That's why I can't understand Sean Hannity isn't doing it for charity.
Posted By: Lisa on 2009-04-29
In Reply to: Would You Let Someone Waterboard You For $50,000? - ctmt
I mean, he said he would!! I used to have so much respect for the guy and now Keith Olbermann is making fun of him.
I mean, it's not like it's torture! Right?
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
Sean Hannity does something similar. sm
Every Thursday or Friday he does what he calls, "Man in the Street" interview. He has one of his staffers go out in NY and pick random people to talk to him via cell phone. The staffers usually try to get a good cross-section but it seems that most of the ones they get are the late teens and 20 somethings. Anyway...he asked them basic questions such as who was the Sec'y of State. Nobody knew. Half of the people did not even know who the VP was. I was absolutely floored by their abysmal ignorance.
And these are the people who will be voting in 2012 and beyond.
I really have to start watching this Sean Hannity...
you have me intrigued now.
The 5-paragraph volleys were in response to your 10, 12, 14 paragraph volleys, but you know that. As to the plagiarizing...oh please. I can pull two or three phrases out of those volleys of yours and Google them and will find the almost the same exact phrases on about any leftie blog out there. Gotta admit tho...you are a rank amateur up next to some of those folks. You are the liberal version of Ann Coulter. You must be so proud.
And you still have not answered my question, under ANY name and I have asked it to 3 of your alter egos so far. None of you seem to be willing to answer it.
It just seems odd to me that you feel the need to take on alter egos for the sole purpose of piling on and appearing to support each other...there it is again, that need to feel superior and to be validated, and if no one else will do it, by golly you will validate yourself.
ROFL.
I bet you think Sean Hannity walks on water and
Ann Coulter is the Second Coming.
You wouldn’t waterboard but Hannity is ready for it, for charity and
I know some who are standing in line to get out their check books.
Sean, etc.
Actually, he's a really nice guy, with a great success story, & it never changed him. I met him when his book came out (I think the first one, but I have both). I also met Michael Reagan, Laura Ingraham, & Michelle Malkin at fund-raisers.
Do you ever listen to Savage? He's a deal. I'm anxious to get his new book, which isn't political at all. Even the libs like hearing his stories. My favorite is Big Al's Tuna, but Dead Man's Pants is good, too!
That woman is more of a loon than Sean Penn
nm
Sean Penn...Jeremiah Wright...James Carville...to name
X
At least her clothing will be going to charity
*
So much for that Sak's and NM charity contribution.
xx
charity begins at home
Im wondering, with Bush's millions, has he given to the Iraq rebuilding? My mom always taught me, charity begins at home..So home first, then American states. Give to Bush's immoral war? I dont know, gonna have to research my soul on that one..
Who gives more to charity? Liberals or conservatives? sm
Charity's political divide
Conservative give roughly 30% more to charity on average.
http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm
Who gives and who doesn't
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1
Who gives to charity:
http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2006/12/06/who_gives_to_charity
Conservative philanthropists are more generous, experts say...
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/204/story_20419_1.html
Conservatives give more to charity:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080327/news_lz1e27will.html
What? The part about Obama's charity being
??
Those are not her clothes and will be donated or auctioned for charity
Those were never her clothes to keep. She had to look a certain way (the Washington way), so the committee provided her with some clothes for a few days. They are not hers to keep and she said they will either be donated or auctioned off and the money given to charity. Her favorite place to buy clothes is a consignment shop in Alaska (and her shoes too). Everyone made a big deal out of this and made it sound like she was stealing money from the campaign. They did not want to tell the truth. I'm glad it finally came out.
Also, so what if she is giving the clothes to charity, she sneakily did not say they were given to h
She never disclosed the clothes were bought with campaign funds. She didn't think it would come out, but I am not running for anything and I am not dumb enough to think I wouldn't be scrutinized for everything I do and had done. I just don't think she is a very bright bulb and I have read the good with the bad and feel I made an informed decision for myself. I just have a hard time with people in our profession that would fall for someone like her.
Donating Palin's expensive clothing to charity.
Mother who cannot afford food says to hungry child, "Would you like gabardine or charmeuse for breakfast, sweetheart?" Hopefully, Palin's leather clothing will be donated to hungry vegetarians!
Hannity.
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9x9ejtfRimQ
I may not have been a big Hannity fan but.
in this case, he's got it dead on..........he is doing nothing more than what every other loyal American would do.....STAND UP FOR THEIR RIGHTS!
