Yeah, and you cant handle hearing the truth.
Posted By: So? nm on 2009-05-02
In Reply to:
nm
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
Yeah, BB, why dont you just ignore the truth and
nm
Yeah, it's that pesky TRUTH raising its ugly head again, huh?
xx
Hey MT why are you using a different handle?
Wished you dead? By your posts, I realize now who you really are, MT. You read into things that arent there and the one other person who has done that consistently is MT. So, welcome back MT. Wish you dead? Oh please, I couldnt care less about you and I most certainly would not put negative energy on myself wishing anyone dead, MT. Now hurry up run back to your conservative board, MT, as it is time to bash liberals once again.
can't handle it?
Wow... I mean I haven't been here that long, but from what I've seen she only responds to what is talked about, i have seen no "attacks" by Sam, I can only assume you are referring to her disagreements with you, and can only look at this post as a desperate call for help cause you can't debate her points. That is what this board is for right? I mean, that is what a debate is, back and forth right? To call Sam out is interesting considering I've never seen personal attacks from her (i haven't read all her posts though) but I have seen plenty of crap come out of the liberals' mouths (keyboard) on this board... why dont you email her yourself and have it out rather than seriously asking the moderate to give her her own space. Last time I checked, we live in America and there is free speech. If you dont like what she has to say, IGNORE IT! (i do it all the time with some of the nonsense put out!)
You can't handle someone
opposing your opinion with facts? Yeah....I could see where that would annoy you. Sheesh. This whining about sam is ridiculous. Sam writes very well and more often than not has facts to back up her opinion. That is a heck of a lot more than I can say for some other people on this board. So grow up, stop whining to the moderator, and either ignore her posts or show some facts to back up your opinion like she does.
How to handle it
Hi,
I tend to vote conservative, but most of my friends are diehard Democrats. You just have to learn to agree to disagree. We all love each other, we just have different views.
I would like to say one thing, though, because not a lot of people know this. Back when Kerry was running, he was vocal about not sending our jobs overseas; however, behind the scenes, his biggest contributor, George Soros, actually bought two MT companies, which I won't name here, and those companies shipped half of their jobs to India. So don't let the Dems tell you that the Repubs are sending all the jobs offshore, because it is absolutely NOT SO.
Back to the point, though..you just have to learn to separate politics from friendship. You can have friendly debates, and if your friends get ugly, just explain to them we can debate this, but we need to agree to disagree for the sake of our friendship. If they are your true friends, they will agree.
i bet she will handle it
have ;)
Maybe she can't handle it when someone
points out her mistakes.
Will somebody else handle this one?
I'm just too tired to take it on, and it needs to be.
LOL. I'm sure they can't handle the video anyway.sm
The link works only for those who have the ability to think on their own.
I only post under one handle....
unlike others, that was put to rest last night. Let's just let that die, shall we? Apparently the moderator agrees.
She will handle herself just fine....
better than O, at the very least as well. And she is the #2 person...not the #1. We elect him, we get him day 1, and all the experience (limited though it is) is #2 on your ticket.
Ok, how do you think the administration will handle this
I knew it was a mistake to pick Clinton for SOS. The person who said she had no problems obliterating Iran if they didn't do what she wants (or something like that). How do you think the current administration to include Hillary will handle this one.
http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed2/idUSTRE50E3QB20090115
Ok, how do you think the administration will handle this
I knew it was a mistake to pick Clinton for SOS. The person who said she had no problems obliterating Iran if they didn't do what she wants (or something like that). How do you think the current administration to include Hillary will handle this one.
http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed2/idUSTRE50E3QB20090115
I will be happy to handle this...
The original poster makes a lot of valid points and should be commended for an intelligent, thoughtful post. What a breath of fresh air it would be if more people on this forum were as perceptive as the original poster.
I think he would handle it just fine...(sm)
However, I don't believe a man should be measured solely based on his ability to fight. I'll take brains over brawn any day.
Trying to get a handle (no pun intended)
on all this. The acts committed by gay couples are 'abnormal'. If those aame acts are committed by a heterosexual couple, do they become 'normal'? I mean, they don't led directly to procreation, so what's permissible? Really need to know how to plan my evening.
Wow, I guess repubs really can't handle a little
You would prefer the rovian style of of GWB & DC dishonest fearmongering to fact? O is not offering up some mushroom cloud ultimatum of do it his way or face doom. He is simply proffering that things are probably going to get worse before they get better, which is also what any reputable economist is saying. There is no quick fix for what we have allowed to happen to our country.
