You are hysterical, like there is a REASON I would have to "brown nose" someone else?....sm
Posted By: Cyndiee on 2009-02-22
In Reply to: wow, wipe your nose off, the brown is showing! - nm
No, I think for myself, thanks a lot, why don't you wipe the SMUG off your face, because it is really unattractive. If I find someone's post cogent and agree, I feel free to post, just as you feel free to make crude, crass, ignorant posts, to each his/her own.
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
LOL - that's hysterical! nm
:))))
Hysterical.
nm
That was HYSTERICAL! LOL!
Hysterical much? lol nm
nm
That is hysterical!!!
That was hysterical!
Thanks for posting the link.
That was hysterical!
Thanks for the laugh. All those who remember Bush through their rose-colored glasses - this one's for you!
OT but this lady is hysterical. sm
I found like 9 clips of her and my stomach hurts from laughing so hard.
http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2006/fruitcake-lady-p1.php
That was hysterical!! Thanks for the laugh.
Great post, loved it!
A lot of the hysterical people at McCain rallies these days are Obama plants....
b
Not if they have to pay thru the nose for
Or better yet, if the practice is stopped altogether.
Too bad we cant wiggle our nose
nm
cut off your nose to spite your face...
You better look beyond your bank account today at which you are asking for because if you get your way, you will NEVER have a bank account that is yours again. You will have nothing that will be your own. Socialism = public rather private ownership. In other words, if you have it, everyone else owns it! how's that for your bank account?
Obama and you thumb your nose at everything
nm
Get a room? Something on my nose? Simply
because I was polite to someone, chose to give one of the "nice" ones the benefit of the doubt while finding posts like yours uninformative, childish and a pure waste of keystrokes?
I agree, given the never-ending bitterness and hatefulness you have, it will all come back to bite you in the butt some day. One usually gets back what they give.
How truly sad for you...... really! pulled by a nose ring..
**
I've followed some of the cases that ACLU sticks their nose in and to know that they are somehow sm
linked to the Democratic Party scares me. I do not see how they could defend NAMBLA if they are exploiting children. It's a disgrace to say the least.
Doesn't matter.....she stuck her nose out first
xx
All bow down to the great far left. You all can't see your nose to spite
wow, wipe your nose off, the brown is showing!
Really well-said; subsidy and help is one thing, turning your nose up at....sm
honest jobs for your family and obligations is another, I guess because I came from a farming family and you did what you had to do to survive and took great pride in doing so....is all that gone with past generations?? I fear life has been way to easy and "instant" for far too many, they do not know the meaning of the word sacrifice, which was what helped bring the country out of the Great Depression. Good post!
Those kind of folks can't see past their nose....
00
Oh..........I seriously doubt that! Pulled by a nose ring!
--
King Bush thumbs his nose at the Constitution...again
House: Did President knowingly sign law that didn't pass?
RAW STORY
Published: Wednesday March 15, 2006
Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) has alleged in a letter to White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card that President Bush signed a version of the Budget Reconciliation Act that, in effect, did not pass the House of Representatives.
Further, Waxman says there is reason to believe that the Speaker of the House called President Bush before he signed the law, and alerted him that the version he was about to sign differed from the one that actually passed the House. If true, this would put the President in willful violation of the U.S. Constitution.
The full text of the letter follows:
March 15, 2006
The Honorable Andrew Card
Chief of Staff
The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. Card:
On February 8, 2006, President Bush signed into law a version of the Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 2005 that was different in substance from the version that passed the U.S. House of Representatives. Legal scholars have advised me that the substantive differences between the versions - which involve $2 billion in federal spending - mean that this bill did not meet the fundamental constitutional requirement that both Houses of Congress must pass any legislation signed into law by the President.
I am writing to learn what the President and his staff knew about this constitutional defect at the time the President signed the legislation.
Detailed background about the legislation and its constitutional defects are contained in a letter I sent last month to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, which I have enclosed with this letter.[1] In summary, the House-passed version of the legislation required the Medicare program to lease durable medical equipment, such as wheelchairs, for seniors and other beneficiaries for up to 36 months, while the version of the legislation signed by the President limited the duration of these leases to just 13 months. As the Congressional Budget Office reported, this seemingly small change from 36 months to 13 months has a disproportionately large budgetary impact, cutting Medicare outlays by $2 billion over the next five years.[2]
I understand that a call was made to the White House before the legislation was signed by the President advising the White House of the differences between the bills and seeking advice about how to proceed. My understanding is that the call was made either by the Speaker of the House to the President or by the senior staff of the Speaker to the senior staff of the President.