He is right on the mark when he says Obama is stripping away more and more rights right before the masses, the blind masses at that. They refuse to see anything else but their precious Obama!
You might be glad SOMEONE is looking out for your rights because it's obvious you're not!
Flame all you want....couldn't care less!
Go Hannity!!! nm
x
poor black men in jail for drug crimes while his wife steals from a medical charity. nm
nm
Me too. I don't like Hannity and Colmes at all...sm
they're both so extreme. I do agree there is an awful lot of yelling going on by both of them, when they disagree with people on their show.
Agree with Hannity..nm
x
Hannity does get carried away with his
passion at times, but there is never a doubt about where he stands on an issue and he is a man of his word for sure. It seems to me that Olberman would be hard put for a show without Fox News and, especially O'Reilly. He spends a large portion of his time each week trying to put them down, but their ratings continue to grow above MSNBC.
Now, when you talk about something being inciteful, there was an article someone posted on here the other day that I took to be very inciteful. It was copied and pasted from some leftwing far-out site reminding dems to never forget how long they have waited to gain complete control of the government and to never forget all they hate for the pubs they are holding on to. They are not to ever let it go and now it is time for pay back. That was one of the most frightening things I have read in a very long time.
I cannot believe that we have let this become an issue of pubs vs dems. We are all AMERICANS! I cannot believe people are harboring this kind of hate for their fellow American. I am very concerned about this and I hope others are also.
I no more understand it than I understand the extremely poor taste and blasphemous sm
post with pictures on the other board. Are we clear now?
The gospel according to Saint Hannity...
Sean Hannity must be your personal messiah and you, his most devoted messenger. His trite, tiresome, buzz-word riddled, rambling rants, raves and regurgitations echo throughout all of your posts and you employ some of the same shallow, superficial strategies he does in his endless endeavors to dodge, deflect and deceive his way through viable political discourse. Intelligence is a terrible thing to waste on such unsubstantiated, vacuous prattle. You definitely have it, but don’t seem to know how to use it, at least in terms of exhibiting evidence of even the tiniest trace of an original thought or idea.
Long on spin, short on substance, fundamentally incapable of objectivity, manufactured, wildly speculative, markedly biased theory-building, jumping to conclusions, void of veracity, without fail, skipping the dirty work of relentless data gathering, fact checking and close scrutiny…no tireless search for truth anywhere to be seen. Too bad. That’s the fun part that bears the best fruit of all…can you say self-enrichment? Inflexible and frightened of fact, running as far away as possible when encountered, paranoid, threatened and suspicious of the huge bodies of knowledge passed down to use through the ages. Not a pretty picture.
Sigh. Yes, I saw the tape and read the FULL transcript, took the sound byte and put it back where it belongs…back into its original context. My husband speaks 4 languages, my son speaks 3, I only speak 2. Trust me, Sam, it’s not fatal, it does not diminish the importance of English and it has not made us any less American. Multicultural high brow rhetoric poses no threat to you or to our country. Let me reiterate this. No one said anything about REQUIRING a second language, just expressed the opinion that it would be a good idea. You got something against the idea of Anglo children “getting along” with immigrant children? That’s pretty cold, I must say.
Once again, there are plenty of ESL programs out there for immigrants and they DO learn English. That is why we don’t need to worry about it. I live in Houston and our Spanish-speaking population is largely bilingual, thank you very much. BTW, Houston takes much pride in its multicultural nature. Most of us believe it would truly be a boring place to live were we not. We do not limit ourselves to one or two flavors of immigrant. We have largely visible Cuban, Jamacian, Pureto Rican, Costa Rican, Honduran, Guatemalan, El Salvadoran, Korean, Vietnamese, Chinese, Filipino, Pakistani, Indian, Afgani, Iranian, Iraqi, Jordanian, Syrian, Palestinian, Lebanese, Israeli, Egyptian, Turkish, Russian, Greek, Bosnian, Somali, Kenyan, Sudanese, Ethiopian, South African, Angolan and Nigerian presence in our midst.
We have adopted an inclusive approach to our immigrant “problem”. We have learned to distinguish between them when we pass by on the street, not only by their physical charcteristics and native dress, but by the subtle cultural differences that are displayed in their behaviors. We are familiar with their customs and we respect one another, not only for our differences, but also for what we have in common. We work together, play together and worship together in churches, mosques and temples. We do business with one another without a blink of an eye or a second thought. Our restaurants serve up exquisite international cuisines. We enjoy each other’s art, music, literature and theater. They all bring color, spirit and life to our city. We certainly do not feel the least bit intimidated when we hear them speak their own language. We do the best we can to teach them how to speak ours. Guess what? It works out quite nicely.
