What actual credible plot was NOT
Posted By: derailed by him? How on 2009-01-13
In Reply to: How exactly did he keep us safe? - Very curious.
many bombs struck your neighborhood? Girl, you need to get a life! Oh, that's right, you said you did already. Transcribing 3500 lines a day, then the rest of a day stirring the pot on an internet forum just isn't my idea of a life.
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
and the plot thickens...
Plame and her husband are suing Cheney, Rove, Libby and 10 other unnamed administration officials. Now this should be interesting.
On another note, watched W today in Germany. The axis of evil is multiplying, add Syria to the list of those we are waging war on, the war on terror that is. This is like trying to wage a war on anger...it just will never end. There will always be somebody to take the last person's place and evidently there will always be another country to preempt because they are evil and harbor terrorists and the end justifies the means no matter what and we will stay the course no matter what ...blah, blah, blah...if I were not so afraid of these idiots in the white house I would be completely disgusted.
Right. Where they can plot again to attack us.
nm
The plot was by The Aryan Nations
The Aryan Nations is a racist, antisemitic, white supremacist hate group. It is the political arm of the White Identity Church of Jesus Christ-Christian, long led by Richard Butler. The movement promotes the heresy known as Christian Identity.
Another example of a Christian terrorist group.
Any plot is despicable - but it goes on both sides - sm
I don't care who it goes for. However, you are blaming her for what a bunch of crazed lunatics were planning. She wasn't planning it but you make is sound as if she was.
I, as many others, do believe our troops will not be safe under an Obama regime. Just look at his voting record and how he says he will handle the war. He voted "NO" on ensuring that our troops serving in harms way remain Americas top budget priority by ensuring full funding. That means he voted no on the funding to ensure our troops would remain safe. I would say Gov. Palin has it correct. You cannot ignore the facts.
If anything happens to Obama I would say the direct person who should be held accountable is Hillary Clinton and possibly her husband (?) Bill. She came out and said it on camera. "The reason I'm staying in the race is we all should remember Kennedy was assisinated, right?"
If you talk about hate-mongering, lets talk about the crowds at the Obama rallies shouting out nasty and hateful things about McCain/Palin, the dummy of Palin hanging, how bout the rocks thrown through a glass plate window of the republican headquarters. What about the spray painted words "Republicans equal slavery" in NY and then they stole 45 signs and spray painted over a banner messages and letters that included symbols sometimes used by gangs. What about Palins motorcade that was attacked by Obama supporters. Here's a link (it's even from CNN, which I was surprised). Gov. Palin had to have been terrified. Talk about feeling like the Rodney King riots were back.
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=YeVBaM2lQsg
Each side has their own hate-mongerers and both sides do it well. Luckily there are those like us who just disagree with the other side, but we don't commit violence.
The plot was to first kill 88 black children in a school...
then to behead 14 other non-white children and then make an attempt, that they did not expect to be fruitful, to kill Obama. These were skin heads and I think that the greater point was that they were trying to kill children. I am clearly conservative and I think the whole thing is disgusting, but certainly not McCain's or Palin's fault. I am sure they find it dispicable, as well!
If you had seen the actual
video tape of him saying that.....he was obviously joking. He himself said that he was sure that joke would be taken out of context.......and he was right.
Actually....this is the actual poll...
While Republicans and Democrats predictably favor their party’s candidate by overwhelming margins, the experience gap among voters unaffiliated with either party is even narrower than the national totals. Forty-two percent (42%) say Obama has better experience to be president, but 37% say Palin does.
These are unaffiliated voters....37% of which say she has more experience to be President. That is just a 5% difference...not 61%.
Ahem.
It is not so much the actual hunting that I
am truly opposed of, it is the tactics used. If you are going to hunt them, then truly hunt them. Don't sit in a plane in the dead of winter and shoot at a defenseless animal like that. Get out of your friggin' plane, get on the ground and hunt. I come from a very long line of hunters and none of them would ever consider that truly hunting.
I am vegan, so I yes I am against the slaughter of animals. But, I do realize that sometimes it is necessary in certain circumstances to thin out a herd so they don't suffer in extremely harsh conditions.
