What is the source for this?
Posted By: Nickles on 2005-11-13
In Reply to: Things are sure looking good - gt
.
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
source?
What is your source for this info? As in, how do you know this is true - did you see it, hear or, what? I really want to know. Where can it be verified or disproved?
There never will be a source on this
nm
Consider the source.
nm
Consider The Source
Sam, this is the same group of people who thought that what Bill did with all those women was okay, or simply a "private" matter.
So nobody in this bunch has ever had a pg teenager? And if any one of these women here would just throw (that's Demspeak for kill) away a DS baby? It's simply a continuation of what they do is okay and what those nasty conservatives do is just criminal!
Wow, that's just classy.
Source: About.com
su
And your source for this is? nm
.
Source please. nm
.
No source? Of course not.
x
what i the source for this??
I have never seen this before. Where does it come from?
And your source is?....nm
x
One source............sm
is the NYT, but you can Google the quote and find it in several articles and blogs.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/26/international/americas/26canada.html
And what source exactly would it take
to satisfy you as being reliable?
SM, you have to consider the source,
this is the network that is fair and balanced, only if you are a democrat. These folks have an Obamachip embedded in their brain. Besides, this is a way to get let the guys and gals on here who are so enamored by their high priest a chance to get their minds off the fact that he could even come close to screwing up something or changing a campaign promise. Don't worry about double standards, they don't apply to Obama.
And your source is????? nm
x
And your source is???? (nm)
x
Well, consider the source............
The majority of those voting for Obama pay NO taxes, never paid a tax in their life, and rarely if ever held down a job...........
So why in the world do they see tax as a bad thing..... they've never paid a tax and will continue to NOT pay taxes and think Obama will just take care of all their needs. This is why they think "rich" is a bad word; they have no ambition, no drive, and never will, so for those that do, they must be punished for succeeding!!??
The lazy and ignorant are running this country through votes they really have no right having.......... IMHO
And your source is????????????? NM
.
And this is a source of pride? nm
The source of your post
I'm not sure why you cut and paste far-right-wing-biased sources as the "truth" in your posts on a liberal forum. In your above post you copied an article from frontpagemag.com and for those who know little about it:
FrontPage Magazine's main focus is on issues pertaining to foreign policy, war, and Islamist terrorism. It regularly condemns official enemies of the U.S. and is a strong proponent of the war on terror, the Iraq War, and Israel's military actions.[citation needed] It has also published articles condemning what it perceives as left-wing organizations and causes, such as the Democratic party, the media, the environmental movement, affirmative action, reparations for slavery, left-wing interpretations of feminism, Islamism, socialism, communism, anarchism, anti-war groups, the United Nations, and other matters.[
consider the source. MM is the sicko....
.
no source listed for this
chart. No footnotes. No data to support numbers. Not enough information to verify veracity - disregarded.
also, moderators have instructed us more than once NOT to copy other websites into posts. Must use links. Please abide by the rules.
Now there's a reputable source--NOT
Huffington Post? Daily Kos (Kooks)? Moveon? Media Matters?
This isn't surprising, just disturbing.
Where is your source? You should not spread
nm
Please cite source........
x
WIKI?? THAT is your source?? lol
edited, changed, and added to by ANYONE, right? You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself as an MT to cite Wikipedia as your authority for ANYthing. I don't even necessarily like SP but you're making the case to side with her if that's how Barack's followers think/act.
We are still waiting for that source
nm
You're only source is obviously your TV set
xx
Once source we can look forward to where
the war chest. It's time to stop rebuilding Iraq and enricing their surplus coffers, get out of dodge, bring our troops back home and start rebuilding our own country. I would look for that from Obama sooner rather than later and certainly he is not on that 100-year time line of McCain's. The Iraqis gets their country back and get to govern themselves, we get our troops back, the direction of the tax dollars gets reversed and we stop one of the unspoken, yet most significant economic hemorrhages of W's administration.
We then turn our attention toward reversing the power and economic stranglehold the corporations hold over us by instituting taxpayer-friendly policies that put corporate welfare behind the welfare of our citizens. We build an economy from the ground up instead of the top down. Sound familiar? We've done it before and we can do it again. Once we do that, W's legacy of fear and division will takes its rightful place in annals of history and seem like just another bad dream we all had.