That is why I heard Obama’s statement differently than you did. For me, yes it was about multiculturalism. I understand quite well where he is is coming from. Here’s a news flash for you. That national language debate is not being had by the majority of us….just the xenophobic right-wing fringe. The French part of your post is too weird to address…only to say that Obama used this as an example to illustrate a much larger issue. Again, you need to do some homework. The entire EU has immigration issues, but not the kind of “problems” Hannity’s cohorts would like to conjure up. Again, as you repeat yourself, so do I. Now hear this….they DO learn English, so DON’T WORRY.
Let’s leave Krushchev out of this and save him for another day. And let me make this perfectly clear to you. I am proud of America and the ideals it strives to uphold. But when national pride turns the “ism” corner and assumes an exclusionary puritanical Nazi-tinged nationalism, it has morphed into something ugly, dangerous and decidedly unAmerican.
I don't watch Hannity....but as far as MSNBC...
have you watched Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann? Keith Olbermann is worse than Rush Limbaugh ever thought about being...and yes, I think Rush is condescending and I don't like the talking down on either side. It obscures any point that might be made. I can't watch Chris Matthews for more than 30 seconds and I have never made it past 1 word with Olbermann. And Chris Matthews is realllyyy bad about talking over his guests to make HIS point. So I guess every network has their Hannity/Matthews/Olbermann et al. But, some people like that condescending stuff and find things funny that I don't...but hey, it takes all kinds to make the world turn, I guess.
Hannity is just one person on the channel...
not the whole channel. Keith Olbermann rants like a loon sometimes, almost to the point of drooling, but as long as he is bashing a conservative people love him. Every channel has their talking over obnoxious commentator. It is all about what Keith thinks, what his opinion is, and rarely is there a point. It could be said about any commentator. Still, if I want to see a Dem and a Repub in a split screen where the commentator says OUT of it and lets them have their say and does not allow them to talk over one another...Fox is my only choice. I have seen Fox cut the mikes on both sides if the pundit would not stop talking over the other. I have NEVER seen anyone cut Olbermann's mike. He does not even try to hide his contempt for anyone who does not share his view. You don't like Hannity, i don't like Olbermann. The difference is...if I want to hear a conservative viewpoint at ALL, Fox is my only choice. That is a fact. And why people are so against letting both sides have their say, and want to tear the hide of Fox in strips because they lean conservative when all the other outlets fall off the slide to the left...what does that say about those people? What kind of people want to silence all opposition? What is happening to this country?
Huckabee show on now, Hannity after that
He's got a new show on FNC and it is very good. Hannity's America is on afterwards, which looks to be extremely informative. Whether you like these 2 or not, their info can be fact-checked.
chris coumo up next on hannity am
talk show.
About Hannity, don’t have to watch tonight
I swear, if you miss him 1 day you can tune in next week, the week after or next year and he will repeat word by word by word what he has been talking about. I do not listen of a day except yesterday drove down to my store, about 5 minutes away and then back- he was STILL talking about Rev. Wright. He sounds like a broken record, should give it up, did not work the first time around, not working now.
Hannity's violent revolution..(sm)
This is what's on Hannity's webpage.
http://thepoliticalcarnival.blogspot.com/2009/02/hannitys-america-what-kind-of.html
Isn't this something like....oh.....maybe inciting treason or something?
Beck and O'Reilly and Hannity...
and for that matter Olberman and Matthews are not journalists, so-called or otherwise. They are commentators, which means they comment on the news, not report it. They share their opinions about news stories and have other people on their shows to discuss their opinions. It's not news, it's not reporting, it's simply opinion and people that watch it know that.
People that watch Fox are not uneducated or 'dittoheads' - it just so happens that our opinions and feelings about government and what's going on in this country and the world jive with most of the opinions on Fox. If you watch MSNBC or others it's because your opinion jives with what they're saying.
It doesn't give either group the right to say the other is brainwashed or pathetic, it just means we are of a different mindset and personally, I don't think that's a bad thing - if everyone was always of the same mindset, the Revolutionary War would have never been fought and we'd all be singing God Save the Queen.
You just have to remember to respect that people have different ideas and beliefs than you do - you don't have to agree, but at least have some respect.
Poor gal-so lonely......don't watch Hannity
you seem to be familiar with both. What is that?
