If Sean Hannity, or Rush Limbaugh, saw them and said they exist....I'd trust them because they have ZERO interest in saying otherwise.That is of the funniest and saddest things I have read here.

Bush had his out (both of them).....Clinton had his out.....

The best advocate for anything...is from someone NOT friendly to them.

Do you trust snopes?
snopes.com: Barack Obama Birth Certificate (http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp)

Even if President Obama had not been born in this country, he would still be a citizen because his mother was. That is U.S. law.

Do you trust snopes?
snopes.com: Barack Obama Birth Certificate (http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp)

Even if President Obama had not been born in this country, he would still be a citizen because his mother was. That is U.S. law.

No... because I've proven snopes to be inacurate in at least one situation in the past. (no I forget what... I do have a life after all) And they have a very clear Pro-Obama bias. They aren't even pretending to take a neutral stance.


And because regardless of what THEY may post on that website... No independent or Republican has vouched as to actually having seen the document in question I trust. Just saying they accept he has one is proof of nothing... they never saw it. You have to produce your drivers license if you get pulled over by the Police... your word you have one isn't enough.

Not saying it doesn't exist... but if nobody has seen it or any of his other records... WHY should everyone trust his word on it... he is far from trustworthy. His list of broken promisses would fill a book and it continues to grow daily.

He did keep one... he wanted to "Spread the wealth around" and he is going to steal even more from those who work hardest, to give to those that work the least. Like a true Trotsky follower. No wonder businesses are loath to hire people or make investments so he can take even more.

After all, again... why the great secrecy behind nearly everything in his past.

The man would never qualify for a legitimate low level security clearance with his known background much less a high level one. And yeah... I do know more than a little about THAt topic.

snopes...they have a very clear Pro-Obama bias. They aren't even pretending to take a neutral stance.
How so?

How so?

Its clearly noticeable to anyopne that doesn't get a shiver up their leg in his presence like several main stream media types publicly commented on in the past.

Oh, they DO make an attempt to appear more neutral, unlike CBS... but it does still show through. I'll give them credit for making that attempt.


Its all about the words chosen, and how they are used... nuances in other words.

Its subtle... but not overt in their case. Katie Couric on the other hand is almost pornographic in her obvios love for the man. Compare it to how she treated Sarah Palin... and what words she uses... and what she choses to ignore.

And yeah... the news writers share in that blame. News anchors rarely ever write their own stories.

Its clearly noticible to anyopne that doesn't get a shiver up their leg in his presence like several main stream media types publically commented on in the past.
Can you provide any facts instead of opinion?

Wow! Whom do you trust, smoothy?

Can you provide any facts instead of opinion?

Look up accusation at Bush... look up accusations at Obama... on their site.

They are less lovey dovey with Bush than they were for Obama...

Simple cases of Nuances of the english language... its not about actual words... but context and nuances which change the meaning of those words.

I don't like the guy... I don't pretend to be neutral on the topic... if I did you would still see through it... THIS is the case here. If someone took an honest poll over at Snoopes. They would be overwelmingly Democrat in affiliation. They DO try to be honest and neutral... unlike CBS news... but Bias is bias, and it does show through.

Wow! Whom do you trust, smoothy?Based on what I have actually seen the last 25 years... and what I've seen reported later? I have actually seen more than a few news events with my own eyes... before reporters twisted reality with their words.

In case you saw my comment on 'Ignorance is bliss" in the Our President thread... it has everything to do with this. Just because you see it on the evening news... doesn't mean that's exactly what really happened. What you see is what they want you to believe happened. They rarely are exactly the same, and many times very different. After all, how many people really saw what happened that can refute the story as inaccurate anyway? When they control the outlet.

I trust what I see... but depending on who I hear it from... I tend to take with varied measures of scepticism.

I trust very few implicitly. But CBS rates right down at the bottom of the pile along with PBS and the BBC as far as obvious and clear bias in their stories.

And its not just in the USA... this happens everyplace just to be fair in spreading the blame around.

Look up accusation at Bush.....look up accusations at Obama...on their site.

They are less lovey dovey with Bush than they were for Obama....