I would like to know whether my understanding is correct. If it is, the implications are serious.
The Presentment Clause of the U.S. Constitution states that before a bill can become law, it must be passed by both Houses of Congress.[3] When the President took the oath of office, he swore to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, which includes the Presentment Clause. If the President signed the Reconciliation Act knowing its constitutional infirmity, he would in effect be placing himself above the Constitution.
I do not raise this issue lightly. Given the gravity of the matter and the unusual circumstances surrounding the Reconciliation Act, Congress and the public need a straightforward explanation of what the President and his staff knew on February 8, when the legislation was signed into law.
Sincerely,
Henry A. Waxman Ranking Minority Member
Enclosure
[1] See Letter from Rep. Henry A. Waxman to Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (Feb. 14, 2006).
[2] See Letter from CBO Acting Director Donald Marron to Rep. John M. Spratt, Jr. (Feb. 13, 2006).
[3] U.S. Constitution, Article I, � 7.
In that case, I am truly impressed by her ability to get her nose up her own buttocks!
Maybe being a contortionist is her true calling in life!
Held my nose and watched the same O'Reilly blather
made his pathetic atempt to delcare war on the NY Times, Rasmussen, etc. This is what sore losers do when they feel themselves in freefall. O'Reilly got his drawers in an uproar because he and Focks are down in the ratings and is'nt used to the idea of being #3 behind Olbermann, Cooper et all. Poor Bill.
Grasping the straw outta that hippity-hop nose!
It's a freakin' joke! I guess religion went on a fire sale so now it's going to be hip-hop! What a pile!
This is the reason we are in Iraq and it's the same reason I didn't vote for him in 2000: Didn't
his own personal reasons.
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050620/why_george_went_to_war.php
The Downing Street memos have brought into focus an essential question: on what basis did President George W. Bush decide to invade Iraq? The memos are a government-level confirmation of what has been long believed by so many: that the administration was hell-bent on invading Iraq and was simply looking for justification, valid or not.
Despite such mounting evidence, Bush resolutely maintains total denial. In fact, when a British reporter asked the president recently about the Downing Street documents, Bush painted himself as a reluctant warrior. "Both of us didn't want to use our military," he said, answering for himself and British Prime Minister Blair. "Nobody wants to commit military into combat. It's the last option."
Yet there's evidence that Bush not only deliberately relied on false intelligence to justify an attack, but that he would have willingly used any excuse at all to invade Iraq. And that he was obsessed with the notion well before 9/11—indeed, even before he became president in early 2001.
In interviews I conducted last fall, a well-known journalist, biographer and Bush family friend who worked for a time with Bush on a ghostwritten memoir said that an Iraq war was always on Bush's brain.
"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and Houston Chronicle journalist Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said, 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He went on, 'If I have a chance to invade…, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency.'"
Bush apparently accepted a view that Herskowitz, with his long experience of writing books with top Republicans, says was a common sentiment: that no president could be considered truly successful without one military "win" under his belt. Leading Republicans had long been enthralled by the effect of the minuscule Falklands War on British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's popularity, and ridiculed Democrats such as Jimmy Carter who were reluctant to use American force. Indeed, both Reagan and Bush's father successfully prosecuted limited invasions (Grenada, Panama and the Gulf War) without miring the United States in endless conflicts.
Herskowitz's revelations illuminate Bush's personal motivation for invading Iraq and, more importantly, his general inclination to use war to advance his domestic political ends. Furthermore, they establish that this thinking predated 9/11, predated his election to the presidency and predated his appointment of leading neoconservatives who had their own, separate, more complex geopolitical rationale for supporting an invasion.
Conversations With Bush The Candidate
Herskowitz—a longtime Houston newspaper columnist—has ghostwritten or co-authored autobiographies of a broad spectrum of famous people, including Reagan adviser Michael Deaver, Mickey Mantle, Dan Rather and Nixon cabinet secretary John B. Connally. Bush's 1999 comments to Herskowitz were made over the course of as many as 20 sessions together. Eventually, campaign staffers—expressing concern about things Bush had told the author that were included in the manuscript—pulled the project, and Bush campaign officials came to Herskowitz's house and took his original tapes and notes. Bush communications director Karen Hughes then assumed responsibility for the project, which was published in highly sanitized form as A Charge to Keep.