Waste 101- Hannity haters, do not read
Although I'm not a big fan of Hannity, he had a countdown last night. I'd like to know how does landscaping certain hotels, buildings, etc. contribute to jobs? What happened to the infrastructure spending for roads and bridges that was to create jobs...even though those jobs would be temporary, some projects would have given a year or two of work. It still seems like these jobs are "once and done" jobs.
Even Microsoft gets a bridge across a highway so the workers have easier access to their other building across the highway. Why, since he's #2(?) in Forbes, couldn't he pay for it himself? 
Hopefully, this list will be on line soon. It's not there yet.
The total for the 101 stimulus spending was $1,234,631,672. The good news is at least we know where some of the stimulus/omnibus money is going.
I saw an ex Hollywood agent talking about this on Hannity and Colmes. sm
He said being a conservative in Hollywood is the mark of death. Most of the stars who are conservative just never mention it, although I did see Kelsey Grammar on H&C and he freely admitted he was a Republican and might even think of running for office. Like you said, go figure. Still, I doubt seriously the MSM will care about BW. It just isn't newsworthy. I could be wrong. No biggie.
Racists and bigots like, lets see, McCain and Palin, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Coulter and Hannity?
Give me a break....
Food pantries are running out of food, charity
donations are way down.
In this situation, people can't help other people if they can't help themselves.
Isn't it time to watch Hannity or bowl or some other watch Nascar?
UR W T
Also can understand...
I was also accused of being the notorious gt also. Not sure what their obsession is with this, perhaps they are hoping that all the posters who do not agree with are one in the same.
What I understand you to be saying....
What I hear you saying is that this board's posts need to reflect your personal ideology and that it is your role to call our attention to posts that you consider too liberal.
In looking back at your protests on this board, particularly a post where you have repeated the word hate over and over, combined with your delusions of grandeur that this board should operate according to your political agenda, I think you are mentally unbalanced. As a result of mental illness I doubt you will be able to comprehend any reasonable explanation of why what you are doing is misguided.
I suggest that if you want full control of a political board and the ability to censor each post that you create your own website.
Also, I am not sure why you have been allowed to run amuck on this particular board.
You know what I don't understand?
If we are so wacko, why do they keep coming here to read *liberal* posts and then slither back to insult us on their board?
PK,you're very welcome. Have yourself a lovely afternoon/evening wherever you are.
I don't understand....
How does one person's possibly tactless comments excuse another person's comments? This line of thinking doesn't make sense. So you're saying it's okay for Ann Coulter to be a brutal witch with her comments because if you look hard enough you can find comments from the opposing side that were also of questionable moral character? So what? LIke I always told my kids when they were little, just because other people are doing it doesn't make it right.
Besides, Ann quibbles that the widows are using their grief to promote their political agenda, well, my thought is that every time some family member of a war casualty goes on the local news saying how proud they are of what the military is doing in Iraq, etc., isn't that ALSO promoting a political agenda?
I do not understand why anyone would believe there were WMD....sm
IF there were any thread of truth this administration would have announced it at first notice to redeem themselves from the *unjust war* criticism. Unless they are holding on to this tad bit of information until closer to electoins, which I doubt. I would not be so quick to jump on board with Santorum with his *classified document.*
What I think I do understand.
After much research, I feel I can comment on this. Embryonic stem cell research has more than one goal. There is the harvesting of aborted babies stem cells, but there is also the stipulation in small writing that embryos can be cloned in the lab and those stem cells used for research. There is also this article, not released for general knowledge. I am sure that Michael Fox, as young as he is, and being the father of small children, would like to believe that embryonic stell research is going to be the be all and end all for Parkinson disease. I would want the same thing. But it just isn't and there are sinister forces at work just waiting for this bill to pass and for all heck to break loose. If it sounds dramatic, I don't think it is dire enough warning. An informed public is a forewarned and armed public. Here is the article I mentioned above.
Stem cells might cause brain tumors, study finds
Injecting human embryonic stem cells into the brains of Parkinson's disease patients may cause tumors to form, U.S. researchers reported on Sunday.
Steven Goldman and colleagues at the University of Rochester Medical Center in New York said human stem cells injected into rat brains turned into cells that looked like early tumors.
Writing in the journal Nature Medicine, the researchers said the transplants clearly helped the rats, but some of the cells started growing in a way that could eventually lead to a tumor.
Various types of cell transplants are being tried to treat Parkinson's disease, caused when dopamine-releasing cells die in the brain.