Simple cases of Nuances of the english language....its not about actual words...but context and nuances which change the meaning of those words.So no facts, just your personal "interpretation".

So no facts, just your personal "interpretation".

No... those are facts... interpretation has nothing to do with nuances... unless you are Bill Clinton... trying to parse words.


Bill Clinton Slooged on the blue dress... and lied about it... as much as he tried to claim no sex was ever involved. See where dancing around the subject got him. Of course some people still believe that somehow body fluid teleported onto the dress without them being in the same room.


Calling someone a criminal... and saying that their personal actions may not have been completely legal all arrive at the same thing... the only differences are the nuances of the words used.

Actually that's not very nuanced... but exaggerated to make a point. You can mean something very different depending on exactly what words are used and how they are used... and it leaves no 'interpretation".

Both ultimately mean the same thing. And would in a courtroom. Particularly where perjury is involved.

No...those are facts.....interpretation has nothing to do with nuances
Nuances are what drive interpretation. "John is in jail now" seems to be a flat, factual statement. If you are a single guy chatting with another single guy and both of you know John got married last Saturday, the nuance (interpretation) of that statement is that John's marriage is now limiting his freedom. To them, marriage = jail.

Based on what I have actually seen the last 25 years....spreading the blame around.
All I asked is "whom do you trust?" and I don't remember seeing an answer in all I got back.

All I asked is "whom do you trust?" and I don't remember seeing an answer in all I got back.
I don't think smoother has responded directly to any question.

I don't think smoother has responded directly to any question.
Must be one of those nuanced things he was talking about.

I read just this morning that the health care bill will cost AT&T an additional 1 Billion this year. That's about 1/3 of their 4th quarter earnings last year, according to the article.

That's a lot of money, even for a big corporaton.

Don't get me wrong, I don't love AT&T due to some past dealings with them.

But, who do you think this will hurt if not the employees, or maybe that grandma who owns some stock?

This is just the beginning.

I read just this morning that the health care bill will cost AT&T an additional 1 Billion this year. That's about 1/3 of their 4th quarter earnings last year, according to the article.
So where did you read that? I've seen some of the "emails" you've posted before so I'm cautious about your use of facts.:rolleyes:

Oh, look. Here he goes again trying to prove that traditional U.S. allies were only allies of the former administration. Britain, Poland, now Israel: who's next, Canada? Japan? Australia?

White House 'puzzled' over Netanyahu storm (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.e509b6e9e1f2018a580beb4ed30e3dd d.d1&show_article=1)

All I asked is "whom do you trust?" and I don't remember seeing an answer in all I got back.

Read it again... I was pretty verbose in describing who I trust and why.

And I do have a perspective on things very few people have that based on real life experience... not colored exclusively by some journalists bias.

Must be one of those nuanced things he was talking about.I answered... just because you don't want to read it is your problem... not mine.

I don't think smoother has responded directly to any question.I answered the question... you however only accept answers cleared by the DNC propaganda office. That's not my problem, its yours.

I answered the question....you however only accept answers cleared by the DNC propaganda office. Thats not my problem, its yours.Haha! This thread is always good for a laugh. :)

Haha! This thread is always good for a laugh. :)

And reflects the Democrats unwillingness to listen to anything except what they are told to believe by the Party.

Personally... I don't give a hoot if YOU like my answer or not... I made one... if you don't like it tough... I don't clear my answers with the Obnama Propagandists.

And reflects the Democrats unwillingness to listen to anything except what they are told to believe by the Party.
LOL! Keep going!

And what does a Medical police , Gestapo, thugs, whatever you want to call them, who are appointed by the president, are loyal only to the president, and cost hundreds of millions of dollars needed for to provide health coverage? Don't know what I'm talking about? Well then you like mios tof the democrats never read the bill did you... you are told what you should believe is in it, but you never read it and what it can be interpreted to mean. After all, if Democrats actually believed "Deem and Pass" was constitutional, how will they twist this to "mean"?


Still don't have a clue... go to page 1312 of the Senate bill... explain HOW that has anything to do with covering anyone that's not covered... or providing health care to anyone at all?

Since you are all so proficient in what's in this bill, you oviously already have copies and don't need a link to it. Because after all, Obama says its good for you... so it must be.


