This is simply NOT TRUE. Read what the United
Posted By: Marmann on 2008-11-09
In Reply to: Okay, here's a thought for you - Backwards typist
Mine Workers of America have to say about it. I've copied and pasted it in its entirety. It completely REFUTES yet another false claim that's been repeated on this board.
McCain campaign’s last minute distortion of Obama’s coal record an act of desperation
United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) International President Cecil E. Roberts issued the following statement today:
“Sen. John McCain and his running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin, have once again demonstrated that they are willing to say anything and do anything to win this election. Their latest twisting of the truth is about coal and some comments Sen. Obama made last January about the future use of coal in America.
“Here is what the McCain campaign left out of Sen. Obama’s actual words: ‘But this notion of no coal, I think, is an illusion. Because the fact of the matter is, is that right now we are getting a lot of our energy from coal. And China is building a coal-powered plant once a week. So what we have to do then is figure out how can we use coal without emitting greenhouse gases and carbon. And how can we sequester that carbon and capture it.’
“Sen. Obama has been consistent with that message not just in the coalfields, but everywhere else he goes as well. Despite what the McCain campaign and some far right-wing blogs would have Americans believe, Sen. Obama has been and remains a tremendous supporter of coal and the future of coal.
“I noted that Sen. McCain even went so far yesterday as to say he has always been a supporter of coal. I wonder, then, how he can justify his statement at a Senate hearing in 2000 that, ‘In a perfect world we would like to transition away from coal entirely,’ and his leading role in sponsoring legislation in 2003 that would have wiped out 78 percent of all coal production in America?
“Fortunately, UMWA members, their families and their friends and neighbors in the coalfields know all too well what is going on here. They’re not going to fall for it, and we urge others throughout America who care about coal to review what the candidates’ records on coal actually are. We are confident that once they do, and once they see the many other benefits to working families of voting for Sen. Obama, they will make the right choice for themselves and their families
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
Simply not true... FOXISM nm
nm
That is simply not true. No funerals for fetuses ever.
THINK about it. Foolish to argue this point.
This is simply not true. I doubt that Obama will be...sm
anyone's "puppet" as both Bushes were. As well, the president does have a power of veto. It will be interesting to see how everything pans out over the next few years. I believe Obama sees an open, transparent, cooperative presidency but will be no ones fool.
Did you bother to read the endorsement or simply
Think about it.
I read this on Snopes, it is true and I found it very
interesting. It is written by a black Christian man stating why he won't vote for Obama. If you just type in Huntley Brown Snopes, it will come up, it's the first link.
I am a fence rider, can't decide who to vote for, since neither one of them has actually given a plan as to what they are going to do for America, just a lot of trash talk from both sides and name calling and schoolyard tactics. Neither one has had to answer any direct questions regarding anything of value to me.
I am neither anti-Obama or anti-McCain; I am sure they are both decent men. I just found this interestingl it's not going to sway be either way, but just thought I would share it.
I read the one only true Testament of our Lord Jesus Christ, who was infallible Lord....sm
and I am not, and thank you for calling attention to that; I was paraphrasing Paul in his letter to the Hebrews, but my point is still from my heart, the deceptions that went on during the former administration are still causing ruin and death as we speak, and if you chose laugh at me, that is fine, The flamers on this board love to feign superiority, which I belive is against the Bible as Pride, one of the 7 deadly sins, no? I was asking if posters who want to make inflammatory, ridulous remarks could just TRY to confine their comments and posts to pure facts, and then political discussions can bear fruit and have some intelligence and merit. I am working hard as I am writing this, so forgive me if distracted. It is all just noise, rhetoric, and one-upmanship otherwise, while the country crumbles further. Thanks for correcting me, I will double check Mr. Dunniger's quotes.
The United Nations has always been a joke.
They never accomplish anything, never take responsibility for anything and want everything for themselves.
There is nothing wrong with Sarah Palin as a VP candidate. Besides, McCain has a right to pick who he wants.
United Daughters of the Confederacy
I'm off to a meeting. Just wondering what comments this will bring. LOL
A united country must be socialist? (sm)
 I don't even have anything to say to that rediculous assumption.