The revelations about Bush's attitude toward Iraq emerged during two taped sessions I held with Herskowitz. These conversations covered a variety of matters, including the journalist's continued closeness with the Bush family and fondness for Bush Senior—who clearly trusted Herskowitz enough to arrange for him to pen a subsequent authorized biography of Bush's grandfather, written and published in 2003.
I conducted those interviews last fall and published an article based on them during the final heated days of the 2004 campaign. Herskowitz's taped insights were verified to the satisfaction of editors at the Houston Chronicle, yet the story failed to gain broad mainstream coverage, primarily because news organization executives expressed concern about introducing such potent news so close to the election. Editors told me they worried about a huge backlash from the White House and charges of an "October Surprise."
Debating The Timeline For War
But today, as public doubts over the Iraq invasion grow, and with the Downing Street papers adding substance to those doubts, the Herskowitz interviews assume singular importance by providing profound insight into what motivated Bush—personally—in the days and weeks following 9/11. Those interviews introduce us to a George W. Bush, who, until 9/11, had no means for becoming "a great president"—because he had no easy path to war. Once handed the national tragedy of 9/11, Bush realized that the Afghanistan campaign and the covert war against terrorist organizations would not satisfy his ambitions for greatness. Thus, Bush shifted focus from Al Qaeda, perpetrator of the attacks on New York and Washington. Instead, he concentrated on ensuring his place in American history by going after a globally reviled and easily targeted state run by a ruthless dictator.
The Herskowitz interviews add an important dimension to our understanding of this presidency, especially in combination with further evidence that Bush's focus on Iraq was motivated by something other than credible intelligence. In their published accounts of the period between 9/11 and the March 2003 invasion, former White House Counterterrorism Coordinator Richard Clarke and journalist Bob Woodward both describe a president single-mindedly obsessed with Iraq. The first anecdote takes place the day after the World Trade Center collapsed, in the Situation Room of the White House. The witness is Richard Clarke, and the situation is captured in his book, Against All Enemies.
On September 12th, I left the Video Conferencing Center and there, wandering alone around the Situation Room, was the President. He looked like he wanted something to do. He grabbed a few of us and closed the door to the conference room. "Look," he told us, "I know you have a lot to do and all…but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way…"
I was once again taken aback, incredulous, and it showed. "But, Mr. President, Al Qaeda did this."
"I know, I know, but…see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred…" …
"Look into Iraq, Saddam," the President said testily and left us. Lisa Gordon-Hagerty stared after him with her mouth hanging open.
Similarly, Bob Woodward, in a CBS News 60 Minutes interview about his book, Bush At War, captures a moment, on November 21, 2001, where the president expresses an acute sense of urgency that it is time to secretly plan the war with Iraq. Again, we know there was nothing in the way of credible intelligence to precipitate the president's actions.
Woodward: "President Bush, after a National Security Council meeting, takes Don Rumsfeld aside, collars him physically and takes him into a little cubbyhole room and closes the door and says, 'What have you got in terms of plans for Iraq? What is the status of the war plan? I want you to get on it. I want you to keep it secret.'"
Wallace (voiceover): Woodward says immediately after that, Rumsfeld told Gen. Tommy Franks to develop a war plan to invade Iraq and remove Saddam—and that Rumsfeld gave Franks a blank check.
Woodward: "Rumsfeld and Franks work out a deal essentially where Franks can spend any money he needs. And so he starts building runways and pipelines and doing all the necessary preparations in Kuwait specifically to make war possible."
Bush wanted a war so that he could build the political capital necessary to achieve his domestic agenda and become, in his mind, "a great president." Blair and the members of his cabinet, unaware of the Herskowitz conversations, placed Bush's decision to mount an invasion in or about July of 2002. But for Bush, the question that summer was not whether, it was only how and when. The most important question, why, was left for later.
Eventually, there would be a succession of answers to that question: weapons of mass destruction, links to Al Qaeda, the promotion of democracy, the domino theory of the Middle East. But none of them have been as convincing as the reason George W. Bush gave way back in the summer of 1999.
As long as US keeps sticking it's nose into Middle East politics
their puppet of destabilization, these unfortunate incidents will continue unabated. The oil belongs to them. It's our problem, not theirs.
Yep - thumb your nose at the world and defy the Geneva Convention
that ought to protect our troops to a great degree, huh? No different than Saddam. Do what you want in the name of "protecting" the "homeland." BS
nm and you thumb your nose at everying - common sense - killing this country.nm
@
New reason
Bush gives new reason for Iraq war
Says US must prevent oil fields from falling into hands of terrorists
By Jennifer Loven, Associated Press | August 31, 2005
CORONADO, Calif. -- President Bush answered growing antiwar protests
yesterday with a fresh reason for US troops to continue fighting in
Iraq: protection of the country's vast oil fields, which he said
would otherwise fall under the control of terrorist extremists.
