The lesson here is...not everything people "believe" is correct! (nm)
Posted By: Ta Da on 2008-09-22
In Reply to: Certainly. Check the validity of the posts... - sam
xx
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
I could take a lesson from you in cut and paste perhaps....
.
Thanks for the geography lesson. nm
nm.
You could take a lesson from your last four words.
Sarah Palin has infintely more class that you exhibited.
Pub lesson on how to win friends and
This must be some sort of new maverick style of reaching across the aisle and getting that bipartisan cooperation Americans are so anxious to see again...he just left out the part about looking at his opponents down two barrels of a shotgun.
Thank you for the history lesson!
That was hilarious! Especially the girlie-man part - boy, do I know some of those liberals! =)
I don't need a history lesson
I majored in it in college. I know there's discrimination and I know there are people who will discriminate in this election - either for or against Obama. But I think it's just a shame that you think Democrats are all above this. I live in a pretty hick town in southeastern Ohio where there are MANY Democrats who are voting McCain simply because they won't vote for a black man, plain and simple. And if you think that southeastern Ohio is the only place this kind of mentallity is, you'd be wrong. Discrimination is a terrible thing, but don't think it's just a Republican thing.
We need to do a little history lesson
Israel DID create the situation. Gaza is landlocked on all it's borders by Israel. They are not allowed in and out. Dr. Ron Paul had made a comment about concentration camp state; that is accurate. They have no means to get supplies in and out. A lack of supplies doesn't meant the leaders are starving their people. Supply and demand. Simply economics. Those who can afford things get them. That wouldn't be the case if the market was allowed to flow within Gaza, but that will never happen because as of now Israel has them in a full nelson and at their mercy. Mercy isn't something Israel abounds with. Barely anything is allowed in, so the supply is small. That lack of food you talk about to feed families isn't the fault of the leaders. Demand is high, supply is low, so yes, the rich SOBs running the joint will do what rich people do -- buy what they can afford because no one else can.
Hamas was created by Israel as a counter to the PLO. Much like we go about the world creating little counter-revolutions everywhere, so does Israel in the middle east. They create groups to do their bidding, using useful idiots who might actually BE extremists or just idealistic people, then when the group deteriorates away from their original purpose, Israel doesn't like that and starts crying that they're being persecuted by everyone around them. Poor little Israel can't get a break. Always getting pushed around by the big mean Arabs. Yeah, the Arabs with AK-47s that are 50 years old. You know, the same Israel who would just assume firebomb entire neighborhoods, killing anything and everything around. Mossad is active in every country in the world in the same fashion that the CIA is. Slapping around a bee's nest only invites them to sting you to death. That's what's occuring.
Hamas has eventually become a tool of the people around and has been elected into governments. Israel doesn't like that. It's a threat to their tyranny.
Extremism exists on all sides. Not just the poor idiots that get talked into blowing themselves up. Zionism has been a blight that has existed for generations and will continue to exist as an excuse to kill millions of innocent people in the name of God.
He/she passed first lesson - lie.
NM
Thanks for the lesson on the constitution, however ...
There are TWO fundamental flaws in your premise.
1) The provision for Congress to declare War is for the purpose of STARTING a war where none exists. If "the other guy" starts one, no such declaration is needed nor appropriate. For example, if Canada invades, guess what? We're at war with Canada and Congress need not legislate to determine if this reality in fact exists. That is applicable to the present because SADDAM started a war in 1991 that was never concluded until the 2003 invasion. (There's been a Stability And Support Operation since then).
2) Congress DID declare war against Iraq. (redundantly, since as per #1 above, we already WERE at war.) There is nothing in The Constitution nor US Code that spells out specific language such declaration must utter. The fact that no resolution was passed with the words, "we declare war" or whatever you imagine it has to say, does not alter the inescapable fact they DID expressly vote to use military force against Iraq, specifically authorizing the invasion, in fact. You can claim that's not a declaration of war if you like but no honest person will join you.