This key neurotransmitter, or message-carrying chemical, is involved in movement and Parkinson's patients suffer muscle dysfunction that can often lead to paralysis. Drugs can slow the process for a while but there is no cure.
The idea behind brain cell transplants is to replace the dead cells. Stem cells are considered particularly promising as they can be directed to form the precise desired tissue and do not trigger an immune response.
Goldman's team used human embryonic stem cells. Taken from days-old embryos, these cells can form any kind of cell in the body. This batch had been cultured in substances aimed at making them become brain cells.
Previous groups have tried to coax stem cells into becoming dopamine-releasing cells.
Goldman's team apparently succeeded and transplanted them into the rats with an equivalent of Parkinson's damage. The animals did get better.
But the grafted cells started to show areas that no longer consisted of dopamine-releasing neurons, but of dividing cells that had the potential to give rise to tumors.
The researchers killed the animals before they could know for sure, and said any experiments in humans would have to be done very cautiously.
Scientists have long feared that human embryonic stem cells could turn into tumors, because of their pliability.
Opponents of embryonic stem cell research cite such threats. Many opponents, including President George W. Bush and some members of Congress, believe it is immoral to destroy human embryos to obtain their stem cells.
*****
Finally, I will close with President Bush's words about embryonic cell research because I agree with him 400%. I suppose the division lies between conservative and liberal in defining the meaning of life.
(quote) believe America must pursue the tremendous possibilities of science, and I believe we can do so while still fostering and encouraging respect for human life in all its stages. (Applause.) In the complex debate over embryonic stem cell research, we must remember that real human lives are involved --both the lives of those with diseases that might find cures from this research, and the lives of the embryos that will be destroyed in the process. The children here today are reminders that every human life is a precious gift of matchless value.(unquote)
Amen, President Bush, Amen.
Okay....although I still do not understand...
but as you said, I don't have to. It seemed a very simple observation that if you found fault with Bush showing up at VA Tech and not at a soldier's funeral...I could not attribute that to anything but a strong dislike (I will not use word hate) of Bush. And no, I do not hate any of the people you mentioned. And had any one of them shown up at VA Tech, I would not have criticized them for being there because they had not gone somewhere else I might have felt they should have gone. I would have been glad they showed up to try to help those kids heal. I suppose you might call me naive, but I took it at face value, just like I did when Bill Clinton came to OKC after the Murrah bombing. As I said, he is not a person I like, respect or admire, but he was the President and he did come and I was very, very glad to see him there, he seemed sincere and I took it at face value. And, as I have said many times, there are a lot of things I do not like about this administration, I do not agree with everything Bush has done. However, on that same note, I was appalled at the pork the Dems wanted to hang on the troop funding bill, so I am not a big fan of the Democratically controlled Congress either. Nancy Pelosi broke the law by her Lone Ranger visit to Syria, and Harry Reid...I think he is a coward, I think to publically announce the war is lost when men are still on the ground fighting is at the last ill-advised, at the most tantamount to treason, emboldens the enemy and was from a personal standpoint hateful and very, very mean-spirited. I think when I see him, please do not tell me you support the troops and in the same breath tell them the war is lost. I think that is supremely arrogant, like he had a clue whether or not the war was lost. I am ashamed of him, and I have not been that ashamed of a politician since Bill Clinton's shenanigans. All that being said, as a person, I still like George Bush. I believe he is sincere and I believe his heart is in the right place. I think he is genuinely a good person, and that is probably why he is not a good politician, because there are very FEW who, in my estimation, are both. But that is just me. I think this war has taken a toll on him, and I think people who say he couldn't care less about the soldiers dying do not know what they are talking about. I have seen him shed tears on numerous occasions talking to families and talking to soldiers in the hospitals. The last President I remember shedding a real tear was Ronald Reagan. I think it is a sign of strength when a man shows his emotion like that. Again, you may perceive that as naive.
Basically I am looking for a hero this round. A man (or woman) with the courage of their convictions who will administer not to get rel-elected, but for what is good for the country. If such a person exists, now would be the time. I frankly have not seen that person in the running right now.
Yikes! Too much information.
God bless!
I really don't understand that, either....
I have been coming to these boards for a very long time and I have never seen a conservative post that liberals should stick to their own board. But they are really quick on this board to say things like "neocons need not apply" and "this board is for liberals." All that says to me is that they don't want to debate, they want only one viewpoint, theirs, and want validation from everyone for their viewpoint. The moderator has said that we could post on either board as long as we kept it respectful. This is America for Pete's sake. Each is entitled to his opinion and to support it. Sigh.