Never mind Nancy Pelosis saying We need to vote for this bill so we can find out what's in it.

Hell, clearly SHE never read it...

LOL! Keep going!

You showed how much you know... which is nothing...


Return to your hourly prayer to Obama now...

You showed how much you know........which is nothing....


Return to your hourly prayer to Obama now....I couldn't care less about Obama, I'm having a laugh at the far-right loonies.

I couldn't care less about Obama, I'm having a laugh at the far-right loonies.

Happy in your little make believe fantasy world? They can treat that.

Its clear you have wet dreams about Obama based on your own comments... be an adult and admit it.

How can it be treated? I'd really like to break out of my make believe fantasy world.

How can it be treated? I'd really like to break out of my make believe fantasy world.

Well, you won't get it under Obama care...

Oh OK. I guess I'll just keep on living I guess. Thanks for allowing me to live.

Oh ok. I guess I'll just keep on living I guess. Thanks for allowing me to live.

Since you are in the Canadian system... just hope YOU never need something now that they tell you to wait 6 months or more to get... it happens all too often where rationing is a way of life. And all socialised systems ration care.

Never seems to be a problem... until its YOU that needs it. Then your perspective will change really fast. You will never think... damn, I have cancer, I have to wait 8 months for my turn to get treatment... IF I live that long, but its OK... at least we have a socialised system and that goes with it.

You will be saying why can't I get what I need right now... just like the rest of us that oppose that system. And under our current system you would get.

See, I've been in the ER for life threatening stuff before... stuff that if I had to wait hours or days much less months would have ended my life. And once to a private practice where the doctor dropped everything to attend to me... if he had made me wait 20 minutes I would have died as a teenager. And that was the time I would have needed to reach the clossest ER had it happened in the evening.

Yeah... touchy topic for me... from my own experiences.

Two of those were for Anaphylactic shock.

Hello again, smoothy:

I appreciate your input. You have, at the very least, demonstrated WHO makes up the tea party movement, and WHAT drives you. It's clear, that you guys are mad as hell. You've also demonstrated that your anger isn't based on fact, but rather on a hysterical hatred for anything Obama. This hatred is driven by the right wing noise machine lead by (you named them), Hannity and the Limp one.

You've been pretty straightforward so far. Does his race have anything to do with your hatred?

excon

Since you are in the Canadian system......just hope YOU never need something now that they tell you to wait 6 months or more to get....it happens all too often where rationing is a way of life. And all socialised systems ration care.
I've never had to wait for anything, nor my wife, nor my kids. My parents are doing well, my mom's 2 knee surgeries were attended by very caring people. I don't have to deal with quotes or paperwork or payment plans or premium increases. I am happy. You are mad at everything, it's your way of life. I feel sorry for you.

Oh, look. Here he goes again trying to prove that traditional U.S. allies were only allies of the former administration. Britain, Poland, now Israel: who's next, Canada? Japan? Australia?

White House 'puzzled' over Netanyahu storm (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.e509b6e9e1f2018a580beb4ed30e3dd d.d1&show_article=1)

We've already offended Canada this week. While visiting to try and persuade our northern neighbors to stick around in Afghanistan a while longer, Hillary rebuked them (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/29/AR2010032901626.html) for who they invited to their own conference.

Ex several thousand self-identified Tea Party followers converged on Searchlight Nev Sunday . Moms and Dads all quiet, respectful, suited up for a stroll in the desert sun ,a weekend barbecue,a school fair was the atmosphere .

The Democratic partisans plan to smear the Tea Party as violent extremists or 1950s style racists .But that stumbles when confronted with the facts. Mr. and Mrs.America ,concerned about over taxation and government wasteful spending has awaken them from their slumber .

Nothing Frank Rich says can change that reality.

So where did you read that? I've seen some of the "emails" you've posted before so I'm cautious about your use of facts.:rolleyes:

Your constant sniping gets wearisome.

Various people say things and you don't agree with and you demand proof.

Since you are the one disputing, it is up to YOU to post evidence to the contrary.

Actally, I think it was the Heritage Foundation that published the report.

You've also demonstrated that your anger isn't based on fact, but rather on a hysterical hatred for anything Obama.