I also realize that people hunt so they have food, that there are still people who get their primary meat this way and cannot afford to buy it in a store. I have had many different kinds of animal flesh before I quit eating it, and I do not pass judgment to those who hunt for food. I do oppose using the term "hunt" for the mass slaughter of animals. If you are truly against cruelty, like you say you are, then you would realize that aerial hunting of these wolves is cruel. Did you watch that video and see how the wolf is suffering? That is cruelty defined.
There probably isn't an actual video.........sm
since this was an interview given to a newspaper and not a television station. I'm sure it was only audio taped, hence the picture where the video would be. Why do believe that it is not his voice or that he is not actually saying what we all hear he is saying?
Thank you! There are so many actual important
issues to be discussing rather than wasting time on their silly fairy tale while the economy crumbles.
Yes, Joe was an actual plumber...
...living in Ohio, throwing a football with his son in the front yard when the whole Obamarama came down his street and Obama invited Joe to ask a question. Joe asked: If you are elected, are you going to raise my taxes? Obama answered: It's good to spread the wealth around and give everyone the advantages you've had.
Joe was obviously planted in his own front yard just to sandbag Obama with a trick question and entrap him into revealing the true agenda. Republicans are so devious!
What happened after this was extremely interesting. Media started to investigate Joe as though he were a candidate, not just Joe Citizen.
They unearthed and published the information that he was not even a licensed plumber. (In fact, no license was legally required because he was an employee, although he was working toward buying the plumbing business.) His trash was stolen from in front of his house - a standard investigative technique. Joe's driving record was accessed - illegally - and details made public. I think I even remember hearing he owed some money to the IRS.
His OJFS records were accessed several times (Ohio Job and Family Services are the ones who administer unemployment, child support, etc.) and, mysteriously, information about his divorce and child support ended up in the news. The (dem) head of OJFS then tried to cover by saying this is common practice anytime a person becomes a celebrity. However, this was easily disproved. (The woman was allowed to resign. She and two assistants are the ones being sued.)
All for having the poor judgment to ask a question of Obama, when invited to. A lot has been said over the yeas about Nixon and his enemies list, but our new president is someone not to be crossed, not by a Joe Citizen, certainly not by a Limbaugh.
Get 'em, Joe!
Those of us with actual brains, & can think for ourselves,
to make our decisions for us, tell us what to think or how to be, tell us whom to judge, or how to vote. From back in the days of the Crusades, religion has always been about a few men controlling other people. And they learned a long time ago that those who are most easily controlled are those with feeble minds and no free will.
SP's actual speech to secessionists
http://mediamatters.org/items/200809030019?f=h_latest
Please site an actual instance where anyone...sm
was banned from WEARING a religious symbol such as a cross, star of David or any other religious symbol to school.
I went to the actual Il. gov. website and read the - sm
actual bill, not just the parts that this sweetness-light.com website put on there. The whole bill starts out saying that parents first have to sign a consent form in order for their children to participate. As you are reading through the bill it states, "All course material and instruction shall be age and developmentally appropriate."
Sam, do you honestly think he is supporting teaching the same sex ed that you might get in high school to Kindergartners. I mean really.
You are always mentioning these leftist sites like Huffington, well this is clearly an all conservative site. I didn't go through it all, but it doesn't seem to be very objective.
my actual reason is more selfish than this...
I want to keep as much of my paycheck as I can to pay for the carpal tunnel release that I will eventually need!
Read The Actual Bill
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-s2433/text
If you're so concerned, one would think you'd actually read the bill as written, rather than rely on someone else with a clear agenda to do your interpreting for you.
Gimme a break.
i would be the one losing my ACTUAL HOME
UNFORTUNATELY, I TAKE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY and i pay my mortgage, even if i was one of the ones that they should not have given a loan to. and i have an ARM, and an interest only loan, which i pay more to each month, etc. etc.... BUT if i was in default, maybe i'd get some help...
and you cannot deny that Clinton put this into action
and that McCain or Bush did not foresee it and ask for an overhaul.
no matter who is at fault WHO IS THE ONE THAT TRIED TO ACKNOWLEDGE IT LONG BEFORE THIS MESS???
I did - and I'm the one who provided the actual quote
Look. Just get this straight. If you know anything about Boehner at all, you will know perfectly well that he does not support the notion that cold rooms, sleep deprivation and caterpillars add up to torture.