The truth sounds rude when put bluntly but still is the truth. nm
!!!! hahaha
I agree, all are entitled to handle grief in their own way.
It does seem that the grieving parent who chooses not to let his loss become a big public issue deserves just as much tolerance and respect as one who does. I don't think smearing or degrading any parent who's had such a loss is appropriate. We've heard for years now from families who have had losses and still support Bush and support the current war, and to my knowledge no one on the left has made a huge effort to discredit their motives or drag them through the mud or call their behavior "politically motivated." That just wouldn't be respectful and I know I would be against any such effort.
Gee that's funny READER, cuz I never saw your handle on here until the last few days. sm
So who are you Really? Why, I think you are a liar!
Guess we all handle things differently
If I were you I'd just let it go. Not worth the frustration.
Anyway...it's a beautiful weekend here (well if you call 50 degs and rainy beautiful), but it's the weekend and I'm going to enjoy it. Going to make myself a cup of hot cocoa and get warmed up. Hope you have a good weekend.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. You've said before that you're leaving, but you and your goons can't sta
For those whose brains can only handle sound byte mentality
For the rest of us, we need a little substance and certainly cannot take wild accusations with no verifiable or credible source in sight and pointless juvenile name calling too seriously on any level whatsoever.
And yes, Lynn is my name, not a handle; geesh I guess another conspiracy in the making. nm
nm
Liberal truth vs. Conservative truth.
x
Who would be silly enough to consult with him on how to handle a disaster? Nevermind, forget I asked
hearing a lot
Reporters do hear a lot. What they don't do is think a lot. A corporation, lobbyist or politican speaks, and they faithfully write it down without ever questioning the truth or intent of the information they've been given (scrunching up your brow to look like you're "asking the tough questions" doesn't count). They're the best transcriptionists in the business!
One of the reasons you are not hearing as much sm
about the Republicans, especially the current administration, is that they have been very effective at almost completely shutting up any voices of dissent. When Clinton was in office we heard about him nonstop.
I'm hearing that a lot today
I've been all over the internet today and everywhere I go I'm seeing woman who feel like McCain is being condescending to women by throwing out this nobody who is ruby red as they come and expecting to get women voters just because of it, especially Hillary followers. These women are insulted and now finally have both feet firmly on the Obama train.
I read this too after hearing that he had...sm
orchestrated the negative ads this last week, now he is saying he disapproves? Maybe this is a tactic to deflect our attention? Very suspicous. Since when does he have a consious?
Well, instead of hearing why don't you read
xx
sick of hearing he was
only 8 years old when Ayers was making bombs. I was about 8 when Charles Manson and his goons killed Sharon Tate and others. I don't feel like sending old Charley a birthday card let alone sitting in his living room or jailcell in his case.As far as I am concerned Ayers should be in jail too!
Actually, what I remember hearing about was ....sm
that it would be like our own personal savings account. I would much rather have that, than have the govt have their hands in my SS pocket, using my SS as they have been doing, and putting the IOU away in a drawer somewhere.
Not sure what his current plan is or if it has changed, but if I get to control my own SS money, I'm all for it.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/17/mccain-social-security/
There is no hearing today.
Your statement here is patently inaccurate. The SC is not taking the case. For the sake of not wasting too much time on this fairy tale, I am posting this article link that can explain that better than I can.
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/12/05/supreme-court-not-considering-obamas-birth-certificate-case/
You will notice that the article clearly states that the merits of the claims will not be heard (essentially because there are no merits).
For an excellent explanation on the Supreme courts porn king/sexually harassing above-the-law judge's motivations for his "lone wolf" move to attempt to shove this nonsense down the throats of his fellow jurists, read this:
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/83953
Here is an excellent article that discussed the underlying pathology of conspiracy theorists:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/12/05/birth_certificate/
You are mistaken about the timing of this "knowledge." Unfortunately, the citizens of this country learned of this lunacy long before the Nausea or vomiting 4 election. In fact, Berg's lawsuit emerged the minute it became apparent that Hillary was not going to win in the primaries (08/22/2008). Andy Martin's failed action occurred 10/17/2008. Steven Marquis' impotent attempt occurred on 10/18/2008. David Neal's action fell flat on its face 10/24/2008. Your delusional statement about "many people" is a fabrication that I notice you have not backed up with any sort of credible source.