The president, standing against a backdrop of the USS Ronald Reagan,
the newest aircraft carrier in the Navy's fleet, said terrorists
would be denied their goal of making Iraq a base from which to
recruit followers, train them, and finance attacks.
''We will defeat the terrorists, Bush said. ''We will build a free
Iraq that will fight terrorists instead of giving them aid and
sanctuary.
Appearing at Naval Air Station North Island to commemorate the
anniversary of the Allies' World War II victory over Japan, Bush
compared his resolve to President Franklin D. Roosevelt's in the
1940s and said America's mission in Iraq is to turn it into a
democratic ally just as the United States did with Japan after its
1945 surrender. Bush's V-J Day ceremony did not fall on the actual
anniversary. Japan announced its surrender on Aug. 15, 1945 -- Aug.
14 in the United States because of the time difference.
Democrats said Bush's leadership falls far short of Roosevelt's.
''Democratic Presidents Roosevelt and Truman led America to victory
in World War II because they laid out a clear plan for success to the
American people, America's allies, and America's troops, said Howard
Dean, Democratic Party chairman. ''President Bush has failed to put
together a plan, so despite the bravery and sacrifice of our troops,
we are not making the progress that we should be in Iraq. The troops,
our allies, and the American people deserve better leadership from
our commander in chief.
The speech was Bush's third in just over a week defending his Iraq
policies, as the White House scrambles to counter growing public
concern about the war. But the devastation wrought by Hurricane
Katrina in the Gulf Coast drew attention away; the White House
announced during the president's remarks that he was cutting his
August vacation short to return to Washington, D.C., to oversee the
federal response effort.
After the speech, Bush hurried back to Texas ahead of schedule to
prepare to fly back to the nation's capital today. He was to return
to the White House on Friday, after spending more than four weeks
operating from his ranch in Crawford.
Bush's August break has been marked by problems in Iraq.
It has been an especially deadly month there for US troops, with the
number of those who have died since the invasion of Iraq in March
2003 now nearing 1,900.
The growing death toll has become a regular feature of the slightly
larger protests that Bush now encounters everywhere he goes -- a
movement boosted by a vigil set up in a field down the road from the
president's ranch by a mother grieving the loss of her soldier son in
Iraq.
Cindy Sheehan arrived in Crawford only days after Bush did, asking
for a meeting so he could explain why her son and others are dying in
Iraq. The White House refused, and Sheehan's camp turned into a hub
of activity for hundreds of activists around the country demanding
that troops be brought home.
This week, the administration also had to defend the proposed
constitution produced in Iraq at US urging. Critics fear the impact
of its rejection by many Sunnis, and say it fails to protect
religious freedom and women's rights.
At the naval base, Bush declared, ''We will not rest until victory is
America's and our freedom is secure from Al Qaeda and its forces in
Iraq led by Abu Musab alZarqawi.
''If Zarqawi and [Osama] bin Laden gain control of Iraq, they would
create a new training ground for future terrorist attacks, Bush
said. ''They'd seize oil fields to fund their ambitions. They could
recruit more terrorists by claiming a historic victory over the
United States and our coalition.
The reason
Like GT so eloquently wrote below, she has nothing to do with my request that you leave our board. The only person who has anything to do with it is YOU.
You and every single one of your *friends* are rude, crude, abrasive, insulting, and continually lie, lie, LIE. You are the kind of people I would choose NOT to associate with in real life because you have no values and you have a gang mentality, but most of all, you're just deplorable human beings, as you yourselves have demonstrated through your posts.
You have your own board. Would you please just go back there? You are offensive to many on this board. This is the liberal board. You clearly don't belong here any more than I don't belong on your board, where you and you *friends* indeed constantly gang up on anyone who disagrees with you. If that's how you want to conduct yourselves on your own board, that's fine. It's your board, and if you choose to turn it into a filthy sewer, that's your option. But you don't have the right do that on the liberal board. I'm very close to writing to the administrator and complaining about you all before I leave, as well. You don't contribute anything of value to this board, and all you morons do is chase kind, loving and intelligent people away.
