What you say is true, but if relevant evidence is denied sm

• Conservative Bruce Willis has switched political paradigm. - LVMT
  • I read somewhere Michelle Malkin is depressed about this.sm - LVMT
    • If your definition is accurate - a conservative
      • No, he is not conservative - he is neoconservative. sm - LVMT
        • Not really. SM - CeeCee
          • It is actually quite refreshing to see this post...nm - Democrat
        • Oh come on. sm - MT
          • I believe one has to admit.. - Lurker
            • Well, here's the problem. sm - MT
              • What is the difference between the two judgements?...sm - Democrat
              • How you interpret the written word is beyond me. - Lurker
                • See inside. SM - CeeCee
                  • A culture of Pharisees. - LVMT
                • LOL...well, yes, it is beyond you. sm - MT
                  • I do not think you have been - Lurker
                    • No, Lurker, you are mistaken. sm - MT
                      • Bush and forgiveness - Teddy
                        • Ricky Ray Rector. SM - CeeCee
                          • I will add (to Clinton apologists on this site) SM - CeeCee
                            • Prayer is good and thanks...however..sm - Democrat
                              • You are rationalizing. SM - CeeCee
                                • So are you against the death penalty? sm - Democrat
                                  • I am against the death penalty. SM - CeeCee
                                  • And especially used for those who show no remorse for these crimes. - Democrat
                                    • For those who show no remorse, SM - CeeCee
                        • Short blog from watershed wordpress...sm - Democrat
                          • So have we all. SM - CeeCee
          • Still, when one sleeps with dogs he shall get fleas :)~nm - LVMT
    • The post about oatmeal wasn't made by MM. sm - MT
      • I see. I saw in a discussion about Bruce on Netscape.nm - LVMT
        • Wony ruin my day either way - a conservative
    • I was just on her site. There is nothing there about it. sm - MT
      • There are several references to it on 911 info pages.sm - LVMT
        • I'll wait to hear it from the horse's mouth. sm - MT
          • I think he is bracing himself for the attack dogs first.sm - LVMT
            • Yes...sm - Democrat
              • Oh and I really DON'T care what he thinks. sm - MT
              • I saw an ex Hollywood agent talking about this on Hannity and Colmes. sm - MT
            • An example - UW professor still under attack for beliefs.sm - LVMT
  • No objective person can state with 100% certainty what happened 9-11-2001. - Democrat
    • What you say is true, but if relevant evidence is denied sm - LVMT
  • Link please. Thanks. nm - MT

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

go back 60 years in history.  Times were different then, the mind set was different, so it is not possible to have any kind of logical comparrison.  However, if he were still around now doing that, then yes, he would be a war criminal.

The amazing thing is that you guys sound just like the extreme jihadists to me.  All you want to do is destroy others and spread your religion.  And for what reasons?  Fear and revenge.  You like to talk about being religious, just like the jihadists, but when it comes to something like revenge or torture, you put that religion aside --that same religion you would have everyone else believe is your life -- and you take your revenge and put it in a box with a bright pink bow to sell it.  That is what I call a blight on humanity.

I wonder how many more of these cases are out there.

mounts.  Can't wait till this breaks.  Lying about your promiscious daughter.  That counts for 2 sins, does it not? Sometimes breeding with people too close in your family tree can produce birth defects.  I' m just sayin . . .

are going to be given to people who are not paying tax.  Show me what in his plan describes a refundable (AKA non-wastable) tax credit.  So far, all I can see is that sam does not understand the basic concepts of socialism, Marxism, tax cuts and tax credits.  Tax cuts are a reduction in taxes, based on lowering a tax rate.  You cannot reduce a rate on tax in the absence of tax due.  Tax credits for the most part are paid against TAXES DUE.  The 2 exceptions in the US are the earned income tax credit and the child tax credit 

So show me where Obama has said that his tax credit would be a refundable/non-wastable credit.  Also, naturally, I am still waiting for sam's answer to my original question on how it is that progressive tax reform is only socialist when it is Obama reform but no other president who has reformed the tax structure is a socialist?  Please answer that question and the one about the refundable tax credit.  Direct answers would be very much appreciated. 

really does need that teleprompter to get it right . . . What's this I hear about him being such a great orator?  Sorry, but I think not.   