In which United States do minorities
Please elighten, oh wise one.
In which United States do minorities
Please elighten, oh wise one.
and we ARE talking about the President of the United States here...
he is not running for the senate. He is running for the top spot. Obviously the postings I made before about Marxist leanings were not so off the wall...if the Marxists are high-fiving him in open letters to newspapers. And not just any Marxist...son of the big Kahuna. Don't understand how someone can consider abstinence and sex education valid issues to attack a candidate's family for pete's sake and totally ignore this little revelation. How sweet it is to wear blinders, I suppose.
Do what? Screw the rest of the United States?
Sarah Palin, United Nations, she has
.
The United States is a country in decline.
United States Senate...who voted for what
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00137
Do you actually look up anything?
People's United Means Action
I had heard it before but didn't know what it meant.
Someone whose loyalties lie with the United States of America
nm
N. KOREA THREATENS UNITED STATES
N. Korea Threatens Military Action if U.S. Imposes Blockade
Saturday, June 13, 2009
June 10: South Korean soldiers use binoculars to look at the North side from Imjingak, north of Seoul, South Korea.
June 10: South Korean soldiers use binoculars to look at the North side from Imjingak, north of Seoul, South Korea.
SEOUL, South Korea — North Korea vowed on Saturday to embark on a uranium enrichment program and "weaponize" all the plutonium in its possession as it rejected the new U.N. sanctions meant to punish the communist nation for its recent nuclear test.
North Korea also said it would not abandon its nuclear programs, saying it was an inevitable decision to defend itself from what it says is a hostile U.S. policy and its nuclear threat against the North.
The North will take "resolute military action" if the United States or its allies try to impose any "blockade" on it, the ministry said in a statement carried by the North's official Korean Central News Agency.
The ministry did not elaborate if the blockade refers to an attempt to stop its ships or impose sanctions.
North Korea describes its nuclear program as a deterrent against possible U.S. attacks. Washington says it has no intention of attacking and has expressed fear that North Korea is trying to sell its nuclear technology to other nations.
The statement came hours after the U.N. Security Council approved tough new sanctions on North Korea to punish it for its latest nuclear test on May 25.
The U.N. resolution imposes new sanctions on the reclusive communist nation's weapons exports and financial dealings, and allows inspections of suspect cargo in ports and on the high seas.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,526090,00.html
this is slandering the President of the United States..sm
saying that the President is stupid WITHOUT having ANY proof of this.
United Methodist Church Calls For Withdrawal ...sm
Sweet Victory: United Methodist Church Calls For Withdrawal
It's one thing when former high-ranking members of your own Administration come out against your war. It's another thing when two-thirds of the country calls the invasion and occupation a mistake. It's really something when your own church issues a statement urging you to pull out the troops now.
Last week, the United Methodist Church Board of Church and Society--the social action committee of the church that both President Bush and Vice President Cheney belong to--resoundingly passed a resolution calling for withdrawal with only two 'no' votes and one abstention.
As people of faith, we raise our voice in protest against the tragedy of the unjust war in Iraq, the statement read. Thousands of lives have been lost and hundreds of billions of dollars wasted in a war the United States initiated and should never have fought.... We grieve for all those whose lives have been lost or destroyed in this needless and avoidable tragedy. Military families have suffered undue hardship from prolonged troop rotations in Iraq and loss of loved ones. It is time to bring them home.
The board also issued a strong statement against torture, urging Congress to create an independent, bipartisan commission to investigate detention and interrogation practices at Guantanamo, Iraq and Afghanistan.
It is my hope and prayer that our statement against the war in Iraq will be heard loud and clear by our fellow United Methodists, President Bush and Vice President Cheney, said Jim Winkler, General Secretary of the UMC's Board of Church and Society. Conservative and liberal board members worked together to craft a strong statement calling for the troops to come home and for those responsible for leading us into this disastrous war to be held accountable.
With its bold stands against the Administration, the UMC is fulfilling the words of Martin Luther King Jr., who called for the church to be not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion but a thermostat that transformed the mores of society.