As GT says in her posts, you are clearly obsessed with her, and I don't understand why, but you're becoming psychotic about it, and you're showing that psychosis to anyone who reads this board. You paint her to be a terrible person, and from what I read in her posts, she is NOT a terrible person. She is loving and caring and intelligent..all traits that not ONE of you posseses. You are way out of your limited ignorant hateful league on this board. Please. JUST GO AWAY.
There's no other reason.
All they want to do is start trouble. Ignore the gnats.
The reason for this. sm
and something that is not in this short article is the language of the bill and the loopholes it leaves open. I have no doubt at all that the NRA would back terrorists or suspected terrorists from getting guns. However, this bill is badly written and needs to be revised to leave no loopholes for further legislation not included in the bill, which often happens.
This is one BIG reason why
I don't want government involved in my health care. The VA is a joke and our veterans do not get the care that they need and deserve. If heroes like that aren't taken care of by our government....what in the he11 makes us think that the government will take care of us? 
You are the reason I put it in here, to
see just how much it would bother you. Knew you would make a fool of yourself again and give us all another good laugh for the day. It's just another name to me, could be Tom Thumb as far as I care.
I am sorry that is the only reason you
want Obama to win this election. I am afraid you are in for a rude awakening, my child! No need for rubbing in my face, I can easily live it, I have a higher power on my side! As stated earlier, I have a life outside this election, I only wish the same for you.
Here's another possible reason:
Maybe people who are struggling to afford healthcare, fill up their gas tanks and feed their families just happen to agree with his VIEWS on the issues. 
This is the reason
We have always felt O was wrong for the position. We have been discussing what his policies will mean to the country. His lack of knowledge, his plans are bad for the country and will not keep us safe, his redistribution of wealth and how that will not help the economy and will put us into a depression. It will now mean there will no longer be a middle income anymore. Those middle income will now be among the low income and the downright poor will now also join the low income. So we've tried discussing O and his plans/issues. Nobody wanted to listen. They are just too he!!-bent on hating Bush with such abhorrence they won't listen to reason. O tells people he's going to give them all this stuff for free and people believe it. We've tried pointing out his character flaws and who he keeps for company - Ayers, Wright, Farrahkan, etc. Only after he hears an outcry from some he decides to say, oh yeah, I don't agree with him, he just happened to be someone in my neighborhood which is an outright lie, but people just hate Bush/Cheney so much they won't see past his lies.
I think we all have a feeling O will win, unless a miracle happens (and they can - we can all hope and pray), but a lot do not know what it is like to live in a socialist country. Where what you work for his taken away from you without your consent and given to others who like most are now saying they will quit and just get the handouts O is promising.
We are trying to expose O for what he truly is. His followers do not seem to care that he sat through 20 years of Wright's hateful anti-American sermons twice a month for the past 20 years and never got up and walked out of any of them. His followers do not seem to care that he will blantantly change the constitution just so he can be elected. His followers do not seem to care that the people who gave him his start in politics are Ayers. While you all choose to believe he was "just a guy in my neighborhood". His followers do not seem to care that he is accepting money from countries like Libya and our other enemies - the same ones who are trying to destroy us and wipe us off the planet as a nation unless we convert to Islam. There are so many reasons we are so appalled that this character slimed his way up and stole the election from Hillary. As election day comes closer we are ever more worried that that O could get in. We will hope and pray he doesn't but the thought of what will happen to our country. Everything our country was based on and evertything our founding fathers went through to make this a great country will be lost forever. But that is okay for his followers. After all Farrakan said he is the messiah, so most of his followers must be Farrakan supporters too. It's a very sad time to see how many of O's followers want to live in socialism, how many of you do not care if the country is safe, how many don't care that they are have re-education camps to throw those who do not think like them in and if they cannot be re-educated they will be eliminated. It's frightening to think many who support him will most likely be like those in Germany who turned in people who didn't agree with the Fuhrer. I just don't want to live in a country like that, but many do say "History will repeat itself".
For some reason......
they didn't want to give you that loan. Refusal because of $11? Sounds like an excuse to me. Our lender (who also sold us the property) even lied about how much we put down..........
The only reason I have
ever called you a kool-aid drinker is because you constantly post about rhetoric. When will you wake up and realize that even democrat politicians say one thing and do another. You can't get much more obvious about than the Obama administration and yet you continue to sing his praise. You are blinded by your own political party.
Obama...the man who said he would sign no bill with pork in it and then did without batting an eyelash.
The man who said he would pull troops out of Iraq and has extended the time frame to keep troops in Iraq longer and to deploy more in Afghan. He ridiculed McCain for not wanting a time line but I guess a time line is okay as long as you can push it back whenever you feel the need, huh?