Is this all you're about any more, repeating the current leftist meme? I guess you missed my post above showing a tale of 2 rallies - one left, one right, a week apart. I guess you were asleep during the Bush years when so many publicly fantasized (and even made movies about) the assassination of Bush, Cheney and Co.

Is this all you're about any more, repeating the current leftist meme?No he's describing Smoothy. Please go through this entire thread and read smoothy's posts.

Ex several thousand self-identified Tea Party followers converged on Searchlight Nev Sunday . Moms and Dads all quiet, respectful, suited up for a stroll in the desert sun Hello again, tom:

I referred only to their ANGER. I made NO suggestions that smoothy OR any of tea pepole would ACT out.

They're STILL angry, though, and I think race has something to do with it. Otherwise, wouldn't SOMETHING they're angry about have a basis in reality?? There's no reality to death panels, socialism and government takeovers... There just isn't.

I think the Limprods and the Hannity's are in charge of that bunch, and I think race IS at the bottom of it.

excon

No he's describing Smoothy. Please go through this entire thread and read smoothy's posts.

Ex prefaced that with "You have, at the very least, demonstrated WHO makes up the tea party movement." You now stand corrected, again.

Ex prefaced that with "You have, at the very least, demonstrated WHO makes up the tea party movement." Yea, him as an example.

No matter why so many people do not like him, they simply do NOT like him.

Someone wrote a little thing something like this:
I do not love the Doctor Fell,
The reason why, I cannot tell
But this I know, and know full well
I do not love thee Doctor Fell.

Now for a President of this country, this is a bad thing. The man who is supposed to bring the country together is the most divisive president ever.

Our society is headed toward a serious, maybe even violent clash unless some agreement can be made.

It ain't going to happen, but for the good of the country, Obama should step down. Maybe the next pres can be a better unifier. Biden seems less polarizing.

Yea, him as an example.

NK, that only helps make my point.

NK, that only helps make my point.At what point did ex or smoothy talk about fantasizing about the assassination of Obama? You brought it up not ex. I assume ex was referring to smoothy's blind hysteria and using it as an example of tea party members. You brought up people wanting to kill the president, I don't know why you did that.

Otherwise, wouldn't SOMETHING they're angry about have a basis in reality???

I would ask the same thing about you, Frank Rich and every intolerant nitwit that's been running with this tea partiers are racists nonsense.

Ex , that makes as much sense as Frank Rich painting everyone opposed to the Health care legislation as being racist ,homophobic ,mysogynists .
Op-Ed Columnist - The Rage Is Not About Health Care - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/opinion/28rich.html?ref=opinion)

Now for a President of this country, this is a bad thing. The man who is supposed to bring the country together is the most divisive president ever.
OR, does that really say something about the (divisive) people who have made no effort to like him and refuse to see any good in what he does?

OR, does that really say something about the (divisive) people who have made no effort to like him and refuse to see any good in what he does?
Bingo.

OR, does that really say something about the (divisive) people who have made no effort to like him and refuse to see any good in what he does?

I'd ask the same about Bush haters.

Well, you all have described who makes up the Obama supporting left.

THey believe only what Obama tells them to believe... they ignore reality and evidence that contradicts what their Messiah tealls them to believe.

THey expect to steal from those who have worked harder to earn more than they did, and they believe they are entitled to everything for free... and that someone ELSE should pay for what they demand.


The concept of actually working to earn it is beyond their capacity to grasp. Their spiritual leader and Messiah says they should not have to earn anything by working for it, or sacrifcing.


THey have this concept that only children share... that you can actually get something for free... and that while their time is valuable... they think everyone else should work for free.

Yea, him as an example.And YOU are a good example of those who sit on their butts and complain they don't have something instead of going out and working to pay for it.

Yeah... I think you should pay your own way...

The lazy deserve nothing. THEY didn't pay my way through College... THEY didn't work long hours... THEY didn't pay the taxes I had to pay... THEY can rot in hell for all I care.

THEY aren't entitled to a damn thing THEY didn't earn.

And Unlike Canadians...


We have the RIGHT to have guns to keep them from stealing it... and the right to shoot them if they try.

One of the rights I am proud we have that you don't have in Canada.