Bush has asserted that he entered Iraq on a direct order from God. Now, he has a direct order from his own church to leave. Is he listening?
Obama must be United States Citizen to be president!!!!
Until he proves to all the people of the United States that he was born a US citizen, how can anyone support him for president! Are we all that desperate?
Rise of the United Socialist States of America
If you can honestly approve of all this, I just don't know what else to say...
Click here: The Rise of the United Socialist States of America
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 saw a documentary on the abuse of boys in United Arab Emirates...sm
as donkey racers and it was downright heartbreaking. I would adopt them ALL if I could.
I don't think the US should throw a penny their way. Only the rich would benefit anyway.
Look....any president of the United States is going to trust people to do their jobs...
he trusted FEMA to do their jobs. He trusted that Blanco and Nagin were listening to what the weather experts were telling them and what the corps of engineers were telling them...they asked for the evacuation to be mandatory a full 24 hours before Nagin made it mandatory. A very precious 24 hours. So it was impossible to get people out. Can we possibly lay the failure at the feet of all responsible?
And as i said...would have taken the post a lot more seriously had the poster not made the "baker" comment at the end. It lost all credibility at that point..but of course, I am sure that escaped you.
And what any of this has to do with John McCain, whose birthday it was, having a piece of cake...he was a senator at the time. So was Obama. I figure he had a meal that day, and maybe even some cake.
This is a nonissue. There are a bazillion reasons why Katrina was such a disaster. One, the corps of engineers had been telling local and state officials for years that the levees would not hold if there was a big storm. Good lord, the whole town is below sea level!! Which, incidentally, is not Bush's fault either.
But NONE of these things have ANYTHING to do with JOhn McCain. Nice try to link it to him...but no.
How about : Stop telling the President of the United States WHAT functions
to attend and which not?
I think O and his cabinet are doing a better job in this than you.
Simply put... sm
The 1st amendment protects the speech you don't want to hear, not just the speech you want to hear.
You don't want to hear my dissenting opinion, but thank you, U.S. forefathers and subsequent soldiers, for protecting my right to say it to you.
I don't want to hear YOUR holier-than-thou bible thumping rants, but you have every right to say it to me, and I'm not going to tell you that you can't.
Who says I don't care... I am simply saying
that the rich are not evil, which you seem to paint them as. In fact, a lot of philanthropy comes from the rich. College scholarships, donations, etc. We are not all the same and we cannot all be the same and we never will be the same. How about instead of pity for those less fortunate, let's encourage them to be self-sufficient? This is the LAND OF OPPORTUNITY and there will always be a segment of society who will not pull themselves up in spite of all the opportunities available. I can't spend a lot of time worrying about that because it futile.
Well perhaps we are simply misunderstood
like this:
We look forward to hearing your vision, so we can more better do our job. That's what I'm telling you. —George W. Bush, Gulfport, Miss., Sept. 20, 2005
Wow! Brazil is big. —George W. Bush, after being shown a map of Brazil by Brazilian president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, Brasilia, Brazil,
If it were to rain a lot, there is concern from the Army Corps of Engineers that the levees might break. And so, therefore, we're cautious about encouraging people to return at this moment of history. —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Sept. 19, 2005
The relations with, uhh — Europe are important relations, and they've, uhh — because, we do share values. And, they're universal values, they're not American values or, you know — European values, they're universal values. And those values — uhh — being universal, ought to be applied everywhere. —George W. Bush, at a press conference with European Union dignitaries, Washington, D.C., June 20, 2005
I can only speak to myself. —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., April 28, 2005
It's in our country's interests to find those who would do harm to us and get them out of harm's way. —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., April 28, 2005
After all, Europe is America's closest ally. —George W. Bush, Mainz, Germany, Feb. 23, 2005
I'm also mindful that man should never try to put words in God's mouth. I mean, we should never ascribe natural disasters or anything else to God. We are in no way, shape, or form should a human being, play God. —George W. Bush, ABC's 20/20, Washington D.C., Jan. 14, 2005
I want to appreciate those of you who wear our nation's uniform for your sacrifice. —George W. Bush, Jacksonville, Fla.