Intellectual honesty is a wonderful thing. Waiting to "pounce" on any fortuitous language that suits your purpose when you know very well that's what you're doing is NOT intellectual honesty and speaks ill of the character of those who practice this form of charade. I certainly don't respect you for it, although I do respect honesty in political discourse. I wish it weren't so rare.
Pastime is an actual noun.
It means a way to pass the time (not something that happened in a past time.) The hyphen (that little horizontal line [-] thing) is wrong. No need for thanks, always glad to help an ESL Transcriptionist sharpen her skills.
Actual entry in Reagan's diary
Beneath is an actual quote that Reagan wrote about George "W" in his diaries, recently edited by author Doug Brinkley and published by Harper Collins "A moment I've been dreading. George brought his n'er-do-well son around this morning and asked me to find the kid a job. Not the political one who lives in Florida; the one who hangs around here all the time looking shiftless. This so-called kid is already almost 40 and has never had a real job. Maybe I'll call Kinsley over at The New Republic and see if they'll hire him as a contributing Editor or something. That looks like easy work." From the REAGAN DIARIES------entry dated May 17, 1986.
If you watched the actual show you might have understood it
Glenn Beck actually cares about what is going on in this country. He is giving the everyday American a chance to let our voices be heard.
If you go to his website (which I'm sure you wouldn't do) he talks about "Project 9.12". He talks about the 9 principles and 12 values. He's allowing people like you and me a chance to let our voices be heard. The country is going down a dark hole and if it doesn't get fixed we will never see the light again (AIG is just one of the many things that will bring it down).
Unlike whiny Olberlame or Mathpukes. Those two make my skin crawl. I can take Rachel Maddow to a certain extent but then she gets on her whiny role too. Your viewpoint of any other news station other than My Socialist News Butt Channel (MSNBC) is so pathetic in it's writing. If your going to go down the road of blatant money-grubbing, media hogs who pray on the pathetic then you are talking about the liberal media stations. Talk about praying on the pathetic ignor@nt. You want to see hate-spewing turn on the MSNBC crowd. When things don't go their way it's like watching a bunch of rabid dogs foaming at the mouth attaching anyone who doesn't agree with them.
Maybe it would be good to actually watch the Beck show before commenting on it because then you would at least might remotely possibly know what your talking about. Otherwise it looks like another agent of MSNBC is filtering on this board.
I guess you think that having people who are liberal on as guests and treating them with respect, letting them speak what's on their mind and saying. "Okay, I'll give you that. I may not agree with you, but your entitled to your opinions" I guess you consider that hateful spewing??? I don't get it. You go to MSNBC (watched that station through the Bush years because my viewpoints were more aligned with theirs), but after awhile you just gotta step back and say wait a minute, that's not fair no matter whether I don't like the other side or not. There is a time when you have to start thinking for yourself. Fox channel does that. They present issues and don't tell you how you should be thinking. They let you decide for yourself. They give both sides an equal chance. But if your one of those liberal loving all democrats do nothing wrong and all republicans do nothing right, and you only get your news from the liberal stations, then yes, what you wrote is true about the "pathetic uneducated half-wits that hang on every word of their hateful spewing garbage" by Mathpukes and Olberlame and the likes of that station.
In case you don't know, America is waking up and turning to Fox and turning off MSNBC, CNN and others because we want to hear the truth. Not the mean-spiritic spew that comes from those stations.
BTW - Fox has 1,217,000 viewers compared to the socialist MSNBC station of 480,000 and Communist News Network of 633,000. That's more than twice as many people. At least I feel like I'm in good company.
Here is the link to the actual letter on the boston globe...
website.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2008/08/31/son_sees_fathers_handiwork_in_convention/
Well, it certainly gives me more pause than abstinence and sex education.
BTW, no the actual sneak in the draft registration thing
nm
Whatever. How about addressing the actual issues I raised in my post for a change? (NT)
/
If you were at all credible...
...in your Iraq stance you would be over there as part of the fight. End of story. No buts, no excuses. You would be over there and not relying on teenage kids and reservists to do your fighting for you.
Likewise, our powers that be (no names mentioned) would have multiple family members over there also. No buts, no excuses, no whining. But of course, they don't.
But of course, your butt sits in your comfy chair in your house as well as our Washington bosses' butts. And you sit in your chair belittling someone who does not support this war, or any war, and does what she can to help peace world-wide. She is an activist, you are not. You are merely a cheerleader for a violent cause as long as it does not involve you directly.