I'd ask the same about Bush haters.
I don't hate him -- never did. In 2000 when he was declared the president, I honestly gave him a chance. He was the president of our country and for that alone he deserved respect. I liked his mother (until her comment in Houston) and saw George W. as a good-looking, warm-hearted, friendly guy I'd love to have lunch with at a Crawford diner. As time went on, well, you know...

And YOU are a good example of those who sit on their butts and complain they don't have something instead of going out and working to pay for it.I have no idea what the hell that means.

Yeah...I think you should pay your own way.....
Do you resent paying taxes to support public schools? I sent both of my kids to a parochial school for $XXX a year and also paid taxes to support the public schools my kids didn't attend. And my kids have been out of public schools for years, but year after year I pay taxes to support those same public schools. Should I refuse?

I don't hate him -- never did. In 2000 when he was declared the president, I honestly gave him a chance. He was the president of our country and for that alone he deserved respect. I liked his mother (until her comment in Houston) and saw George W. as a good-looking, warm-hearted, friendly guy I'd love to have lunch with at a Crawford diner. As time went on, well, you know....

Never said you did hate him, but the hate started on election day and never let up. The left publicly fantasized about his and Cheney's demise, and a movie depicting Bush's assassination barely raised an eyebrow. Compared to the nonexistent evidence of racist tea partiers it's a slam dunk on who the real haters are.

The left publicly fantasized about his and Cheney's demise,
Wrong. A few crazies might have and you attribute that to being a trait of all liberals.

Never said you did hate him, but the hate started on election day and never let up.
Obama became President fair and square and is hated despite that. If Obama had become President the way George W. did, do you think Republicans would have ignored that?

I have no idea what the hell that means.

You want something free, and expect someone else to foot the bill, so you don't have to, because you don't want to. Is that clear enough?

You want something free, and expect someone else to foot the bill, so you don't have to, because you don't want to. Is that clear enough?
It doesn't make sense at all. Some of my taxes gets taken off my paycheck for my universal health care. Mine.
What am I getting free? Who's footing the bill?

Do you resent paying taxes to support public schools? I sent both of my kids to a parochial school for $XXX a year and also paid taxes to support the public schools my kids didn't attend. And my kids have been out of public schools for years, but year after year I pay taxes to support those same public schools. Should I refuse?

I resent paying taxes that not only support my schools, but schools elesewhere in the state, let them support their own schools. For those who can't grasp the concept. A counties schools are supported by that counties taxpayers... not tax several counties taxes higher and take a lions share to give to OTHER counties schools. THAT irritates the hell out of me. And it does happen here in VA.

If my taxes stayed in my county... school related... they would be far lower. And I would not object as much. But I firmly believe school taxes should be based on how many kids you have... not how big your bedroom is.

I DETEST... and censor software prevents me from writing what I really want to say about paying taxes that pay for ANYTHING used by an illegal or their offspring, education, medical, anything.

And here that is 19% of the school budget alone purely for illegals in the school system... and that's what the school district claims. That's not Insignificant.

Wrong. A few crazies might have and you attribute that to being a trait of all liberals.

And how was the Tea Party folks portrayed here ?

For a refresher zomblog has some photos that are representative of many of the anti-Bush rallies that went on during his 8 years

Death Threats Against Bush at Protests Ignored for Years zomblog (http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621)

See? You did again!

I resent paying taxes that not only support my schools, but schools elesewhere int he state, let them support their own schools. For those who can't grasp the concept. A counties schools are supported by that counties taxpayers....not tax several counties higher and take a lions share to give to OTHER counties schools. THAT irritates the hell out of me.

If my taxes stayed in my county...school related.....they would be far lower. And I would not object as much. But I firmly believe school taxes should be based on how many kids you have....not how big your bedroom is.
If it were left to you, would you have schools at all? I'm hearing "no." If there were no schools, how would you educate your children?

As for illegals, if you were in charge, what would you do with them?

See? You did again!

Right... typical Liberal... THEY are the only ones who have the right to speak up... heaven forbid anyone disagree with THEM...

Right...typical Liberal....THEY are the only ones who have the right to speak up......heaven forbid anyone disagree with THEM....
I think you may require the help of a mental health professional.