There is no truth to fight for, fool. The conspiracy theorists who are the driving force behind this abomination are scam bags who are picking your pockets to keep this stupidity alive....and you are marching lock-step alongside one another and coughing up.
The rest of the stuff you have included in your post is nothing more that regurgitation of garbage that has been answered at least a thousand times already. My advice to you is not to hold your breath waiting for the SC justices to show the same sort of self-serving interest in usurping clean and legitimate election results as Clarence the porn king Thomas has in these actions. Out of 842 cases in the last 8 years, they have dismissed 782 of them and heard only 60....and not all of those heard succeeded.
If that was true then there would be no hearing
"The Supreme Court does not want to touch this with a 10 foot pole"??????
Hellooooooo, are you keeping up on current events. They are taking this case on. They are listening to the people who have the lawsuits in action. They are demanding that Barry show his original vault BC (which he has sealed so nobody can see it) and he is defying the Supreme Court.
The citizens of this country did not find out about all this stuff until the election was over, and a lot are saying if we knew this back then, we would not have voted for the guy.
It's time to wake up, just because you don't want anything to happen and want your god in there there are others who don't. Others who are fighting to find out the truth.
All they keep saying is "If you are legal and were born in Hawaii SHOW US YOUR CERTIFICATE". He has not done so and he had it (along with school records and other stuff) legally sealed. That speaks volumes in telling the public there is something seriously wrong here.
I myself will wait for the decision of the Supreme Court. BTW, just in case you haven't heard the news, they are meeting about it and listening to the cases. And if a certain number of the justices believe there is validity to it then the electorates will not be allowed to vote until the issue is resolved.
I have been hearing that O plan
of sharing the wealth will put us in the GREAT DEPRESSION just like back when Hoover was in office, exept this time, it will be worse because many more people make more than 100,000 a year than they did years ago. So basically it will be spreading the wellfare around.
I"m hearing it and why shouldn't they
get money for a bailout? Wall Street and the banks did, but WS and the banks are HOLDING ONTO the money for BONUSES, not to bail themselves out. GM and Chryler need it to KEEP JOBS.
The bailout was wrong in the first place because everyone would want money, but that's the only thing they could come up with at the time. What's done is done but I don't think we ought to keep throwing money out there. NP and Barney Fife are too free with money that's not theirs and they should be thrown out of office.
I'm tired of hearing about this.
It was brought to a vote and that is that. We come from a place where it was once taboo to be gay. You had to hide your sexual orientation. Now you can go out with your partner and live your life for all to see. I don't agree with that kind of lifestyle, but they are free to choose what kind of lifestyle they wish to live and who am I to judge. However, I feel that marriage should be defined as one man and one woman. To redefine marriage, I think, is wrong. If they want to be life partners and have a small ceremony joining them in some sort of civil union.....go ahead but marriage should be left alone as a man and a woman. I am sick and tired of redefining everything to make it politically correct so every minority group is happy. You can't make everyone happy. I personally feel that redefining marriage to include marrying anyone whether it be same or opposite sex could be confusing to children in general and I don't agree with it.
I don't have a problem with them protesting their viewpoint, but when I see them rip a cross out of an old woman's hands and stomp on the cross as she was protesting her opinion.....that is just wrong. First of all, you don't go after an old woman and secondly....she was sharing her opinion just like they were....so don't get mad at us for our opinion because we are entitled to it as well.
I'm tired of hearing about it too.
If gays want to marry, have at it. I personally don't care what they do. We had a vote in Arkansas whether to allow unmarried couples to adopt or foster children )meaning gays although it wasn't p.c. to word it exactly that way. I voted against it as did the majority. I guess it would solve the abortion issue over time. If George marries Carl and Sue marries Edith pretty soon there wouldn't be any unwanted pregnancies, in fact, no pregnancies at all. Kids imitate what they see, if they have a mother and father BOTH of whom are male or female, what do you think they are going to end up thinking is "normal." We sure don't need to redefine marriage IMHO.
Where are you hearing this mess? It's
absolutely not true. What, 1 or 2 whackjob republican electorates are nervous about it? LOL.
The BC is a NON-ISSUE, he won by a large margin, and he will be inaugurated. This has all gotten so SILLY.
They obviously are hearing voices.....
their take on the President's speech last night had some pretty funky twists......
Personally....I'm tried of hearing it from
both sides. I'm tired of the name calling from both sides. This debate is getting nowhere and yet some of you people just cannot let it go and just agree to disagree. There will never be a middle ground found on this discussion. So let's just drop it and stop all the vicious attacks.