My boyfriend says the ultra-rights are angry cowards. What I have seen illustrated on the conservative board makes me think he is 100 percent correct.
credible?
Until they make the "documents" public, as they should, I cant believe everything this lady says .
"Ms. MonCrief admits that she left after she began paying back some $3,000 in personal expenses she charged on an Acorn credit card. "I was very sorry, and I was paying it back," she says"
Sorry, but she has reason to point the finger away from her. If this is all true, where are the documents to prove it? Where is the court transcript, where is the paper trail for the public to view. This is reporting, just like reporting about the Keating 5 and other issues that arise on both sides. Facts are NOT facts just because someone writes a news piece.
CNN is much more credible than FOX and sm
the intelligent and educated people know this!!! That is what you don't seem to understand, that by admitting you listen to and believe Fox, is admitting you are a little lacking in the education or basic thinking skills. It's so obvious.
credible?
I have to be credible to you? Please, like I care what you think of me or my opinion. Besides that it is called sarcasm.
Credible site
What I would tend NOT to believe is government figures as to how many are out there. I know for a fact that a friend of mine in 2000 received $2,000 per month from the VA, in addition to Social Security benefits of a few more hundred dollars, for his PTSD disability, along with free medication from the VA to the tune of 200 5-mg Valiums per month in addition to 200 15-mg Serax tablets per month.
I have no idea what today's monthly payments are to these veterans. After repeated unsuccessful attempts to commit suicide on the pills the VA gave him (with the full knowledge of the VA), he finally succeeded in 2000 and is no longer with us.
I know firsthand what the effects of this disease are. It's not conjecture. It's fact.
As far as a credible site, how about this VETERANS site?
http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/index.cfm?Page=Article&id=2468&NoMenu=1
Battling the Effects of War
Combat can wound the mind. New science helps vets from Iraq to cope
By Peg Tyre
Newsweek
December 6, 2004
It wasn't the gunshot wound in the arm that bothered Jose Hernandez when he returned home to Cincinnati after serving in Iraq. It was the lock on the front door. He couldn't relax until he secured it twice, three times and sometimes more. Even then he was still on edge. "I kept thinking about the things I saw over there—shooting on the streets, dead bodies and the terror in people's eyes. I couldn't get it out of my mind," says Hernandez, who served in the Army's 101st Airborne Division. He stopped sleeping, withdrew from friends and dropped plans to go back to college. His girlfriend finally demanded that he get help. A Veterans Administration psychiatrist diagnosed Hernandez with posttraumatic stress disorder, or PTSD, a potentially crippling mental condition caused by extreme stress.
Hernandez says he was one of the lucky ones. With a combination of antianxiety medication and talk therapy, his symptoms have begun to fade. Many of the 170,000 men and women now returning from Iraq and Afghanistan may not be as fortunate. When they get home, tens of thousands of them will be grappling with psychological problems such as PTSD, anxiety, mood disorders and depression. Though scientists are learning just how trauma affects the brain—and how best to help patients heal—there are still many obstacles to getting the treatment to the people who need it most. For starters, no one knows how many soldiers will be affected or how serious their problems will become. Early in the war the Army surveyed 3,671 returning Iraq veterans and found that 17 percent of the soldiers were already suffering from depression, anxiety and symptoms of PTSD.
Experts say those numbers are likely to grow. A study of Vietnam veterans conducted in 1980 found that 30 percent suffered from an anxiety condition later dubbed PTSD. Experts say the protracted warfare in Iraq—with its intense urban street fighting, civilian combatants and terrorism—could drive PTSD rates even higher. National Guard members, who make up 40 percent of the fighting force, with less training and less cohesive units, may be more vulnerable to psychological injuries than regular soldiers. Last year 5,100 soldiers who fought in Iraq or Afghanistan sought treatment in VA clinics for PTSD. That figure is expected to triple.
PTSD, a specific diagnosis, is not the only psychological damage soldiers can sustain. And experts say that mental disorders can make the already rugged transition from military to civilian life a harrowing one. Soldiers can experience depression, hypervigilance, insomnia, emotional numbing, recurring nightmares and intrusive thoughts. And in many cases, the symptoms worsen with time, leaving the victims at higher risk for alcohol and drug abuse, unemployment, homelessness and suicide. Sometimes families can become collateral damage. Christine Hansen, executive director of the Miles Foundation, which runs a hot line for domestic-violence victims in the military, says that since start of the Iraq war, calls have jumped from 50 to more than 500 a month.
