yeah, i caught that too.

• What a disappointment - me/Kaydie
  • I said the exact same thing - Me to a tee!
  • I'm sorry - gourdpainter
    • Even "that guy" . . . - sm
      • It probably wasn't the best thing - Chele
        • I didn't miss the point - I have been a McCain supporter - me/Kaydie
        • If you thought it was funny, I see why you are a fan - nm
          • I didn't think it was funny - gourdpainter
            • barely controlled temper - sm
              • Wrong on both accounts. - TskTsk
              • It wasn't condescending, and the man in front of him was nodding... - sam
              • I took him to mean that - Chele
                • I think it was condescending - gourdpainter
                  • Of course you did.... - Chele
                    • One thing you say is correct s/m - gourdpainter
              • McCain leaving the hall - gourdpainter
                • That "my friends" phrase, so oft-repeated, made him - sound like a snake-oil salesman. - nm
                  • And Obama's constant 'uh...uh...look...uh...uh..you know..uh...uh' makes him look like a EE - revwrong
                    • ...EEDJIT! - revwrong
  • There are other choices. I find Obama and McCain equally offensive, so I am voting for Ralph Nader. - anon
    • Ralph Nader - gourdpainter
      • Let's face it, he stands no chance of winning. However, with the - anon
        • tell me a bit about him - ?
          • Each candidate has to have a - Chele
            • Here are some other parties and their candidates. - Chele
              • While this is true - gourdpainter
                • We have talked about this before - Chele
                  • And that is exactly what can happen - gourdpainter
          • Here is a link to a page regarding his take on the issues. - anon
          • There in lies the problem - gourdpainter
            • Exactly right. It is a duopoly. sm - LVMT
              • Basically we do only have 2 choices s/m - gourdpainter
                • I agree with doing away with the electoral college.... - sam
                • My question is why - Chele
                  • You have to look at who owns the media. sm - LVMT
                  • They only cover 2 candidates because - gourdpainter
  • Old man - sm
    • Thank you, Superficial Sally! - revwrong
    • I was wondering about that myself.... nm - BacktotheFuture
    • rude you are. Calling - sm
      • If he's a man, and he's old, what else would - you call him? "Antique homo sapiens?" -nm
        • and you work with words all day? sad. - nm
  • well i too - sm
    • what substance - wowzer
      • That's because you don't want to...NM - Nanaw
    • I wish there was a rule that the candidates HAVE TO - answere the questions, not - (sm)
    • Well said. - Chele
      • also disappointed - dnh
        • What sitting president doesn't run for a second term? nm - Much ado about nothing
          • he isn't a sitting president - dnh
            • That's nitpicking - gourdpainter
        • yeah, i caught that too. - nm
        • no kidding! - nm

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

Biden caught in a lie

little dig there.  I got that you were saying that Obama is ahead but his being black will doom him.  I didn't miss your sneaky way of signalling your fellow Rothschilds.

How's this for abuse of power? 

While in the Illinois State Senate, Barack Obama sure seems to have played footloose and fancy free with the taxpayer's money, to the benefit of his own circle of family and friends. 

A $25,000 grant to his first cousin.

$100,000 for a garden for one of his campaign workers   

$100,000 for Father Pflager to badmouth Hillary Clinton from his pulpit.

$75,000 to FORUM, a group who helped Obama pay off the debt from his failed 2000 Senate race.

Yeah, THIS is the guy I'm going to trust with 'changing' the way government does business. 

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=6BA619B2-88A2-4245-8617-AA0A07F47068

He finally said the words "SPREAD THE WEALTH" when asked by a plumber about raising his taxes.  THe plumber told him he could not afford to have his taxes raised because that would keep him from being able to expand his business, EMPLOY more folks, etc.  Obama told him yes he would but ONLY to help "spread the wealth" and make it fairer for others.  That man couldn't care less about small businesses.  If that isn't about the most ignorant/self-absorbed/SOCIALIST thing I have ever heard.  Anyone who still thinks he's a good deal needs a reality check. 

Even the Wall Street Journal says his policies are going to put businesses OUT OF BUSINESS because they cannot afford these ridiculous policy mandates.  This man is looking out for only one people and definitely NOT the country.   Now, he is going back and asking his "advisors" to REDO ANOTHER ECONOMIC POLICY so the one everyone is jumping on as WONDERFUL NEWS...be advised, it is changing again!!!

He is now wanting MORE money to give to MORE people so we can keep MORE PEOPLE on the welfare roll.  KEEP IT UP BUDDY.....SOCIALISM, SOCIALISM, SOCIALISM!!