First I'm hearing of a divorce. What's your source? And, sm
if her protesting is ending her marriage, there wasn't much there to begin with.
Bush's hearing problem.sm
THE DIAGNOSIS
Maybe it’s the newly appointed speech writer. Maybe Peter Feaver has been locked away in some windowless sub basement of the White House, without access to the outer world. Maybe he can do little more than recycle earlier speeches about the war in Iraq. Maybe he and everyone else in this administration have become trapped in a bizarre and crippling time warp. Or maybe, just maybe, it’s that George Bush is hard of hearing.
That has to be the explanation. After listening to his delirious portrayal of progress today and of victory tomorrow in war-torn Iraq, there is only one conclusion: the President of the Untied States is nothing more than a deaf man, talking.
It’s not as if anyone in this administration has ever listened with a discerning ear. Standard operating practice at the White House has been to listen only to those who furthered their agenda, and to absolutely no one else.
But this time, the man at the helm of a sinking nation has gone a bit too far. This time he has gone stone, cold, deaf.
George W. Bush and his handlers have a lengthy history of hearing problems. For more than five years, they selectively closed their ears to those who knew things they chose to ignore. For more than five years, they dismissed the advice of the experienced, and the knowledgeable. They heard nothing that was critical or challenging. They heard nothing that questioned their ill fated policies or their inaccurate conclusions. They heard nothing but their own applause.
George Bush developed a severe hearing malady early in his presidency. From day one, he turned a deaf ear to warnings that his policies were dangerous and destructive. Fortunately for the administration, the corporate media under-reported or simply ignored the advice of experts with as much disdain as the White House.
Just think about how the President absolutely and intractably refused to listen when:
Scientists warned about teaching Intelligent Design
Educators warned about serious flaws in No Child Left Behind
Environmentalists warned about pollution and global warming
Health experts warned about the dangers mercury levels
Economists warned about an inquitable tax policy
Researchers warned about cutting stem cell projects
Ecologists warned about deforestation
Engineers warned about New Orleans levees
Civil libertarians warned about the Patriot Act
AIDS organizations warned about ignoring condom education
And yet, George Bush chose to hear the words of the most extreme voices on the religious right and the most self indulgent arguments of corporate America. His selective hearing set the standard for every one of his regressive and injurious domestic policies.
No matter. George Bush was president and he knew better even without his hearing. He had the answers before the questions were ever raised. He was right. Everyone else was wrong. He had no reason to listen.
It was an outrage for the President and his henchmen to totally ignore the advice and expertise of anyone who disagreed with their self-serving agenda. It was, in effect, an irresponsible surrender to special interests and supporters who would help keep George Bush in power. But, perhaps, it was politics as usual.
Perhaps it was. Domestic policies often deteriorate into partisan food fights, regardless of the toll on the people at large.
But in the wake of 9/11, George Bush’s hearing took a far more serious turn for the worse. His festering malady became a chronic affliction. In time, his condition became more and more noticeable and more and more debilitating.
Looking back, we now can see that 9/11 was the prelude to a long planned war against Iraq, When it came to the attacks or to the march to his war, George Bush found himself unable to hear a great many voices. Once again, the media were cooperative and complicit by selectively underreporting the warnings as well.
Consequently, among the voices that went unheeded by the President were:
Intelligence sources who warned about impending attacks on US soil, using hijacked airliners
CIA insiders who warned of the increased ‘chatter’ in the summer of 2001 that signaled that something was brewing among Al Qaeda operatives
Families of 9/11 victims who demanded an independent investigation into the attacks
Intelligence reports discounting any connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda
Weapons Inspectors in Iraq who insisted there were no WMD’s, but begged for more time to complete their mission
Experts who knew the Middle East and warned that a war against Iraq would foment civil war and instability in the entire region
The major nations of the world, with the exception of the UK and the bribed coalition of the billing, who warned about the consequences of an illegal preemptive or preventive war against a non belligerent nation.
Millions of people around the world who marched in protest to the impending invasion
A bipartisan group of US Military and Diplomatic experts who warned about the recklessness of a war against the people of Iraq
The Army War College experts who warned that GW Bus was “…on a course of open-ended and gratuitous conflict with states and non-state entities that pose no serious threat to the United States.
Experienced military men such as Generals Shinzeki and Zinni, who openly criticized the poorly laid plans for invasion and the horrific management of the occupation.
Any an all voices in opposition to the Bush/PNAC dream of global domination.