Without treatment, some conditions such as chronic PTSD can be lethal. Five years after the Vietnam War, epidemiologists studying combat veterans found that they were nearly twice as likely to die from motor-vehicle accidents and accidental poisoning than veterans who didn't see combat. In a 30-year follow up, published in the Archives of Internal Medicine this year, the same combat vets continued to die at greater rates and remained especially vulnerable to drug overdose and accidental poisoning. "We had the John Wayne syndrome," says Vietnam veteran Greg Helle, who grappled with severe PTSD for decades. "We were men, we'd been to war. We thought we could tough it out." Doctors hadn't developed effective treatment for PTSD and besides, says Helle, seeking help was an admission of weakness.
Doctors now know that PTSD is the product of subtle biological changes that occur in the brain in response to extreme stress. Using sophisticated imaging techniques, researchers now believe that extreme stress alters the way memory is stored. During a major upheaval, the body releases massive doses of adrenaline which speeds up the heart, quickens the reflexes and, over several hours, burns vivid memories that are capable of activating the amygdala, or fear center, in the brain. People can get PTSD, doctors say, when that mechanism works too well. Instead of creating protective memories (ducking at the sound of gunfire), says Dr. Roger Pitman, a psychiatry professor at Harvard Medical School, "the rush of adrenaline creates memories that intrude on everyday life and without treatment, can actually hinder survival."
Why some people get PTSD and others don't remains a mystery. Recent studies suggest that a predisposition to the disorder may be genetic and that previous traumatic experiences can make soldiers more vulnerable to it. Once a soldier has it, though, says Dr. Matthew Friedman, executive director of the Department of Veterans Affairs National Center for PTSD, the good news is that the medical community now knows that "PTSD is very real and very treatable."
The challenge, says Friedman, is getting help—counseling or drug treatment—to veterans who need it most. As the Iraq war continues, officials at the Department of Defense and the VA are scrambling. After a rash of suicides among soldiers, they've increased the number of psychiatrists and psychologists in combat areas. Social workers trained to spot PTSD and other mental disorders are assigned to military hospitals around the country. Primary-care physicians at VA clinics and hospitals are now able to access combat records to see if their patients might be at risk for PTSD. Doctors are issued wallet-size reminders on how to spot PTSD and refer patients for further treatment. The VA has recently hired about 50 veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan to do outreach in the Vet Centers, a system of 206 community-based mental-health clinics around the country. But their resources are limited: Congress has set aside an additional $5 million a year for three years to deal with the new mental-health problem.
VA officials admit they're not catching everyone who needs help. National Guard members often do many tours and can be exposed to more combat than regular soldiers. But instead of rotating back to military bases where they can be monitored, they often return to their hometowns where readjustment problems can become a family crisis. If they begin to exhibit signs of PTSD or other psychological problems, they need to get help quickly. The VA will provide mental-health benefits for them for only two years following their service [The article is incorrect: Vet Center benefits are available for the remainder of a combat veterans life, not just two years; however, some physical care benefits are available for only two years].
Regular soldiers get mental-health benefits indefinitely.
Help came too late for Marine reservist Jeffrey Lucey. In July 2003, he returned home to Belchertown, Mass., from Iraq and gradually sank into a deep depression. His family looked on in anguish as he began drinking too much and isolating himself from their close-knit clan. By spring of 2004, he'd stopped sleeping, eating and attending college. When his sister Debra Lucey tried to have a heart-to-heart, "he'd describe the terrible things he'd seen and done," she says, "and he'd always end by saying 'You'll never be able to understand'." Frantic, family members had him committed to a psychiatric hospital but he was soon released. A few weeks later he crashed the family car, and the following month a neighbor found him wandering the streets in the middle of the night dressed in full camouflage with two battle knives he'd been issued in Iraq. Last June, Jeffrey Lucey hanged himself in the basement of his family home.
Shortly before he died, Lucey talked to an Iraq vet turned counselor at his local Vet Center. "He said he'd found someone who could really understand," says Debra. But before he could keep his next appointment, his demons took hold. Now Debra is telling her brother's story in the hope that others find the help they need in time. Psychological problems, she says, are an enemy that no soldier should face alone.