A man who promised tax cuts on 95% of the American people and yet he wants cap and trade which will tax everyone A LOT.
Gay rights activists sing his praise and yet Obama himself isn't for same sex marriage.
He wants people to have the right to choose to carry a child or abort it and yet he takes the rights away from hospitals and doctors by not allowing them to refuse to perform that procedure. You complain about taking the rights away from people but yet you have no problem taking rights away from people with a different view point than yourself.
Yet all you ever come back with is that we are a bunch of babies who need to grow some balls and how ignorant we are for watching Fox News even though Fox has higher ratings than the crap you watch.
The channels you profess to tell the truth aren't even covering the tea parties. I personally feel that thousands and thousands of Americans protesting is a big deal and should be reported on whether or not a channel agrees with the reason behind it. Picking and choosing what to report is not telling the truth. It is being very one sided. Any open minded person would realize that.
Reason
Can you demonsrate that the health of those without healthcare coverage is better or equal to that of those who have healthcare coverage?
I see no reason why
marriage would not still be limited to two people (of whatever flavor) at a time. Bygamy would still be bygamy.
You're right. Think what men with half a dozen legal wives and a couple of dozen kids could do to any medical plan, let alone our system for deducting dependents from income tax.
On the other hand, I have a same-sex housemate who is disabled, unemployed and uninsured. We are not gay, but if same-sex marriage were legal, I could marry her and get her insured under my plan. Many marriages involve no sex. Maybe they didn't start out that way but over time they evolve in that direction. We would simply be skipping the honeymoon part.
There is a reason for this......
Less natives of these countries are having children because they are paying such high taxes to let others live off the system, they can't afford to have more children.
Same in the U.S.
Here is a possible reason why.....
Because the smart people have seen through Obama and the rest of the Dems from the get-go and don't want more of what we have now. If you want to win bad enough, you will use any means available, legal or illegal. But then that is JMO.
the reason they are making
the reason they are making a big deal about the drilling about to happen in alaska is because tyhey think that it is going to interuppt the migration of one of the biggest elk herds in all of alaska, and because if it did, that would not only kill the animals, but a local tribe depends on that herd for food........lol.another contradiction in their thinking.
i personalluy believe that the drilling there is going to be a huge step towards our energy independence.because it will provide over 3 million barrels of oil for over thirty years.wich is ten percent of what we would have used...............
Maybe Fox News is #1 for a reason
Could it be that Americans are more conservative than liberal? I mean, I doubt liberal Americans are tuning in to Fox for shock value. I personally believe Fox News is pretty balanced. Yes, it may lean more conservative, but they always equal out their guests on many of the shows such as Neil Cavuto, Shepherd Smith, Hannity and Colmes. There is balance there. Maybe conservative guests come off as getting more air because they are better debators and not always spouting talking points like the liberals do. If one liberal says some phrase at 8:00 in the morning on the Today Show in reply to a topic then you could almost bet that Democratic pundits will spout the same line the rest of the day. I've even heard talk show hosts do montages of multiple Democratic pundits within a 24-hour period, and it's scary how they all say the exact same thing. If you remember Pee-Wee's Playhouse where he had a word of the day. Democrats seem to have a word of the day too. I'm not saying that Republicans don't do that too at times, but it seems much more prevalent with Democrats.
Did I say that was the only reason to vote for someone or not...
don't believe I did. I did not mention voting at all. Just saying that the two things together might give someone cause to think.
Actually, his church affiliation and the doctrine it puts forth worries me a lot more than his patriotism or the lack thereof.
You have a good day now!
I agree, and for the same reason...there are some...
"sick tickets" out there. But I am sure the Secret Service is taking extra precautions; they would have to. I would like to think that people in this country have evolved beyond that, but I can't say I am assured of it, and it only takes a handful of radicals to pull off bad things...we should know that from Oklahoma City and 9-11.
I would not wish that on ANYone, of course. And I hope that he will be vigilant and listen to the Secret Service. JFK didn't, and he paid dearly for that.
If he is elected I will be holding him up in prayer as I always do for the President, any President. I do not wish the man ANY ill. I just do not think he is right for the job.
Is there a particular reason you used his full name ... sm
Making sure you put the Hussein part in, when I have never seen you address him that way before. Yes, it is his full name but some people (are you included?) love to add that in just to make people think he is Muslim or make references to it.
Not saying that was your intention but it smells kind of fishy.
|
