Same thing happenignat Obama's rallies.
Posted By: problem is..........sm on 2008-10-10
In Reply to: McCain supporters shouting "Kill him" at his - not ignoring facts, cannot change peoples minds
why isn't our biased media showing it? There were independents there with records standing next to some that were spewing vulgar/hate language and they said Obama could easily hear them, but he never said a word. A news mic was even close by but he said they shut it off when all the nasty threats started and asked another to turn their mic on, whereever they were. So, hmmmm, sounds funny to me.
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
Hufn and pufn post...Same thing at O rallies...
/
How about the hate spewed at Obama's rallies?
xx
A lot of the hysterical people at McCain rallies these days are Obama plants....
b
No, not O rallies. McC/Palin rallies only.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jkwn9iRCwdE76BB6ClH6Qmw8NcFQD938KQSO0
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hQdKB_yggRkzx5eyQlueyGvsmt7g
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24476314-5013948,00.html
It's got the World's attention. Aren't you proud of you party? don't forget to give us your source on your bogus claim.
rallies
You guys need to come on down to our rallies! It is so good to be among friends!
If you had watched his rallies on a
NEUTRAL TV station, you would have been informed. I knew what McC wanted, I saw O's rallies, and that's why I didn't vote for him.
That's part of the problem. Too much one-sided media for the O, none for McC. Sickening.
This stuff has happened at both rallies, just not
xx
McCain and Palin take buses to many of their rallies....
Obama flies. So much for energy savings. I think flying everywhere takes more resources than a tanning bed. Good grief. LOL.
I guess the throngs that changed his name at rallies...
or at least SOME of them have become a little disenchanted. Good for them. Can we recall a President? lol.
The only thing Obama did was
give an order. I commend him for letting the Navy Seals do what they did but the true heroes are the Navy Seals.
The only thing I see out of Obama
is nothing but lie after lie. I've listed on this forum many times the lies that Obama has told. He also just told another recently with these investigations into harsh interrogations. He said he wouldn't go after people and now he has totally flip flopped on the subject which I think is sad. He says he wants to move forward but you can't move forward by constantly dragging up the past. I'm very saddened that our current administration is going to go after people who kept us safe and also prevented a follow-up attack. How many people in LA would have been killed if they had not done this? They kept us safe and now we are attacking them.....that's nice.
Only God truly knows Obama's heart and what he stands for but I cannot handle the blatant lies coming out of that man's mouth. I know politicians lie to get elected and all that jazz but he has just lied about so much and yet the biased news media and his kool-aid drinking followers look right past it and refuse to see what is right in front of them.
McCain has been saying the same thing Obama has been saying...
politics as usual in Washington needs to stop...Obama chose a 30-year plus washington insider and McCain could not havechosen someone much further from washington politics. He has bucked his party when he felt they were not representing their members as they should and so has she. She cleaned up a good ol'boy nest of corruption in Alaska, where, I might add, she enjoys an 80% favorability rating, and that is unheard of. I don't think 80% of Alaskans are Republican. That means to me she is a great governor and certainly knows what she is doing.
She is young..like Obama. She represents change from Washington poltiics...like Obama. She comes from meager beginnings...like Obama. She served in City council (Obama served as community organizer). She served as mayor. She has served as governor. She has a beautiful family. So does OBama.
What means the most to me is one part of her speech no one really made a big deal about, but it spoke volumes to me. She said you should serve with a servant's heart. She has demonstrated she will buck her party to clean it up, and if it comes to party or her constituents, her constituents trump the party. That means a LOT to me. That means she cares about the little people and it is not just words, it is actions. McCain has done the same. I have admired her greatly for a long time, and i think she is exactly what America needs in washington.
Sorry, Palin ain't my thing.....neither is Obama
xx
The thing about Obama wiggling, as you so....sm
eloquently put here....I have noticed also.
Others (especially his supporters), tend to say that he "thinks before he speaks."
Well...my take on that is....
Yes, he thinks before he speaks. He thinks far too much. Do you ever wonder why? I watched him during the campaign, and as I watch him now, he is the same way.
He thinks so hard before he speaks, whenever he doesn't have a speech prepared for him that is.....because he's trying to find the right thing to say to the people he's talking to, and you can see the wheels churning and spinning, as he tries not to say what he "really" is thinking. Kind of like not offending a certain group of people, and trying to say the political correct thing. You know he's thinking something different, and it comes out all stilted and somehow off.
That's why I see him as "lying" most of the time, so he says "the right thing" at the moment....if you know what I mean.
My DH and I were talking about it the other day. Do you ever notice how he talks about "socialism" and his socialist programs all the time, but uses other words to describe them...but you hear the pauses, and the whirs and clicks going on as he's thinking, to be sure to say it the right way.
Yeah, he thinks before he speaks....otherwise, he knows his words will come back to haunt him...which they will, of course.
Nah, you are misinformed. Obama is doing the right thing for all of us. nm
nm
Poor thing....... wonder where Obama's little tax
SS
Obama is saying the same thing and he has no grand plan...
either than he has shared. He said it in the O'Reilly interview. O'Reilly asked him if he would invade Pakistan to get him and he would not say yay or nay.
So, following your logic...thumbs down on you, O?
The only good thing about Obama being elected
would be that in four years, we can vote him back out. I'm with you, sm, less government, less government spending.
But focus on the real thing here...how your guy Obama...
answered the question. Socialism 101. No one forced him to do it. He could have walked away...he has dodged questions very artfully in the past. But he chose to answer this one.
And a state had a private citizen investigated because of a question he asked a presidential candidate. That does not alarm you???? The Patriot Act alarms liberals but this DOES NOT???
That is soooo telling.
and you agree with ever single thing Obama says
Knock yourself out--but I prefer to think for myself. I only pick the candidate I think is best--not perfect
One more thing about abortion for Obama supporters (sm)
While I can see the controversy about when life begins when we are talking about the very early stages of development, I have this question for anyone who has ever had a child....or been one. Generally when a mother is about 20 weeks pregnant, give or take a couple of weeks, she starts to feel the baby moving around inside her body. The baby moves more and more as the weeks go by. Toward 30 weeks or so, you can actually feel the baby changing positions to get more comfortable, moving around. So you are saying that baby I felt moving in my body wasn't alive yet?
What is the one thing you want an Obama presidency to accomplish?
Mine is curbing illegal immigration.
Good thing Obama talked to them
all nice and friendly like. So much for kissing their back sides Mr. President. Maybe he should send them an iPod.
I saw the same thing with Obama, comparison to Hitler
So playing that ole race card again does no good.
It's a good thing Obama promised
not to sign any bills with pork in it....oh wait.....he lied about that and signed it anyway, didn't he?
Obama was SUPPOSED to do his own thing? Remember?!
--
Yeah...good thing she isn't debating Obama...
nm
The great thing about Obama talkin' so purdy...
It's so easy to catch him in a lie. He's so clear and straightforward, there's no way he can deny what he said. I think it's great when the news says what he does on any given day and then plays back his campaign speeches and they are completely opposite. It's great, keep it up. America can fall out of love with Obama as quickly as they fell in love with him.
A socialist country doesn't seem like such a bad thing?!? Then vote for Batista Obama.
xx
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
This post really makes me WANT to vote for Obama. I am undecided, but this pushes me closer to Obama
...Thanks for the info!
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
|