About as credible as her claiming that she was
I'll tell you where I haven't been...that would be listening to Failin/Bailin/Palin excuse herself for her latest (but not her last) gaffe. PULEEZE.
Snopes is not credible
Especially since it's highly likely that the couple that runs snopes are Obama supporters. There has been no credible evidence on snopes to prove anything.
That's like saying Louis Farrakan or Ayers, or Rev. Wright verified it so we should just believe them.
Let the supreme court judge handle it. We want the truth.
The supreme court judges are there to uphold the constitution. I will listen to their decision.
If I were you I wouldn't be so quick to defend as you are most likely wrong about this.
Not a credible source
Can you point me to somewhere on Obama website that gets anywhere close to what this guy is talking about? The youtube was made by some obscure person, NOT showing the alleged speaker at any time. I have found no credible source for "barracks and uniforms" anywhere.
Personally I would support an addition to school curriculums that required community service as part of social studies. A local 4-H club leader called me the other day and asked if I could help her find community service opportunities for her 22 kids. I could and I did. I think before this economic mess is done we'll all help each other or we won't survive. There are a lot of opportunities for input on the Obama website. Time might be better spent flooding that site with your thoughts and concerns rather than posting here. I can promise you that I'm doing my part to flood the suggestion boxs, are you?
I worry more about the Clintons continued involvement in the government....like Ole Bill's "Foundation." .
According to you nothing is a credible source
and other liberal outlets who go ga-ga for the O while they sip the kool-aid.
Luckily there are plenty of other sources and articles about this. If you don't like an article that's one thing.
You should have said "I don't agree with what Obama said in the video. I don't believe he is saying it himself. I don't think he's a credible source because it goes against everything he's been telling us".
Get off the credible source issue. This argument has become a lame excuse therefore is laughable when we read that.
Source not credible
This is an article published by msnbc. We all know msnbc is a left-wing liberal rag. They have a lot to lose if the O is found ineligible, hence, they "use" their positions in the media to lie and try to sweep the issue under the rug.
The judge that ruled against the case was from Philadelphia. This judge was also afraid to rule against Obama. Judge R. Barclay Surrick is also a Clinton appointee. Hence, he wants a democrat president. Additionally, this was not Judge Surrick's decision to dismiss the case. Judge Surrick was faxed the ruling. On this faxed copy from Judge Surrick, the senders information is blank. That way the sender's identity could not be seen. But wait...this gets better. Judge Surrick received the fax from none other than a former law clerk of his, Christopher B. Seaman (they forgot to remove the fax number at the top of the fax page that shows where it came from). Christopher B. Seaman now works as an attorney for Sidley Austin LLP, and Sidley Austin LLP is the same firm that employed Michelle Obama, Bernadine Dorn (wife of William Ayers), and where Barack met Michelle. This is a clear case of "Conflict of Interest". It is most obvious that the order to Judge Surrick was written by DNC laywers. My my...what a small world.
The case is being brought to the Supreme Court to include the above reasons. Additionally, Berg stated...
What happened to ‘…Government of the people, by the people, for the people,…’ Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address 1863.
Additionally, the people in Hawaii who keep claiming they've viewed Obama's bc and "it is okay (take my word for it, I've seen it)" are none other than Obama supporters and backers.
I for one am glad this is going to the Supreme Court. If they determine it is not okay and the O is ineligible, you will still have a democrat as President, so what is everyone whining about.
Credible source
I have read and researched everything about the birth certificate, his association with Ayers and everything else that was lobbied against him. I have found nothing to hold against him with the exception of preacher Wright and time will tell about that. After looking at the "evidence" on Factcheck, I am convinced his b/c is as credible as my own. I do not believe the Health Department of Hiawaii would have certified it if it were not so.
You can rest assured that I read everything about a subject which troubles me and Obama DID trouble me. Having heard him have news conferences and getting right down to business gives me somewhat more faith in him although I am still not convinced that he can undo what has been done the past 8 years and starting even before that, even if his intentions are squeeky clean. We are in for a VERY rocky road IMHO and we need to move on past the issues that have already been settled. The b/c on Factcheck leaves no doubt it is the real deal and the SC isn't going to find any differently...if they even hear the case. You are aware that they did not order him to produce the b/c by Dec. 1? They actually ordered him to answer...which of course he will do, to do otherwise would cause the complainant to win by default and he is not going to let that happen. It is customary in any court to give the defendent X number of days to answer a complaint. I should think you would know that. They can't "order" him to produce the b/c until there has been a hearing. I expect they will turn these frivilous suits back to the lower courts and refuse to hear any more about it.