The lesson I learned is that Sam has class...you are
3rd grade civic lesson
Posted by Don Rasmussen of CampaignForLiberty. com on 10/30/08
Special thanks to my mom for sending this along.
The most eye-opening civics lesson I ever had was while teaching third grade. The presidential election was heating up and some of the children showed an interest. I decided we would have an election for a class president. We would choose our nominees. They would make a campaign speech and the class would vote.
To simplify the process, candidates were nominated by other class members. We discussed what kinds of characteristics these students should have. We got many nominations and from those, Jamie and Olivia were picked to run for the top spot.
The class had done a great job in their selections. Both candidates were good kids. I thought Jamie might have an advantage because he got lots of parental support. I had never seen Olivia’s mother. The day arrived when they were to make their speeches. Jamie went first. He had specific ideas about how to make our class a better place. He ended by promising to do his very best. Every one applauded. He sat down and Olivia came to the podium. Her speech was concise. She said, “If you will vote for me, I will give you ice cream.” She sat down. The class went wild. “Yes! Yes! We want ice cream.
”
She surely would say more. She did not have to. A discussion followed. How did she plan to pay for the ice cream? She wasn’t sure. Would her parents buy it or would the class pay for it. She didn’t know. The class really didn’t care. All they were thinking about was ice cream. Jamie was forgotten. Olivia won by a land slide.
Every time Barack Obama opens his mouth he offers ice cream, and fifty percent of America reacts like nine year olds. They want ice cream. The other fifty percent know they’re going to have to feed the cow.
Recent history lesson....(sm)
Before Prop 8 gay marriage was legal in Calf.....therefore, a RIGHT. Prop 8 took that RIGHT away.
Just taking a page out of sam's lesson plan.
nm
Learn to spell lesson first before you preach right
--
Dissent during WWII - A history lesson the right forgot....sm
Dissent during WWII - A history lesson the right forgot.
Posted by ChrisSal on Wednesday June 28, 2006 at 3:04 pm MST [ Send Story to Friend ]
One of the right’s favorite things to do is to compare the Iraq invasion to WWII and Saddam Hussein to Adolph Hitler. They claim that anyone who opposes the war is an appeaser, a terrorist sympathizer, or a traitor. This rhetoric is absolutely laughable not only because it is a huge stretch, but also because Republicans have obviously forgotten their own history.
Following the rejection of the League of Nations treaty in 1919, America developed a strong isolationist foreign policy. This was, perhaps, in response to the expansionist policies put in place by Teddy Roosevelt and the abject horror experienced in WWI. The citizenry wanted nothing more to do with sending its men to fight in foreign conflicts.
However, in 1935 Italy invaded Abyssina, which provided the first real test of America’s isolationist foreign policy. Congress passed the Neutrality Act, applying a mandatory ban on the shipment of arms from the U.S. to any combatant nation. FDR vehemently opposed the bill, but signed it under intense Congressional and public pressure. Two years later, Japan invaded China starting the Sino-Japanese war. As China was our ally and public opinion was favorable, FDR found ways to circumvent the Neutrality Act and assist China. Another two years later Germany invaded Czechoslovakia and began their conquest of Europe.
In May 1940 Germany overran the low countries, which left Britain open to invasion. By the end of 1940, Britain was financially ruined and the isolationist support was beginning to rapidly erode. 1941 brought about the Lend-Lease act and a more aggressive US posture in the Atlantic. Some claim, with some validity, that FDR provoked both Germany, with the US Naval presence in the Atlantic, and Japan, with support to China and crippling embargoes, particularly the oil embargo, into war. For the purpose of this discussion, that is neither here nor there.
As it became more apparent that the US involvement in WWII was going to deepen, a group named ‘America First’ organized to put pressure on FDR to keep America out of the war. “America First” garnered the support of people from across all shades of the political spectrum, but it was the GOP, who hated FDR and everything he did, that started the ball rolling. Twelve days after Pearl Harbor, Sen. Taft (R-OH) gave a speech to the Executive Club in Chicago. He railed against US intervention into WWII and spoke on the need for dissent, particularly during wartime.