I understand
That is a whole lot more than I make, too! I live in an area where I have to pay $1,000 a month to rent a studio apartment. I thought this was outrageous! Then, my mother started a traveling job and has been telling me how much it costs to live in D.C. and some places in California. Even Vermont (sorry, don't remember what town) was more expensive! In these cases, a lot of that 88,000 would be eaten up by rent/mortage payments alone. Don't get me wrong, I do NOT think that someone living in a 3,000 sq foot house with a huge mortgage should get assistance - obviously their priorities would be out of whack. But for those in areas when it costs way more to live, that may not be unreasonable. Anyway, that was just my thought. On the site that I found, it does not mention that cap, it only says that states would set their own cap. If I recall, the 88,000 was mentioned by New York, who wanted that as their cap. I would imagine living in NY would be insanely expensive (anyone know #s?). I'm not sure how they would work out a maximum allowable cap - that doesn't seem to be written into the proposal.
I was just curious for reasons. Thank you for sharing!! :)
I understand what you are saying...
my experience totally different. My husband served in Somalia fighting AL Qaeda there..before 9-11...when Clinton was President. We have been in the military for many years. So, of course, we know soldiers...my husband was a member of the 10th Mountain Division. He was retired by the time Iraq came around (he still works for the Army in civilian capacity), but the 10th Mountain was instrumental in Afghanistan...he knew many of those who were deployed and he knows many who have ben to Iraq...needless to say our roots in the service run deep. And all the young/older servicemen we have come in contact with hold the opposite view...they understand the need to fight the enemy there so we don't have to fight them here. They believe, as do I, that keeping Al Qaeda busy in Iraq is one reason we have not been hit here again in a big way. The surge is working; casualties are down dramatically for both civilians and soldiers...the data is there if you look. Still, we will not get into a war debate but I will say this...no one WANTS war. I would like to have them home today too, but what I don't want is for America to become like Israel with car bombs and human bombs in malls, schools...I don't want to hear about something like that every day. I believe our being in Iraq helps keep that kind of thing at bay, and if we can leave a free Iraq we will be one step closer to keeping Al Qaeda at bay.
I saw a man on TV a few nights ago...a man who has interviewed several jihadists, including Al Qaeda...I wish I could remember his name. Will have to Google for that too. He said that most Americans really did not understand the threat. He said that there was a common thread in interviewing all of them, whether it be Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad...they said themselves that we did not understand. They are in this for the long haul. They intend that the world be converted to Islam, and those who do not convert will die. They will not stop until it is done. They intend to start in Europe and extend it to the US. When asked why could we not have a dialogue, they all said in essence: "There is no dialogue. There is nothing to discuss."
That should tell us what we are up against. And it should chill us all.
Have a good night!
I understand what you are saying but..
It seems that over time the majority of politicians who are supposed to be looking out for the people of this country have decided it is more profitable to concentrate on a certain constituency - those who have wealth and connections, no matter which party they represent. I'm just kinda tired of always seeing Obama slammed - if he blinks wrong, does not say the 'right' thing, carry himself in a certain way - people are all over him negatively. He cannot be any worse than what we have had in office the past eight years, and I am willing to see what he does without maliciously tearing him apart.
I understand everything you said
There is no way to deal with these people. Everything we do is a catch-22. We go to war - we are intolerant murderers. We don't go to war - we are weak. My personal opinion on this is that we need to bring as many troops back as we can and do everything humanly possible to keep this country safe. I am afraid that with so many troops in Iraq, we are not safe. Other countries recognize this. Look at Iran. What would we do if we HAD (and I say had because I would hope that we would exhaust every other option) to invade Iran? Our poor troops are exhausted and weary. Who would fight any other threats? I think it is important to gain strength here at home. Secure our borders. Thoroughly investigate anyone coming into our country. I think that is the best we can do because fighting really doesn't get us anywhere in the grand scheme of things.
what I can;t understand
If repubs are the minority being attacked by the all-powerful liberal media, why can't we have a liberal talk radio network? You got yer Hanninity, Limbaug, shrieking harpie Laura whats her name, Michael Savage, etc. You can't be a minority and still have all the radio programs . ... don't make no sense.
Understand what exactly?
Are you looking for justification for leaning toward conservatism? Your prose is rhetorical and exhausting. Can we get some fair liberals, aka, fellow Democrats who would like to discuss issues, candidates, etc, on this site?
|