Instead, George Bush listened intently to the words of his PNAC partners who had waited so patiently for the chance to invade Iraq. And yet, he listened to Ahmed Chalabi, a felon convicted of embezzling millions in absentia, who said that an invasion of Iraq would be a cake walk. Instead, he listened to people who had no clue as to the realities of war, or the cultural and tribal entanglements of the Iraqi people.
Instead, he went to war. And the war became a quagmire. And the quagmire became a nightmare. And the nightmare began to show in the polls.
And so, something had to be done. That something was another series of speeches by the President to shore up support for his war. That is why George Bush came before the American people once again to introduce a redundant and meaningless National Strategy for Victory in Iraq.
When George Bush gave the first of his scheduled speeches, his otic infirmity could no longer be hidden. Sadly, his second address to the nation simply reinforced the obvious: the President of the United States is completely and totally deaf.
No matter how he tried, there was no way to conceal it. In his effort to regain public support for his invasion and occupation of Iraq, George Bush made it perfectly clear that he was incapable of hearing anything even remotely related to reality. In order to distort his failed war policy, he turned a deaf ear to the devastation and chaos that define his war of choice. He closed off any and all warnings that a military victory in Iraq is not possible.
But, in a really bad move, he also turned a deaf ear to the American people.
The American people are asking questions, and George Bush refuses to hear them. Instead, he offers public relations sound bites to a nation that is beginning to demand the truth.
So far he has refused to give the nation any explanations about what is really happening in Iraq. So far, George Bush has refused to address:
the failure to plan for our role as occupiers in Iraq
the chaos and bloodshed that intensify every day
the lack of water and electricity for the people
the failure of any significant reconstruction
the daily kidnappings and rampant crime
the mass exodus of doctors and other professionals
the use of torture by both Americans and the new Iraqi regime.
the widespread corruption and missing billions
the terrible effects of depleted uranium
the illegal and devastating use of white phosphorus
the fundamentalist government that is now in charge
the lack of body and vehicle armor for our troops
the tens of thousands of Iraqis who died at his hand
the claim by his own man, Ayad Allawi, that things are worse in Iraq now than under Saddam.
the five billion dollars a month being spent on the war
And George Bush refused, above all, to present a cohesive and specific strategy for ending the terrible war he began.
People all across this nation wanted to know what went wrong and why. And they wanted to know how their President planned to fix it. But George Bush has closed his ears to the growing concerns of a majority of Americans. He simply refuses to hear them.
He has chosen, instead, to revert to type. He has chosen, instead, to remain deaf to facts that had been revealed about his war. He has chosen, instead, to ignore the truth about the tragic and deadly catastrophe that was the war in Iraq. He has chosen, once again, to lie.
George Bush speaks only before courteous audiences. Assured of applause at appropriate intervals, he can comfortably hold both hands over his ears and refuse to acknowledge that he had led the nation into an endless morass.
He cannot tell the truth, we know that. So he did what he does best. He lied. But, the irony of it all is that more and more Americans are on to the lies by now. Just for starters, they know that:
There is no connection whatever between the invasion of Iraq and his trumped up war on terror. And yet, George Bush opted to use the word “terror” FIFTY TIMES his first strategy speech, and continued to the same harangue in the second.
The insurgency in Iraq is composed of dozens, possibly as many as 100 cells working independently. And yet, George Bush identified only three sources of insurgent activity – and placed much of the blame on “the brutal terrorist, Zarqawi – al Qaeda’s leading operative in Iraq.”
American marines, not Iraqi security forces, led the incursion into Tal Afar. And yet, to make them appear battle-ready, George Bush gave full credit to the Iraqi security forces for leading the attack.
Former supporters of the war, such as Vietnam veteran John Murtha, are convinced that a military victory in Iraq is not possible. And yet, George Bush repeated his old, weathered war cry, “There will be no withdrawal without victory.”
General William Odom has called the war in Iraq a failure. And yet, George Bush touts the “amazing progress” of the occupation.
More than 2130 Americans and 200 coalition troops have died for his illegal and immoral war of choice, and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis are dead as well. And yet, George Bush still insists that he has “taken the fight to the terrorists,” and that his bloody war will “lay the foundation of peace for generations to come.”
Progress in Iraq cannot be measured by the number of buildings being rebuilt after being destroyed by US bombs. Instead, that is exactly what George Bush insists is so.
Progress in Iraq cannot be measured by the number of cell phones being used. And yet, that is how George Bush measures it.