As a matter of general principle, I believe there can be no doubt that criticism in time of war is essential to the maintenance of any kind of democratic government ... too many people desire to suppress criticism simply because they think that it will give some comfort to the enemy to know that there is such criticism. If that comfort makes the enemy feel better for a few moments, they are welcome to it as far as I am concerned, because the maintenance of the right of criticism in the long run will do the country maintaining it a great deal more good than it will do the enemy, and will prevent mistakes which might otherwise occur. - Sen. Taft (R-OH) December 19, 1942
So, the next time a rabid right winger claims that opposition to the war is unpatriotic and treasonous, remind them that as Germany rolled through Europe, Japan rolled through the Pacific, and before the fires of Pearl Harbor were extinguished it was conservative Republicans that took the lead in opposing FDR and the American entry into WWII.
A civics lesson in the Constitution of the United States
Our country's highest governing document, The Constitution, has been our guiding light throughout most of this country's history and has provided protection and equal treatment of the citizens of this country for over 200 years. Now, some people are saying that it needs to be changed, amended or done away with because it is "old-fashioned" and out of date. What I think these people want done away with is just the parts that they don't find fits their particular needs or desires at the moment, in particular, it would seem, the 14th Amendment and its definition of who is a natural citizen of this country and eligible to run for the office of President of the United States.
Let's look at the constitutional requirements for President of the United States, the 14th Amendment which further defines a natural citizen and the law which fills in the gaps and makes the explanation whole and more easily understood.
Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?
The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"
- Anyone born inside the United States
- Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
- Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
- Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
- Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
- Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
- Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
- A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.
Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such as Puerto Rico (8 USC 1402), Alaska (8 USC 1404), Hawaii (8 USC 1405), the U.S. Virgin Islands (8 USC 1406), and Guam (8 USC 1407). Each of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date, and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date. For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952). Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States. Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive.
The law contains one other section of historical note, concerning the Panama Canal Zone and the nation of Panama. In 8 USC 1403, the law states that anyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother and/or father who is a United States citizen, was "declared" to be a United States citizen. Note that the terms "natural-born" or "citizen at birth" are missing from this section.
Some have theorized that because John McCain was born in the Canal Zone, he was not actually qualified to be president. However, it should be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply. McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(c): "a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person." Not eveyone agrees that this section includes McCain - but absent a court ruling either way, we must presume citizenship.
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html
If one group of people who want to see Obama in office manage to do away with the 14th Amendment, then what is to keep another faction of people from doing away with any of the other constitutions? The Constitutions, its Amendments and Articles were put in place not to oppress the American people but to protect them and their rights and freedoms. What if all the men in the country decided they wanted to do away with the 19th Amendment? I bet we would see some really mad women in this country. Or how about doing away with the 22nd Amendment which limits the number of terms that a President can serve? Can we say "dictatorship?"
I'm afraid my history lesson disqualifies your argument.
be a smartass and ask what has changed since his statement. I simply stated the obvious answer. What has changed is his MIND. If he didn't feel qualified, he would not have run. Evidently, 65,431,955 citizens agreed with this chane of heart. You cannot argue away the fact that GREAT presidents have held office with much less experience than Obama...and I look for him to be adding his name to that list of the BEST our country has to offer in short order.
So enlighten us, I love to learn, the past 8 years were a hard lesson indeed.....nm
nm
You are correct
the thing is we can find common ground with people who we don't always agree with 100%. Blair tends to be more socialistic, but he is unified in the fact that terrorism is the worst threat to our world right now, and we have to stop it at all costs. Social agendas come second to him. Safety is 1st.
You are correct
I'm sure there are some wonderful people in Iran!! You included. It's good that you can the government is scary though. Here are some words from Iranian president AhMADinejad from just yesterday...
Ahmadinejad warned the West that trying to force it to abandon uranium enrichment would cause an everlasting hatred in the hearts of Iranians.
From your comments it sounds as if this a false statement since you love America. You of all people I'm sure appreciates America!!
Yes, of course you are correct
However, my post topic was literally just a couple posts below yours and it seemed unlikely that you would have not noticed the duplication in monikers. This board may indeed be available world-wide, however, there is a fairly small group of folks who routinely post.