There are also other far more credible sites...sm
which give valid information as to why it is not real.
The whole point to this, GP, is not JUST the birth certificate. This plays into a much larger picture in which Obama appears to be unqualified in terms of foreign policy and experienced in so many other areas. It has to do with past associations and shady current assoociations, who is backing him, how he rose through the ranks so quickly, some if not all of his campaign platform and plans for this country, some of the statements he has made that sound positively socialist if not marxist and the way the American people have been so capitivated by him. It's not even about McCain being POTUS because I can tell you that, even though I voted for him, I have some doubts about him just as you do about Obama. It is about the safety of our nation, laws being upheld on EVERY level (yeah, I know all about Bush, this isn't about him) and the future of our nation. The BC is just the tip of the iceberg.
Credible sources
I'm sorry I go back to this subject and it might have been discussed but can someone tell me the following. I am really curious because I keep seeing posts with people cutting down others and making fun of them and telling them the sources are not credible, but they will post their own sources. So...
What makes a credible source?
Why is MSNBC/CNN more credible than Fox News?
Why is Factcheck (supporters of Obama) more credible than an independent fact checking site?
Why is Keith Olberman, Rachel Maddow, and others liberal talk shows more credible than Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or other conservative rado shows? (although I can't stand Rush and that little pipsqueek leprechaun Hannity), just wondering why the liberal radio shows are more credible than the conservative.
Why are independently written articles by people who some of them do not reside in the US but watch the political and economic scene here in the US, not credible (even though they are giving their opinions of what they see happening), but if there is a good article written about the liberal politicians those articles are credible.
Why is World Net Daily not credible but The Progressive and The New Yorker are?
Why are people made fun of and not called credible because they post articles about UFO's, yet our own Astronauts James Lovell, Frank Borman, and Buzz Aldrin actually did see UFOs when they were in space.
Why will people scream and shout and get so totally upset because Bush has not been impeached (which he should be), but when the people who had the authority to impeach him (Pelosi, Reid and others) never pushed for impeachment the same people screaming for impeachment keep silent.
Okay, my post originally started out to be about why some articles/sources are credible while others are not, but I am curious about the last paragraph and would like to hear people's viewpoints on all the issues.
So, just curious about this.
Credible sources
I'm sorry I go back to this subject and it might have been discussed but can someone tell me the following. I am really curious because I keep seeing posts with people cutting down others and making fun of them and telling them the sources are not credible, but they will post their own sources. So...
What makes a credible source?
Why is MSNBC/CNN more credible than Fox News?
Why is Factcheck (supporters of Obama) more credible than an independent fact checking site?
Why is Keith Olberman, Rachel Maddow, and others liberal talk shows more credible than Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or other conservative rado shows? (although I can't stand Rush and that little pipsqueek leprechaun Hannity), just wondering why the liberal radio shows are more credible than the conservative.
Why are independently written articles by people who some of them do not reside in the US but watch the political and economic scene here in the US, not credible (even though they are giving their opinions of what they see happening), but if there is a good article written about the liberal politicians those articles are credible.
Why is World Net Daily not credible but The Progressive and The New Yorker are?
Why are people made fun of and not called credible because they post articles about UFO's, yet our own Astronauts James Lovell, Frank Borman, and Buzz Aldrin actually did see UFOs when they were in space.
Why will people scream and shout and get so totally upset because Bush has not been impeached (which he should be), but when the people who had the authority to impeach him (Pelosi, Reid and others) never pushed for impeachment the same people screaming for impeachment keep silent.
Okay, my post originally started out to be about why some articles/sources are credible while others are not, but I am curious about the last paragraph and would like to hear people's viewpoints on all the issues.
So, just curious about this.
About Credible Sources
Fox News presents itself as fair and balanced news reporting, when it's clearly not. Olbermann's show and Maddow's show are opinion and present themselves as such. Just check who's on the talking heads Sunday shows on CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC. Conservative pundits still far outnumber liberal pundits on all of them. Again, you have to separate opinion programming from actual news reporting on all networks.
