drained areas, etc.  So the farmer would choose his poorest acreage - that had never grown a crop. Then he would take the subsidy money and buy fertilizer or use it to irrigate other poorly producing acreage.  He would then start producing the crops that the government was guaranteeing good prices for (corn, wheat, cotton) and stop producing his other crops.  Suddenly, production of corn, cotton and wheat went up, not down.  And now we actually had to import some of the products which our farmers were no longer growing.  The consequences were the exact opposite of the intent.    

I won’t repeat all the information about the income tax.  Let me just say that it is happening all over again, only FDR’s top rate was 79%, and the Obama administration wants 90% of the AGI bonuses, a cap on executive salaries.  What’s next?

Excise taxes:  Lets tax alcohol more, or  tobacco, widgets, or electricity and gasoline to make everyone be “greener.”  Taxing us for actual miles driven in our cars, what a great idea!  It will be feasible as soon as everyone has a GPS tracker.  I’ve heard ideas floating around about taxing internet usage, if they can figure a way to measure it

The WPA (Works Progress Administration) was another way to funnel money to supporters of the administration.  If you could bring in the votes, you got to administer WPA funds in proportion to your usefulness.  And in turn you could dole out  jobs to those who were useful to you.  This is in large part how FDR managed to get himself elected to three terms despite an unemployment rate around 20%.  He controlled  the money and the jobs.  He had the ability to squeeze money out of any segment of society he chose.  What terrible  power to put in the wrong hands.  Hiring and firing of WPA workers were cyclical, adding workers in the months before an election, dumping them shortly after, year after year, and it seems nobody caught on.  They just agreed to vote whichever way would guarantee them a little work.  And those who could not get work had to turn to the government for relief. 

The ERA (Emergency Relief Act) supported by the new higher taxes had the unintended consequence of  choking off the charitable contributions which had always gone to help the poor.  A business owner being taxed at 79% is not feeling very charitable.  So the government got to take this over, and become everyone’s benefactor. And these funds were given to governors to administer.  Naturally, those states with the right sort of governor and constituency got the lion’s share of ‘relief.’  Both the WPA and the ERA were political patronage systems pure and simple.

And let’s not forget the voter fraud in FDR’s elections.  Precincts recorded as 100% for FDR, when republicans in the precinct swore they had voted against him.  Precincts recording more votes than registered voters living there.  Seems they had an Acorn equivalent even then. 

Someone on this board asked what possible purpose this administration could have for bringing down the wealthy.  The answers should be obvious.  Power.  Envy.  Covetousness.  Revenge.  And that favorite word of the new administration:  Greed.  Got news, though, if you try to take away from me something I have worked for and earned, you are the greedy one, not I.

To some, life is a zero-sum game.  The amount of ‘stuff’ available to them is directly reduced by the amount I have. Therefore, I must give them half to level the playing field; maybe a little more than half to make up for the sins of my father and grandfather.  It’s like a pie with only so many slices, and they deserve exactly what I have; it’s only fair.  But life in America has never been that way.  For centuries people have arrived here with nothing but the clothes on their back, taken a menial job, struggled, scrimped, persevered, and ended up owning the company.  Others, who were born and raised here, feel they just can’t catch a break and wait passively for somebody else to give them the advantages they feel others have deprived them of. 

So when I see this administration starting to take over businesses,  cap salaries,  tax ‘excess’ profits, legislate personal behavior, and all of the other intrusions that are yet to be disclosed, I am severely creeped out.  The un-level playing field is exactly what caused the striving and competition and sparked all the energy and invention this country is known for.  Smooth the playing field, give everybody a trophy, and a B on their report card, and I’m not sure what we end up with, but it sure as hades (oh, for the love of pete, the language police won't let me use the other H word)  won’t be America. 

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.  Ben Franklin

But you would have to read something other than far-right-wing propaganda, which you probably don't.  Try getting a more global perspective and you will be less naive and less gullible. Unfortunately, if you had a more non-partisan world view you would also probably stop attributing all the problems of the world to the leftists.  And then who would you have left to insult?

Part of the fault lies with lack of follow-through in Afghanistan but the major problem lies with Pakistan which has been the major breeding ground of the Taliban and terrorists for years.  The U.S. pretty did a cut-and-run in tracking down bin Laden. 

What is the answer to all this?  I don't know.  However, I do know that Pakistan's support of terrorism and the Taliban has been in place for a long, long time and is not the result of the Iraq peace movement in the United States, despite what your extremely partisan sources may insist. 

fact checking, research.....get the idea yet?  Again, rumors started by a person who won't even identify themself is not fact the last time I checked.

Oh, and by the way, why is it okay for this person to stay anonymous and not okay for the source of the infamous tape you like to talk about so much?

you want to believe -- Wall Street Journal versus "websites".  As the McC campaign stated ' this election will not be based on facts.  They are going personality whole-hog.  OMG.  I just offended someone somewhere.