See, that's the thing...you simply cannot allow
That's one of many things that make this kind of stupidity forum domination. Grownups back off and let their children throw tantrums sometimes. Go ahead. Let her rip. I'm outta here for now, but not for long.
I am simply saying that I think it is funny
that they listed that as a point for her foreign experience. Yes, I saw the first one and it should be listed. I just don't have a clue why they would list that as a point for it. Though, it is clearly a Republican or anti-Obama site so it would, just as the Democrat, anti-Republican sites would do something equally as ridiculous.
I also try to not bash either side, unless I am provoked  . I do think you can oppose one side and keep it level-headed. When people start completely bashing and name-calling, etc., it kind of throws all credibility out the window for me.
Like I said, pubs simply do not
nm
Why would you post this, other than to simply
nm
you are simply wrong.
Posting over and over and over does not make something true. Case in point - Iran was involved in the 911 attack. It has been 7 years, and SP is still saying that lie.
We don't HATE, like the right does. We simply
XX
And he could easily do that simply by....(sm)
upholding G. W. Bush's patriot act. Go figure.
I simply prefer not to post here. SM
I have a hectic and stressful enough life as it is, as many MTs do. I don't know anything about the other issue. I use to go to MTDaily and there was always trouble there with the ISP thing and their own prejudice. So I don't go there anymore. I suggest that might be an option for you if you feel the way you do.
Murtha simply wants it investigated, one way or the other...sm
Although I doubt the soldiers have corrupt intent *if* there is any merit in the claims.
I was simply imitating your posts...
I guess you don't like to be on the receiving end.
I'm not assuming you are white. I simply
meant put yourself in the role that she was in, a minority in college. You are right though, I assumed that you weren't a minority for that scenario and I apologize. And, I didn't mention anywhere in my post about Wright, I was simply referring to her as a college student and the fact that I did not think her thesis was racist.
I dont see it that way at all. Obama simply cant be
nm
This is simply a matter of color.
This man has gotten off the hook answering the tough questions because everyone is trying to be so PC; we don't want to upset the black man or the black community. WHo cares? He's running for President. If being black keeps him from answering the hard questions, why the heck do I want him running my country.
Racism is alive and well in this country.
Simply curious about the motive.
x
I WANT to respect Obama, but I cant simply
nm
I accused nobody of anything. I simply stated that
a triple digit IQ, i.e., intelligence quotient, as in intelligent leadership, would be good for the country for a change, the implication being we have not had that until now. If it speaks stupid, thinks stupid, looks stupid and acts stupid, chances are it is, well, stupid.
I do not spend any time on sites that speculate about widely varying IQ scores for either party's candidates, since that type of data can only produce subjective conclusions. I also do not pursue illogical arguments that in one breath give Obama's SAT/LSAT scores and in the next, accuse him of hiding that information. For me, SAT scores and IQ are 2 mutually exclusive concepts unless and until someone can produce a resource that can convince me otherwise.
I made a simple statement in response to Bushisms which any self-respecting American would find embarrassing and not worthy of the highest office in the land. That statement was construed as some sort of accusation in a reply from somebody who felt the need to defend Bush. I answered that by further discussion of Bush's stupidity, not his IQ. I was not focused on the number, rather the lack of intelligence.
Therefore, I feel no need to defend my position nor excuse myself for not conducting exhaustive research in defense of somebody else's ideas and number hang-ups.
I want smart leadership. Sue me.
Where did I state that? I simply stated
You've really got a bee in your bonnet today, don't you?
It's simply that I take nothing from this source at face value.
I know some of the other side of issues that MM has addressed, I know what he does to produce some of the "effects" he creates, and I refuse to be sucked in by anything he does, most of which is deceitful.
Get a room? Something on my nose? Simply
because I was polite to someone, chose to give one of the "nice" ones the benefit of the doubt while finding posts like yours uninformative, childish and a pure waste of keystrokes?
I agree, given the never-ending bitterness and hatefulness you have, it will all come back to bite you in the butt some day. One usually gets back what they give.
Simply put, those who have salvation are bound for heaven.
matter if a person is Jewish or not.
Right, nothing psychotic, simply common sense.
nm
|