My point was simply that your posting may have erroneously led folks to believe that I was posting both pro and anti-liberal messages within a few posts of each other. That would be rather confusing to say the least and it would be thoughtless to confuse and/or mislead anyone who might be using this board, whether in the U.S. or outside of the U.S.
You are correct about the $40K....
that is the SCHIP program as it has been over the past 10 years (although income levels have gone up some from the start of it). The expansion of the program was to include the $80K families. This bill was about expansion of the program. Letting the program continue as it was was not the issue. The expansion was the issue. Bush would not have vetoed it if they had not sought to expand it that much. They knew he would veto it if they left that in, and they wanted him to veto it to score political points. That I do not understand. Yes, some Republicans voted for it too, also for political reasons, so if the fallout was really bad they could come back and say "Oh i voted FOR it." Kinda like the Iraq war resolution...lots of Dems voted for it...yada yada.
I want to correct myself on the above...
I was wrong about the poverty level. The figure quoted for a family of four at 300% of the poverty line is $62,000 so he was close on that. However, the bill does not state those people over that level will not get on it. It says the matching rate from the feds might not be available. Then we have the EXCEPTION...the waiver. That opens the door for New York and every other state who wishes to, to expand the program as high as they want to go. That is what Bush was talking about. The waiver makes it possible, and not only possible, probable.
Just wanted to be sure my facts were correct.
Thanks.
Yes you are 100% correct!!!
By george you are right!!! EVERY SINGLE POSTER ON THIS BOARD IS ME!!!!!! Except for Observer, of course, and a few old American Girl postings! I admit it, I am guilty, you have caught me. I have authored every single post you read on here. It keeps me very very busy but it's worth it!!!
There I have "fessed up and I feel sooooooooo much better. Whew! Thank you Observer for helping me to do the right thing.
You are correct - however, you were the one...
Yes, you are correct, a lot of people don't give middle names second thoughts, and certainly there is nothing to worry about when mentioning his name in full, but when you smear it like its a dirty word, I call that a dirty shame. I was simply stating why don't you say Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton or John Sydney McCain, no you don't, therefore it seems when people don't treat one candidate equal to the other they are up to something. I have no problem with his middle name. I think its a beautiful name. I also think Sydney is a beautiful name.. Second just because someone posts a long post does not mean they copy from other articles. I happened to write the post myself, however, if you would like a much longer one there are plenty that I can copy and paste from - just let me know....happy to oblige. :-)
Correct!
Strange how it's permissible to spread all kinds of rumors about McCain but off limits to mention the facts about Obama's past and present associates, such as the Reverend whose sermons he claimed he never heard.
Sam would be correct
nm
You are correct and I think you are going to see it...
more and more as this campaign goes on. I think it has finally happened. The slumbering lion is waking up. :)
I am sure you are correct, but please,
be specific as me was.
Well.....if you are correct in
assuming that she and her husband aren't working their butts off....at least she isn't living beyond her means regardless of how many hours she works. At least she doesn't want a handout from the government and money given to her that she hasn't earned. There are people making as much as she does a year and are well beyond their means with toys, cars, homes, etc. Crying that they are victims and requesting a handout.
The most disgusting thing that I have ever seen was during Christmas. Every year my church does an angel tree. Every year I would take names of children and their ages and their interest and go out and buy them gifts so they would have something for Christmas. I wanted to help. What kid doesn't deserve a nice Christmas....ya know. So I went out and spent a lot of money on these kids. Come to find out....these kids weren't poor. Their parents drove newer and more expensive cars than I drove. The parents were only out for a free handout....and that sickens me. I felt used. I so wanted to help people who really needed help. Not people who were just looking for a free handout come Christmas time.