If it were left to you, would you have schools at all? I'm hearing "no." If there were no schools, how would you educate your children?

As for illegals, if you were in charge, what would you do with them?

You didn't read that, did you, try reading it again.

If you have 4 kids you pay four times the school taxes.

After all they are YOUR kids.

And under no case would my counties taxes be spent to pay for another counties schools. Let THEM pay the higher taxes for once... support themselves.

And yeah... MY county has higher taxes that bleed US dry to subsidize counties that pay far lower taxes... do you think that's fair? And its not just that tax either... we pay the highest taxes... yet get the lowest amount back from those taxes in the ENTIRE state. And we are talking State level functions and taxes here.

Personally, I'd like legal residents to be able to take that portion of school budget to put towards private school tuition.

Yeah... I do have a problem with much of the public school system. THey keep asking for ever more money and spend ever more time on indocrination rather than education. Students have never been less prepared, and we have never spent MORE per student. Money isn't the problem... its the people in the system calling the shots... and a few bad apples as well.

I think we had that discussion on another thread... I saw a slide starting when I was in high school, but someone older saw it start earlier than that, like the late 60's.

Do I have all the answers? Nope... but returning to corporal punishment... and getting rid of the Teachers Union and the concept of tenure.


Public, State and Federal employees should not be unionized.

I agree they need more control in their classrooms.. and to be held accountible as well.

You didn't read that, did you, try reading it again.
I am honestly trying to understand what you say. Why are you smacking me?

If you have 4 kids you pay four times the school taxes.
So someone with no kids pays nothing? The population of a county would change size, and support for the schools would change accordingly. What happens to the school meanwhile? It has to adjust as to maintenance, hiring, etc?

If you feel so strongly about your county's paying to support poorer counties, why don't you move to a poorer or different county? -- or even to a state that does things differently?

I am honestly trying to understand what you say. Why are you smacking me?

So someone with no kids pays nothing? The population of a county would change size, and support for the schools would change accordingly. What happens to the school meanwhile? It has to adjust as to maintenance, hiring, etc?

If you feel so strongly about your county's paying to support poorer counties, why don't you move to a poorer or different county? -- or even to a state that does things differently?

Not smacking you... just asking you to read it again... sometimes the second time you understand it... thats what I do when I didn't see a point the first time through. Something I was taught in elementary school decades ago. I actually was lucky to have a couple of exceptional teachers before I got to high school. They set the bar as to how I compared all other teachers.

Because that county should pay higher taxes.. not lower. Or make do with less. We aren't just talking total dollars but actual tax rates as well being higher here.

And no... I'm not moving to a poorer county because the work I do is not there. And I'm not going to spend half my day driving in traffic.


And Incidentally... the reason I refuse to live in DC and why I no longer reside on MD does explain that... Taxes and how they waste that money did have a factor in why I live in VA. I did once live in MD for a good number of years. And yes, it plays a big factor why I left PA with the entitlement mentality so many there have developed.

Montgomery County MD has sucked up to the Illegals and liberal mentality so bad... they argued they had the RIGHT to teach condom usage in the third grade (real condoms, real cucumbers), and parents had no say in it at all. In fact an Illegal organisation pratically dictates what they will and won't do with legal taxpayers money.

CASA Di MARYLAND... and nodody ever checks their papers. Google it up... Illegals telling legals what they can do... and no repercussions.

Why can't we stop blaming Bush for everything. Obama was in the senate when the first bailout was passed. Obama has done so much worse than Bush. He's managed to spend more $$ in 18 months then all previous administrations combined.

It doesn't make sense at all. Some of my taxes gets taken off my paycheck for my universal health care. Mine.
What am I getting free? Who's footing the bill?

The people that make more than you do... who are paying more and not getting more. Because I will bet it's a percentage... and not a flat rate everyone pays the same for.