Oil revenues are not going to the Iraqi people, but to foreign oil companies. And yet, George Bush claims that increased oil production was a sign of progress.
There is no definable victory possible. And yet, George Bush insists there is.
But George Bush has no clue about what the public knows. The man is as deaf as a door post. But his impairment is one of choice, not affliction. He believes he can use his hearing loss as a cover for his ineptitude and his obstinacy. In his world apart from reality, George Bush continues to believe that he can fool all of the people all of the time.
But this time, the American people are not buying it.
THE REMEDY
We are approaching day 1,000 of this outrageous war, and the mood of the nation is changing. The winds of opposition are gaining strength across the vast expanse that is America. George Bush and his PNAC handlers are pretending not to hear the calls for an end to this terrible war. But they hear it. They really do.
The turning point, of course, was triggered by Congressman John Murtha, whose opinions can no longer be countered by the usual rhetoric from the White House. Murtha spoke with the tacit encouragement of his close friends in the Pentagon who cannot speak out personally, but who fully understand the hopelessness of ‘staying the course,’ His message clearly signaled the beginning of the end.
But it won’t be easy. There will be distractions in the form of token withdrawals, and the war will go on. More people will die. The mayhem will continue. But the voices of protest will get louder and louder.
And George Bush will continue to make speeches. He will recite the words of his new speech writer with gusto and sincerity. He will continue to sell his war as if it were a product on the open market. And he will remain deaf to those who oppose and those who criticize and those who demand that the war must end.
He can do this because the voices of protest are still muted. They will only be heard if they become loud enough to penetrate the ears of the deaf man who is in charge. George Bush is the Commander in Chief. He calls the shots. He sits in the safety of the Oval Office and sends people to their death.
The tragedy is that right this minute, as he still dreams of a glorious victory in Iraq, he doesn’t hear a thing.
Maybe one day soon, before thousands more die, if their outcry is loud enough, George Bush will hear the voices of the people he once swore to serve; then again, maybe not.
Me too...I thought I had lost my hearing or..
my mind, but a while back I started to find myself agreeing with Buchanan as well. I have put a link at the top of the page that I think is explanatory of this aberration of all kinds of un-like-minded people suddenly (not really, probably more slowly over time) becoming like minded. I even agreed with Newt Gingrich the other day on a couple of points and what was even more weird, he and Biden were on Meet The Press and saying pretty much the same thing. Myabe there is a silver lining in this fiasco after all; maybe this administration will alienate so many people that we find ourselves banding TOGETHER (what a concept!!!) to try to take our country back and bring it back to the status of a knowledgeable and compassionate super power who truly have the well being of all its citizens as its first priority and who respect and appreciate our friends and allies abroad. Anyway...check it out.
I am so sick and tired of hearing...
how republicans are at fault for everything. Yes, President Bush is republican but don't we have a democrat congress? What have then done to help better things?
I'm neither republican or democrat. I always try to pick the person I feel is best for the job. However, I learned a long time ago that a politician will say almost anything to get elected. Yes, Obama has many plans, but realistically how many of these plans will actually work, be put into works if he is elected, or just a bunch of smoke he is blowing up our rear ends to get elected.
I was watching a show on TV the other night that showed politicians during an election year and one of the things consistently brought up by many was the need to decrease our dependency on oil. This went all the way back to even before Carter was president. After these politicians were elected, not one of them did anything about decreasing our dependency on oil. Politicians will bring up any subject worth bringing up during an election year to get the backing of people, but once they win.....they don't have to do half of what they promised to do.
I am hearing on the radio that it was her husband, not she...
who was the member and it was several years ago. The jury is out on that one.
Obama went to the dailykos convention and spoke to them. Does that mean he approves of the smarm on that website?
Wright said God dam* America. Obama was in his pews for 20 years. Are we to attribute that comment to Obama?
You can't have it both ways.
JM may be planning but we're not hearing about it
Every day in the news is talk of Obama's $2M party.
I am sooo sick of hearing...
that Obama will do things "because he's black." What kind of reasoning is this? Did we forget that he's just as much white as he is black? What makes him more black than he is white? Did anyone notice that he was raised in a white environment, with little contact with his father? Is he not a product of his environment? Calling this man black OR white discredits his heritage and does nothing but show the racism that is so obviously alive and well in the US!
Tax break? I have been hearing we will all be taxed.
I have been hearing on the news, what about the middle class? Well, we will be taxed.
|