Unfortunately you are correct. s/m
Unions don't have any clout anymore thanks to the Reagan years. Without the ability to strike, what can they do? While my husband, as a retiree, has excellent benefits, it is something that is not available to workers retiring now and in the future. Fact is, we are worried that his benefits may be cut. They have raised the retirement age and will have to pay more for their medical insurance. Why? Because they have lost members. People who worked at CF with my husband and weren't of retirement age for the most part had to take non-union jobs which paid far less causing many of them to lose their homes and file bankruptcy. Did anyone hear about them? I guess not. That was in 2001 and truckers are worse off today than they were then as are most American workers.
People have let the unions that people fought for go down the tubes. American workers bought into the "unions have outlived their usefulness, aren't needed any more" from the Reagan years. Unhuh and we see how much the employers care about their employees now. Unions are no different than politics. They are no better or worse than the people who support them. Basically the clout of the unions came from people that had the fortitude to stand up for their rights and stand together. Unfortunately we don't have that any more, it's more like, "I've got mine, sorry about you."
Unfortunately, since McCain says Reagan is his hero, I expect if he is elected the American workers can expect to be further shafted. JMO of course.
You are correct on that one.
Consider that the tax issue will have to pass Congress unless my memory fails me. I would say middle-class is more like $80,000 to $150,000, depending on whether you fall at the lower or upper end. As I understand it what Obama is seeking to do is do away with Bush's tax cuts, which WILL affect just about everyone. The tax cuts, as many of Bush's policies, was a bad idea in the beginning. Now because of his poor management of the economy EVERYONE is going to pay more taxes and many of those free loaders we talk about may get told to get to work as they should be. Obama's plan appears to be to be nothing more than rolling back Bush's ill advised tax cuts in the first place.
You are correct..........sm
Arnold can run for Senate (provided he has his citizenship papers in order, and I believe he probably does. Not sure what the laws are in Kollyfawnya.) but he could never run for the POTUS or VPOTUS.
you are correct..it's still that way,
born and raised there, it doesn't change.
You are 100% correct. n/m
x
I would say you are correct
Is anyone really so ignorant that they think that if there was anything illegal about Obama's run for the presidency, that HILLARY first would not have exposed it? Certainly if she didn't McCain would have. Why do you suppose THEY let it go? Because it wasn't going to bear any fruit for them, that's why.
M is correct below - no, they did not
Bush gave his acceptance speech (like everyone does) then had respect for Clinton to finish out his term. Even though Clinton was a disaster too, Bush had the decency to wait until he was sworn in. I do remember hearing about who he was picking for cabinet members but he never held the press conferences that OMessiah is. Also, Clinton did not either. He too had respect for Bush Sr. This is just something you don't do. It is very disrespectful no matter how much you don't like or disagree with the outgoing president. You DON'T do it. They are not president yet and as far as I know the electorates have not even voted yet. So it is still not "cinched" that he is going to get in there. I do believe however he is giving so many press conferences (as many as he can get his face on the camera for) because can you imagine the outcry if the electorates do not vote him in. He's already preparing people to riot if he does not get elected. My take is that the more he gets his face on the camera, the more the idi@ts will believe he is already president. Then it puts pressure on the electorates and others that still have not voted him in yet that if they do anything to disrupt this there will be he!! for them to pay. O'Messiah knows what he's doing alright, but it doesn't make it right.
That is correct, but....(sm)
the middle man (the stores) get a share of that. As far as computers go, a lot of the components are made overseas, but there are some places here where they put them together. Then you have companies like Intel, who make computer chips, who have decided to move their stuff back to the US. Hopefully more will follow.
Correct
I do stand corrected. Thank you.
You are most definitely correct -
Many things our founding father said we should be listening to and following advice of, but they don't. They have an agenda to destroy all that is good in our country and they don't care anything about what the founding fathers went through to make this a great country. They understood very well what was happening and it's happening once again.
I should correct what I said about
straight people. I think that SOME straight people don't get marriage. Sorry if I offended anyone.....that wasn't my intention.
Yep....that's correct....(sm)
If the quotes above are from them, then I would say they either sucked at reading or weren't very good Muslims. And I'm sure noone from YOUR church would have a lopsided view of anything. But we wouldn't know anything about that, because all we know is what YOU say, and so far you're heading towards strike three on that count.