Because that county should pay higher taxes.. not lower. Or make do with less. We aren't just talking total dollars but actual tax rates as well being higher here.
Okay, a county has lots of kids, big families, and builds big schools with lots of teachers. Twenty-five years pass and the county's population has dropped -- say, some new-to-the-county families have only one or two kids. In fact, the former large families are now parents who have become empty nesters, i.e. no kids, but still live in the county. What about those big schools with lots of teachers? The schools get torn down or redesigned for something else; the teachers find work elsewhere, in other schools or in private industry. Twenty-five years pass. The county's population booms. There is no room to build new schools because the farmland has filled up with homes and businesses. Then what?

I think you may require the help of a mental health professional.No, the liberals that think they are above criticism do... because they are so fond of dishing it out... and cry about it when anyone disagrees with them. News flash... you aren't the only one entitle to have an opinion, or voice it.

Who died and left them in a position to be above criticism... and incidentally who is about being criticized or second guessed.


The last person who actually was they hung on a cross over 2,000 years ago.

And contrary to what certain democrats believe... he hasn't come back yet.

The people that make more than you do.....who are paying more and not getting more. Because I will bet its a percentage...and not a flat rate everyone pays the same for.They don't care. They view it the same as me, they are contributing to their own healthcare fund.

They don't care. They view it the same as me, they are contributing to their own healthcare fund.

No... they care.and many don't like it either... but if they complain... you call it hate speech because it disagrees with you. Because I know some of them... they exist. It seams only Liberals are allowed to say anything in Canada... if anyone else disagrees, they call it hate speech.


Yeah real nice... shows liberals for what they really are, intollerant, and perpatrators hof hate speech themselves.

And the Canadaian system sucks... hundreds of thousands of medical visits to the USA from Canadians paying cash proves it. Our Doctors near the Border appreciate the business.

No...they care.and many don't like it either...but if they complain...you call it hate speach because it disagrees with you.Dude you are psychotic! LOL!

Dude you are psychotic! LOL!

Sorry, look in the mirror... you aren't Alice and this isn't Wonderland.

Hello again, smoothy and the rest of you righty's:

You DO remember, do you not, my discourse on the ILLEGAL wire tapping that the NSA has been conducting under BOTH Bush and Obama? You scoffed and pointed to your right wing lawyers who said, (contrary to the Fourth Amendment) we don't need no stinkin warrant.

Guess what? Federal Judge Finds N.S.A. Wiretaps Were Illegal - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/01/us/01nsa.html?th&emc=th)

excon

Why can't we stop blaming Bush for everything. Obama was in the senate when the first bailout was passed. Obama has done so much worse than Bush. He's managed to spend more $$ in 18 months then all previous administrations combined.

And none of those trillions will be used to pay down the debt.

OK so we have a Federal judge declaring it illegal and I have a 2009 ruling by the FISC appellate court saying it wasn't . (post 178 )
Intelligence Court Releases Ruling in Favor of Warrantless Wiretapping - washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/15/AR2009011502311.html)

So what happens when there are competing contradictory rulings on the same issue ?

On to SCOTUS .

Edit , had time to think about this during lunch... this San Fran judge gave Obama and Holder the cover they need . I will be surprised if they appeal now that they have the cover of a court ruling to dictate their course. It doesn't matter a lick that al Haramain is a well know AQ front organization who has a few members residing today in GITMO.

Hello again, smoothy and the rest of you righty's:

You DO remember, do you not, my discourse on the ILLEGAL wire tapping that the NSA has been conducting under BOTH Bush and Obama?? You scoffed and pointed to your right wing lawyers who said, (contrary to the Fourth Amendment) we don't need no stinkin warrant.

Guess what? Federal Judge Finds N.S.A. Wiretaps Were Illegal - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/01/us/01nsa.html?th&emc=th)

excon

Do you NOT remember that occurred under Bill Clinton, and Jimmy Carter as well.

Just because one idiot liberal Judge determined something doesn't mean jack squat. It isn't Final Until the Supreme court rules on it.

More on al-Haramain...

The United Nations, The United States, Great Britain as well as several other countries have all designated Al-Haramain as a terrorist entity; frozen and seized its funds where possible; and banned it from conducting business. Even so, Al-Haramain continues to operate in third-world countries and almost certainly continues to fund and promote radical Islamic extremism to this day.