Well sure, look at the source of her income or
!!
This is a laughable source of
.
Not exactly an unbiased source!
Charles Krauthammer isn't someone whose judgment I would trust. He's been 100% pro-war policy all the way. Not surprising at all that he'd opt for McCain. What we really see is a lot of former Bush policy supporters abandoning that destructive policy and endorsing Obama instead. Can anyone cite an instance of a well-known real Democrat opting for McCain over Obama? I've been keeping my eye out (fair is fair), but have yet to see one endorsement of that type.
reliable source for this please. nm
.
Not a reliable source - sm
The Huffington post is not a reliable source. It's radical left-wing propaganda. It's even less credible than MSNBC.
The source is not the issue
the voting record is.
I just did and cited my source.....sm
so what are you speaking of?
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.
Exactly what would you consider a reliable source? n/m
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.
Let's have some "credible" source...... sm
for your figures, please. LOL
You're right, that is a bad source...LOL (sm)
I think this is the second time this guy has come up here ---- Jeff Rense -- the American conspiracy theorist that does a radio talk show on the paranormal. If you look to the left you will see a listing for the *Comedy Stop.* Maybe you just got the wrong board?
Consider the source of the article...
Russian professor came up with this "idea". Russian economists are shoveling out this crap, so there you have it. They of course would love to see nothing but a U.S. divided..... they have lived with division for so long, they have nothing but envy for the United States, a country that is ONE union, not several broken countries fighting and waring with one another over power.
I appreciate your posting this source, but
Its content is not really shedding a whole lot of light on the subject, at least not the kind I am trying to find. I am comfortable enough with Larry Margasak who has shown himself to be a reasonable bipartisan political ethics watchdog. However, he is not being terribly specific when he fails to say exactly HOW it will be "harder" for GOP to offer alternative legislation. If he is referring to the removal of the motion to recommit, then I fail to see how that makes it hard in any way for them to participate in the full consideration process on the house floor that takes before the bill goes for final vote. As far as I can tell, nobody is trying to prevent them from sponsoring their own bills through their own committees.
The paragraph that speculates about the democratic message is not only subjective, but it is speculative. That I do not find particularly professional. I am not saying that there may not be a few democrats here and there that would like to "overpower the GOP anytime they wish," but I am not one of those, I do no believe Obama is like that and I don't think that sentiment is shared across the board within the chambers. I am as left wing as they get, but will have no patience for inaction or partisan antics from either side that impede the progress we all need to see them make toward getting beyond this sorry state of affairs we find ourselves in.
If the GOP is claiming they are being marginalized, I want to know how, by what and why they are saying that. Also, when a writer says things like the new rules "reflected only the Democratic view of how the House should be run," he needs to provide info that backs up that claim and what made him come to that conclusion. Otherwise, he just looks like another whiner.
Longer disclosure requirements sound like more transparency, not less. Accountability. Who doesn't want to see that? Stricter measures on air-drop earmarks? Sounds good to me. If GOP leaders are squealing about "undemocratic one-party rule and backroom deals" just because one of their pet PR projects is being revised or eliminated, I need to be shown how this claim is more than just 2010 mid-term campaign bluster.
I also need more reason to be alarmed at the longer committee chairmen terms other than it reverses one of their measures from 14 years ago. I see nothing wrong with the idea of committee chairs who have long tenure and seasoned experience as long as they are ethical, even handed, fair, creative, open to innovative ideas and do not abuse their power. Seems to me that pay-to-play fundraiser schemes that end up serving special interests hold at least as much potential for abuse.
Still can't come up with that source citation.
Pathetic.
At least be honest about your source
"...those who have contacts on Capitol Hill..."
Your post is taken virtually verbatim from a blog comment at freerepublic.com, from an email from Roy Beck, not from "those who have contacts on Capitol Hill."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2173288/posts
Do you even know what E-Verify is and what it entails?
And I resent your implication that if I disagree with you, I'm not loyal to my country and don't "care anything about this country or [our] jobs."
Yikes.......consider the source.........
that publication wouldn't be slanted, now would it?
cite source please...........
Please provide a VALID source. Thank you.
cite source
x
Another credible source...
Irrelevant source....try again....nm
x
|