Obama apologizes for gaffe on Special Olympics

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama has apologized for a gaffe in which he described his bowling skills as akin to participants in the Special Olympics, a sports program for people with intellectual disabilities.

....but MUST be from a nonpartison source absolutely.  Actually I thought it was just as much the case with the Republican party, but I freely admit that I have no concrete statistics at this point to back that up. 

by Gretyl Macalaster

PORTSMOUTH - The evidence for impeachment of the president and vice president is overwhelming, former CIA analyst and daily presidential briefer Ray McGovern told a room full of people at the Portsmouth Public Library Monday night.

McGovern, who provided daily briefings for former presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush as well as other high ranking officials during his 27 year CIA career, said he has witnessed a "prostitution of his profession" as the Bush administration lied to the American people about the evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

"Don’t let anyone tell you the President was deceived by false intelligence … they knew," McGovern said.

For the next 40 minutes, he relayed a series of events leading up to 9/11 which illustrate the President’s desire to go to war with Iraq well before 9-11, that reliable CIA evidence showed that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction and was presented to the administration and the "facts were fixed" in order to legitimize the invasion.

"The estimate which said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was prepared to the terms of reference laid down by Cheney in a speech on Aug. 26, 2002. It was the worst estimate of intelligence and came to the wrong conclusions, but it was designed to do that," McGovern said.

McGovern has been an outspoken commentator on intelligence-related issues since the late 1990s and since 2002 has been publicly critical of Bush’s use of government intelligence in the lead-up to the war.

The recent report detailing Iran’s stopping its nuclear weapons program four years ago, is an example of how the administration knows it can no longer hide such "incontrovertible evidence" from the American people in the fallout from the misinformation they received on the Iraq War, McGovern said. He added that he had almost given up on believing their were people still working at the top with a conscious and enough people at the top willing to let analysts do their job and accept independent analysis.

In late 2005, Congress requested an estimate on Iranian nuclear capabilities.
"My former colleagues got really good, incontrovertible evidence that the program, such as it was, has been ordered stopped since 2003. The evidence was such that not even Cheney could deny it. That’s why the report was not produced until three weeks ago," McGovern said, adding that the Bush administration has been putting "spin" on their rhetoric ever since.

McGovern also addressed the reasoning he believes is behind the threat of war with Iran. He said he believes Israel thinks they have a pledge from the White House to deal with Iran before Bush leaves office and relayed the story of the U.S.S. Liberty, which was attacked by the Israelis in 1967 and covered up by the United States. Thirty-four U.S soldiers were killed and about 170 were seriously injured.

"It seems to me, that on June, 8, 1967, Israel realized it could literally get away with murder," McGovern said.

McGovern said he also believes Congress will be of little help. Recently House Speaker Nancy Pelosi admitted to learning about torture and illegal eavesdropping in briefings, but said it was her understanding when briefed, that she will not share the information with anyone else, including other members of the House Intelligence Committee.

McGovern called Pelosi out on violating her oath to uphold the Constitution "against enemies, foreign or domestic" by allowing acts in violation of the Constitution to continue by not saying "diddly."

He added that although an impeachment bill currently in Congress is gaining more support, Democrats are shying away because of the influence of lobbies and political analysts telling them to "wait it out" until the election.

Charges in the impeachment bill sponsored by Dennis Kucinich, are very detailed and "as good as any," McGovern said, and referenced the illegal eavesdropping of American citizens. He added that the President has "admitted" to this "demonstrably impeachable offense."

"The argument for impeachment is overwhelming," Randy Kezar of Kingston said after the event. "Impeachment is constitutionally required."