You may be correct that not all
However, I think most of Europe was happy we prevented them from all becoming German speakers - twice - how quickly they forget. The victims of genocidal nutjobs in Bosnia and Kosovo were pretty glad to see us. Kuwait was pretty grateful we kept Hussein from annexing their country. I believe the majority of Iraquis are delighted to be rid of him and his mistreatment and genocide of his own citizens.
Like it or not, the US has been in the business of subduing bullies since the turn of the last century. And when we don't step in, we're treated as though we're committing the atrocities ourselves. Why didn't we get involved? Because we don't like the victims? Because we have no economic or strategic interest in the region? Damned if we do, damned if we don't.
The citizens of North Korea might be very appreciative to be relieved of their own little megalomaniac, who starves his people in order to fund missile parades. Obama feels we do not have the right to decide who has nuclear weapons and who does not, so we'll probably never find out how the North Korean people feel, until KJI lobs a missile right at us.
And when there is a disease outbreak, a famine, hurricane, an earthquake or a tsunami anywhere in the world, who is the first to offer assistance? Like Ghostbusters: Who ya gonna call? And we are expected to step up and take care of it.
I think other countries are starting to suspect that their calls will begin to go unanswered. Certainly, voluntary charitable donations will be reduced in the US, and with a $7 trillion (that's a 7 with 12 zeros) US budget deficit, they might be getting the ideal they are on their own now.
That is correct....(sm)
and I understand exactly what you're saying, and yes, the same thing might happen, but I just don't think it will. This retaliation that you talked about was in the face of what the middle east saw as an endless war/occupation. That's not the case now. They aren't facing Bush now (in their eyes a war monger). They are facing a guy that is willing to work with the people, is coming clean about previous actions involving the middle east, and who is keeping Israel at bay. It's not that I think Obama is that wonderful, it's that the circumstances are that different.
Something else....everyone (including those in the middle east) already know there are more pics. It's not like that's been kept a secret. Granted, for some it may be worse to actually see the pics than to just know they are there, but I think if there was going to be another retaliation it would have already happened just from the knowledge that they are there.
Yes, you're completely correct. So we should do nothing to
only answer is hop around the globe, play eenie, meenie, miney, moe and choose another sovereign country to invade.
It didn't happen here.....yet. But every single terrorism expert believes it's not a matter of if but a matter of WHEN. And Bush is helping them by not protecting us satisfactorily and by providing THEM with OTJ training in Iraq.
Yes, I think I'm beginning to "get" it.
As far as what I feel about Conservatives, I've voted Republican a number of times in my life, so don't tell me what I think because you haven't a clue. I vote for the candidate, not the party, and if Bush and Kerry are the best this country can offer up, we need to worry about much more than terrorists.
So even the monitor can't correct you? NM
So....Correct me if I'm wrong here
But you seem to be advocate blowing somebody away just because you merely think they are going to do something wrong?
Quite the little anarchist, aren't you?
Yes, you care correct, however...
My point was simply that things are not black and white, or purely good or evil. I'm also not sure why anyone would try to categorize someone's ethics or morals based on the political party they belong to.
You are correct. Please ignore
my above post. I was given incorrect information and failed to check its validity before passing it on. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. My humble apologies.
Almost forgot...all the others are correct TOO!!
The others that you mention -- they are correct, too (about being on to me). Don't want to hurt anyone's feelings by leaving them out.
Oops, that's right -- all those others are ME!!!!!
You are correct....others have....all over several blogs....
and another variation...Obama bin Biden. Don't agree with it, any more than I agree with going after candidate's families. Either candidate. Obama complained about people going after Michelle for her "proud of her country comment," said going after spouses was wrong, but have not heard him defend Cindy. Unfair if its Michelle, fair if it is Cindy. He's a politician and he is not any different than McCain in that respect. So much for change. Picked a guy who has been in Washington politics longer than most any senator on the hill. So much for change in Washington. Joe Biden a few months ago was saying he would be proud to be on a ticket with John McCain. Ahem. Sigh.
|
