your post explains why you didn't think it was funny

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

Does anyone else have this happen as well? It says it posted successfully, & doesn't show up. Just curious.

showing that Bush tried to regulate the industry as far back as 2001, but the dems would have none of it....those most opposed were all on the "take"; i.e., getting thousands of dollars in contributions from FM/FM.....or don't you believe it even when it comes from their own mouths?

I don't feel the need to make the choice. It's a child, not a choice. n/t

My math isn't wrong. Gov. Blago+Mrs. Blago (real estate agent, or did you forget?)+Rezko=Obama. Can I make it any clearer?

reply that I think got deleted.......not unjustly. It was dripping in sarcasm. LOL I believe the article it is on Yahoo news though, my husband said something about it. I didn't post a link to it, probably someone else.

We can all agree to disagree. What I would like for everyone to do is research the facts for themselves. I've always felt like you can belive nothing you hear and only half of what you see.

I'm not against immigration and I don't think Lou Dobbs is either. I'm all for LEGAL immigration. I even researched Mexico's immigration requirements and that ought to be an eye-opener for anyone who wants to compare immigration policies. I am dead set against ILLEGAL immigration. What I don't understand is what about ILLEGAL do people not underestand. AND both Obama and McCain are in favor of giving people who have broken the law a "path to citizenship" translated means amnesty. That didn't work too well under Reagan and it won't work now which is one thing I have against both candidates because the path to citizenship is one thing they agree on but you don't hear either one of them talking about it. That's an issue to me. No need to worry about terrorists when our borders are wide open and terrorists could stroll right on across our borders any time they so desired and neither NEITHER of these candidates have anything to say about that. Why? I'll tell ya, they both don't want to offend the Latino vote and I don't think they care whether the voters are legal or not.

Sorry, but I haven't been able to post lately due to some problems, but the FOIA report I posted and said to pay attention to certain pages....Clinton KNEW there were WMD's in Irag in 1996! Did he do anything? Nope. He left the country he was visiting right before a bombing; i.e., he knew it was going to happen. The jist I got of the report was that he knew and did nothing.

Did you read that report? Don't want to dredge up old presidents but you seem to do it every chance you get, so I just have to respond to that. Bush also knew but did nothing because the CIA,DOJ, FBI and whatever other departments were to keep him informed but never worked together on anything so he got conflicting reports all the time. Was he a mind reader? Doubt it or 911 would not have happened.

God created homosexuals to offset the out of control breeding of religious fanatics who don't believe in contraception because they think it's against God's will. Maybe that's one of the meanings of God giveth and taketh away.

Considering our overpopulated planet, just as you said, seems to me God should think about creating a few more homosexuals!

My DIL is a steward in that union and she believes O can do no wrong. I haven't seen her since before the election because I posted different things about the coming election and she doesn't believe any of it.

It's called freedom of speech and freedom to believe in a candidate. That's fine with me, but she doesn't have to stay away because her candidate won. Although I don't believe O has the experience and/or the gumption to put the congress and senate in their place, I am still hoping...but so far, it's not looking good.

I did know that he ran for president initially because as he said, "God told me to." Other than that, there have been several references to him being over the top when it comes to religion, but this is a new one for me.

Here is a link to the actual article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/22/how-obama-ended-up-on-and_n_103132.html

It's an argument Sen. Hillary Clinton has made countless times. Asked why the unofficial results of the Michigan primary should be considered legitimate, even though Sen. Barack Obama's name wasn't on the ballot, the New York Democrat usually shoots back: "Well, that was his choice."

And it's true. Obama, in addition to three other Democratic candidates, made the decision in early October 2007 to not compete in a Michigan primary that the Democratic National Committee deemed in violation of the rules.

But there is another facet to the story that -- while it doesn't change the basic facts -- adds a ripple to the debate surrounding who is to blame for Michigan's quandary.

Obama never actually put his name on the ballot.

He didn't submit paper work or gather signatures so that he could compete. Rather his name, in addition to those of his primary opponents, was submitted by Michigan's Democratic Party in accordance with state law.

"This was a standard procedure," said an official with the state's Democratic Party, "all the Democratic nominees that had declared for the race were put on the ballot after we sent their names to the Secretary of State."

Ultimately, Obama chose to remove his name just prior to the deadline to do so. And his decision, political observers say, was likely driven by a desire to appeal to Iowa voters (who were angered that Michigan had moved its primary up in the calendar) as well as the conclusion that he simply could not beat Clinton.

But the argument over what role he played in undermining the Michigan primary -- and whether or not his motives were purely political self-interest or respect for the DNC -- is muddled by the fact that it wasn't technically his choice to participate in the first place.

Clinton, for instance, has argued that, "There was no rule or requirement that he take his name off the ballot." This statement, while true, glosses over the path that led Obama to ultimately remove his name. Indeed, when the Democratic candidates were submitted it was already well known that Michigan's accelerated primary would have difficultly getting sanctioned.

"Did Obama take overt action in the beginning to put his name on the ballot and then take it off? No," said Bill Ballenger, Editor and publisher of Inside Michigan Politics. "It was put on the ballot by the higher ups... At the time, everybody knew that what Michigan was doing [with its primary] was in defiance of DNC rules."

Weeks after his name was submitted without his consent or objection, Obama personally signed an affidavit removing him from the primary slate. According to Ballenger, the senator could not have done the same thing in Florida -- the other state whose primary was unofficial -- as there was no state law there that allowed a candidate to remove his or her name.

After that, there were still political options available to Michigan legislators for running a full and successful primary. In the weeks after Obama, John Edwards, Joseph Biden and Bill Richardson removed their names, state Democrats attempted amending a law in order to restore their candidacies on the ballot. That effort, however, died in the Republican-controlled state senate. Weeks later a November 15th deadline loomed for either or both state party chairman to go to the legislature and ask for the Michigan primary to be disregarded and rescheduled.

"There was a clause in the law that said that if both party leaders believed that the primary had become meaningless, and said look, this is ridiculous, this is a farce, they could have canceled it," said Ballenger. "There was a big crisis meeting among Democrats - there was a big rankle over whether the Democrats would throw in the towel. And they said, no, we are going to go ahead with it."

Fast forward half a year and Michigan and the Democratic Party as a whole still are unsure as to what to do about the primary results. On a conference call Thursday morning, Clinton's senior adviser Harold Ickes said that the campaign wanted the state's 55 "uncommitted" delegates -- which seemed likely to end up with Obama -- to go to the convention without commitments. It is a position reflective of the belief that because Obama did not participate in the primary it is impossible and unfair to determine his level of support.

But such a resolution, which will become clearer during the May 31 Rules and Bylaws Committee hearing, seems unlikely. As Debbie Dingell, a Michigan DNC member who has been heavily involved in finding a solution to the primary process, told the Huffington Post: "our group of four is not arguing for that."