As for Rense, et al, it speaks for itself and needs no explanation. Lovell, Borman, and Aldrin saw things outside of their experience while in space. That's a far cry from what Rense believes in. World Net Daily, NewsMax, and others clearly have an agenda and make no effort to hide it. Fair enough. But how credible are THEIR sources? What are their sources' agendas?
Here's an intersting tidbit for those who believe in a "liberal media." Here are some former high-level Bush administration officials who've gone on to prominent positions in the so-called liberal media:
* Michael Gerson was picked up as a columnist for the Washington Post.
* Sara Taylor, who was integrally involved in the U.S. Attorney Purge scandal and the politicization of federal agencies, became a pundit for MSNBC.
* Karl Rove became a Fox News "analyst," a columnist for Newsweek, and a columnist for the Wall Street Journal.
* Tony Snow went from the White House briefing room to a gig on CNN.
* Frances Townsend also went from the White House to CNN.
* Nicole Wallace went from Rove's office to CBS News before she left to work on McCain's campaign.
* Dan Bartlett is an "analyst" for CBS News.
I find them to be a bit more credible
anonymous mtstars forum polls where the same guy can post over and over again. The report is not just on their own poll....it includes results from the others as well. It's the closest thing we have to a barometer on this plan and anybody who reads it can take it or leave it, but placing any credence in this thread is really grasping at straws.
Another credible source...
wingnut - not credible
v
I don't think any sane person would say wishing Bush would die and burn in hell is an actual death
...particulary in the context of a heated political forum.
I think people are needing to create some drama to justify their actions.
The point is that both sides are naughty at times. I do notice more personal attacks by the C's though and I looked at the posts pretty carefully. The L's seem to rely on political/lifestyle issues to upset the C's and the C's just seem to respond with barking orders and making personal attacks (liberals are sissies, etc.)
The difference is that only the L's seem to be deleted and chastised on a regular basis. Isn't this rather unfair and un-American. It's called a double-standard and is not a pretty sight (and makes this not a pretty site)!!!!
Show me a CREDIBLE link
and I'll consider it. I don't take youtube speakers without any credibility whatsoever as gospel.
And what credible plots were stopped by
Please give one plausible, legitimate terrorist plot targeting our nation that was stopped by his policies.
Yes, please enlighten us, because as far as all the credible economists on.....sm
CNBC and even the international market watch on BBC, what JTBB just outlined is EXACTLY the scenario that is currently occuring right now under your own nose, they took the first bail-out money that Bush proposed, and bloated up their own assets on the marketk, in order to keep their stocks from imploding, instead of extending credit to worthy/needy businesses and homeowners. The banks have been the biggest LEACHES sucking everything out of our present economy, the most ravenous pigs going. Remember those golden parachutes?? remember those corporate jets and lavish conventions with the tax money bail out?? DID YOU PAY ATTENTION?
Yes, please enlighten us, because as far as all the credible economists on.....sm
CNBC and even the international market watch on BBC, what JTBB just outlined is EXACTLY the scenario that is currently occuring right now under your own nose, they took the first bail-out money that Bush proposed, and bloated up their own assets on the marketk, in order to keep their stocks from imploding, instead of extending credit to worthy/needy businesses and homeowners. The banks have been the biggest LEACHES sucking everything out of our present economy, the most ravenous pigs going. Remember those golden parachutes?? remember those corporate jets and lavish conventions with the tax money bail out?? DID YOU PAY ATTENTION?
Yes, please enlighten us, because as far as all the credible economists on.....sm
CNBC and even the international market watch on BBC, what JTBB just outlined is EXACTLY the scenario that is currently occuring right now under your own nose, they took the first bail-out money that Bush proposed, and bloated up their own assets on the marketk, in order to keep their stocks from imploding, instead of extending credit to worthy/needy businesses and homeowners. The banks have been the biggest LEACHES sucking everything out of our present economy, the most ravenous pigs going. Remember those golden parachutes?? remember those corporate jets and lavish conventions with the tax money bail out?? DID YOU PAY ATTENTION?
Another leftwing post - not credible
Again, you really need to stop posting Huffington post articles. All the leftwing nuts go there anyway. No need to post stupidity articles.
Not a credible source for anything they write. Just spews their garbage.
Please describe the actual physical threat that you allege was made on this internet chat board.
Thank you.
|