Hey, kids! Do you ever get tired of Fox News' crops? I don't mean the food
they might be literally growing, in Glenn Beck's Doom Room, in preparation for
Imminent Socialist Panic. I'm talking about the way they manipulate video to
make it look like people are just straight up saying the opposite thing they
actually said. Well, it's been bothering the media critics at Media Matters For
America for some time, and they have, for a long time, been cataloging "examples
of Fox News hosts and correspondents cropping comments by progressives and
Democratic political figures in a manner that misrepresents them." A new mash-up
video offers some side-by-side examples of what they're talking about.

Some constructive criticism? I think the third example -- Obama's "empathy"
criteria for Supreme Court justice -- isn't the best example of a Fox cropping.
While it's certainly true that Major Garrett's statement, "That aggravates those
who feel that justices should follow the Constitution and legislative intent,"
seems to neatly ignore the fact that Obama's next statement was "I will seek
someone who is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our Constitutional
traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process, and the
appropriate limits of the judicial role," the fact is, just about every news
organization honed in on the "empathy" part of the statement. It became the
sound bite from that press exchange.

In a more lengthy report, however, Media Matters has other candidates that
are fitting examples of these games with videotape, well worth reviewing. Key
examples include Sean Hannity's intentional omission of Obama's admonishment of
Europeans' "casual...insidious" anti-Americanism to make it look like Obama was
apologizing for the United States, and Wendell Goler's splice-happy report that
made it look like Obama was in favor of "European-style health care," when he
was actually specifically opposing it. Also close to my heart is Fox's
misleading insertion of an out-of-context Joe Biden clip into a report, for
which the network eventually had to apologize. At the time, I opined:

It's very sad, and weird, because Fox News would have made their point just
fine if they hadn't included the misleading part of this clip. All they've
really done is demonstrate that they do not have enough faith in their own
editorial premises to avoid bolstering them with falsehoods. But more to the
point, whoever is responsible for putting this video together needs to accept a
new prevailing reality, that stupid little lies like this will be debunked and
exposed very quickly, so they may as well just cut out this nonsense
entirely.

Yet they persist!

That's exactly what I said.  Scarborough has always supported Bush.  There is a difference between supporting and blindly following.  For example, you see nothing wrong with how this case was handled.  You see nothing wrong with Bush lying every time he opens his mouth.  That's blind faith.

Scarborough is an objective Republican who believes in honesty.  I realize this is a difficult concept for some CONS to understand.  Once upon a time, honesty was considered a good thing in the United States.  People who were honest were considered to have moral character and integrity.  Scarborough is one of those rare of Republicans, totally foreign to you, I'm sure.

To blindly follow (which I'm sure you're quite familiar with) means worshiping a man as if he's some kind of god, believing every single word he says, even when you see evidence to the contrary right before your eyes.   He lies every day; those who follow blindly believe him every day.  And when it becomes common knowledge that he's lied and when they can't twist and manipulate the lie out of recognition any more, then his blind followers make excuses for him, usually blaming democrats or anyone else who is handy but never blaming the liar himself.  And they justify all the lying because they have that special *connection* with God.  They can lie all they want and God just winks at them and says it's okay because their place in heaven has already been guaranteed, unlike the rest of us poor slobs out there without that special connection.

The only thing that scares me more than Bush having the same credibility as Al Qaeda is the fact that there are so many morons who blindly follow him, who just aren't smart enough to figure out that Bush was never on their side - he's only on the side of big money.  He even joked about his *base* - the *haves* and the *have nots.*

By the way, you are on the liberal board.  If you don't care for the liberal point of view, the CON board is ---->

I was responding to this:  *And know a lot PK. I know A LOT about your posting habits more than you could ever imagine.*  I was accused of doing something I simply didn't do, so that just shows me how much you people really DO know, and, yes, I can *imagine* a LOT when faced with this kind of ominous post. 

Those of your ilk have dark histories of murdering people of different beliefs (for example, personnel at abortion clinics), and the latest tactic of the Neocons is intimidation and retribution.  Just ask Valerie Plame, who used to have a career before her husband spoke the truth.

If someone said that to you on your board, you'd be accusing them of threatening to assassinate you and contacting the FBI.  Who are you KIDDING?  Typical neocon double standard and hypocrisy at work again. 

but the point is, the far left hates Cheney as much or more than Bush, so impeach Bush, get Cheney, then what?  Impeach Cheney?  Then you get Hastert. I know the far left doesn't like him. Impeach him and get Ted Stevens.  He's a Republican, too.  (President pro tempore of the Senate).  Impeach him and get...Condi Rice...if she isn't buying shoes.  What have you gained. Absolutely nothing. Well...maybe some payback for Clinton, which is what this is all about anyway.  Why not just wait until 2008 and vote the bums out.