McGovern’s visit was co-sponsored by NH Codepink, Seacoast Peace Response, NH Peace Action, NH American Friends Service Committee, Seacoast 9-11 Questions Group, NH Veterans for Peace and Witness for Peace-N.E.

Article Launched: 6/16/2006 12:00 AM

Bush declines to meet with border officials

Sara A. Carter, Staff Writer

San Bernardino County Sun

President Bush has refused to meet with border law-enforcement officials from Texas for a second time. His response to their request came in the form of a letter Monday, angering both lawmakers and sheriffs.

In fact, some Republican members of the House, upset by what they call the administration's seeming lack of concern for border security, are preparing to hold investigative hearings in San Diego and Laredo, Texas, early next month.

Members of the House Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation hope to expose serious security flaws that could potentially lead to terrorist attacks in the country, said Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, who is a member of the panel and has pushed for the hearings.

The next terrorist is not going to come in through (Transportation Security Administration) screening at Kennedy airport, Poe said. We already have information that people from the Middle East have come through the border from Mexico. They assimilate in Mexico learning to speak Spanish and adopt customs and then they cross the border into the United States.

Poe requested the meeting for members of the Southwestern Sheriffs' Border Coalition a group that includes all 26 border-county sheriffs from California, New Mexico, Arizona and Texas. The sheriffs wanted to speak to the president about the increasing dangers in their communities and along the border.

The president is the busiest man in the world but he needs to take the time to talk to the border sheriffs and learn what's happening in the real world from them, Poe said. We can't understand why he refuses to meet with them.

In May, all of the Republican House members from Texas traveled to Washington to meet the president regarding border security. Bush did not meet with them, however, and former White House spokesman Scott McClellan was sent in his stead.

Poe said the White House letter dated Monday showed the disconnect between the administration and the American people who want the border secured.

The president would appreciate the opportunity to visit with border sheriffs, said the White House letter written by La Rhonda M. Houston, deputy director of the Office of Appointments and Scheduling. Regrettably, it will not be possible for us to arrange such a meeting. I know that you understand with the tremendous demands of the president's time, he must often miss special opportunities, as is the case this time.

Rick Glancey, spokesman for the sheriffs coalition, said its members are angry and disappointed in the president's response. Glancey said Bush's recent tour of the border with Border Patrol spokesmen did not reflect the reality of what locals live with every day.

It's a slap in the face to the hardworking men and women on the front lines of rural America who every day engage in border-security issues, Glancey said. He missed the opportunity to take off his White House cowboy boots and put some real cowboy boots on and walk in our shoes for a few minutes.

The border hearings will expose the truth to the American public and force the administration to take a serious look at the border, said Allan Knapp, Poe's legislative director.

Knapp and Poe have traveled twice to the border this year, spending time along barren stretches where they witnessed no security and numerous migrants crossing into the United States, they said.

We need to expose the lack of border security before it is too late, Poe said. We're fighting a war on terror in Iraq and we're winning, but we're losing our own border war. These hearings will be a necessary step in the right direction.

Andy Ramirez, chairman of the Chino-based Friends of the Border Patrol, said he has been called to testify before the panel in San Diego. Ramirez said he has turned in two years of Border Patrol documents and memos, which he will discuss before the committee.

The president has basically pushed his whole administration's agenda toward the war on terror, yet he can't find the time to meet with law-enforcement leaders responsible for border security, Ramirez said. It is appalling and outrageous that the war on terror and border security does not extend to the U.S. border.

but the *staging* was TAPED, complete with instructions to the *lead* soldier that if another soldier starts to go against the script, he should just grab the mike! 

I saw this on TV this morning, and the first thought was that they had to be reading from teleprompters.  It was so clear that the answers (as well as the questions) were staged and not at all spontaneous.

Another example of Bush's misuse and abuse of the military, in my opinion.

easily seen by just reading the board.

At least it can be seen by most of us.