AQ used funding from this "charity" to blow up US Embassies in East Africa in the 1990s
Al Qaeda Skimming Charity Money - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/07/terror/main621621.shtml)

They also funded the 2002 Bali bombing .
Saudi princes linked to terror funds - theage.com.au (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/03/04/1046540187386.html)

The Treasury Dept in 2004 found direct links between this Oregon branch and OBL .
JS-1895: U.S.-Based Branch of Al Haramain Foundation Linked to Terror<br>Treasury Designates U.S. Branch, Director (http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/js1895.htm)

One picture is woth a thousand words.

The sign is grammatically incorrect. It should say "I own only a dollhouse." The mistake negates the message. Cute little girl, though.

You got to love people who use their kids a props!

You gotta love people who use their kids a props!
No one will throw rotten tomatoes at a cute little girl.

You gotta love people who use their kids a props!

So... what exactly was not factual there? The left does exactly that every day... Obama does it all the time. Remember the woman he paraded around that claimed to be using her dead sisters false teeth.

No one will throw rotten tomatoes at a cute little girl.

Is a damn cute girl...

You mean like in the opening video at the Copenhagen conference?

_OIPYUlHv38

Are you Obots out there comfortable with this bit of blasphemy? (The thread is "our president, right?)

[VIDEO] Newsweek editor Jon Meacham: "Now that he's gotten health care through, President Obama's approval rating is up five points, and this really could save his presidency. You know, it's fitting that this happened so close to Easter, the time of resurrection, and with John Boehner and Mitch McConnell trying to play the part of Pontius Pilate and Caiaphas."
Host Bill Maher: "Except I wouldn't want to insult Obama by comparing him to Jesus."
— Bill Maher on his Real Time HBO show, April 1.

Are you Obots out there comfortable with this bit of blasphemy? (The thread is "our president, right?)

[VIDEO] Newsweek editor Jon Meacham: "Now that he's gotten health care through, President Obama's approval rating is up five points, and this really could save his presidency. You know, it's fitting that this happened so close to Easter, the time of resurrection, and with John Boehner and Mitch McConnell trying to play the part of Pontius Pilate and Caiaphas."
Host Bill Maher: "Except I wouldn't want to insult Obama by comparing him to Jesus."
— Bill Maher on his Real Time HBO show, April 1.Hell, half of his followers DO believe he is Jesus.

Hell, half of his followers DO believe he is Jesus.
Heck. Why stop at only half?

Heck. Why stop at only half?

The rest are partisan democrats who's only loyalty is to the party. And will discount ANY evidence that their party is spreading lies and half-truths. They believe its dark out at 12:00 noon if their dear leader tells them it is.

The rest are partisan democrats who's only loyalty is to the party. And will discount ANY evidence that their party is spreading lies and half-truths. They believe its dark out at 12:00 noon if their dear leader tells them it is.
Wow! There are several people on the Christianity board who don't understand what hyperbole is. I'll have to bring them over here.

Wow! There are several people on the Christianity board who don't understand what hyperbole is. I'll have to bring them over here.

THen explain HOW democrtats can believe the Government, that couldn't run SSI, the VA, Medicare, or Medicaid. Can somehow run a health care system that not only saves money... but doesn't cut benefits or impose rationing... and STILL hire 16,000 IRS agents to assure payments are made... not to mention the massive ammounts of OTHER bureacrats needed... and do it more efficiently than the private sector does?


Because that's what Obama claimed... thats what they automatically believe, when NOBODY says it can be done... ever has been done... or can be done .and not even the CBO says it saves money. ( Didn't hear them touting the revised numbers did you? Only PRELIMINARY estimates) the same people who missed by a factor of 8 the cost of Medicare from their projections.

THen explain HOW democrtats can believe the Government, that couldn't run SSI, the VA, Medicare, or Medicaid.
Hmmm, my SS check shows up exactly on time every month. The VA kept my manic-depressive uncle on track for years. Medicare -- tune in next year and I'll tell you what I think about that. Medicaid -- never had need for it, but some of my counseling clients survived because of it.

It doesn't matter a lick that al Haramain is a well know AQ front organization who has a few members residing today in GITMO.Hello again, tom:

Here's where you guys go wrong... Because, you think these are really bad guys, you don't need to apply the Constitution... You've used that excuse over and over again to justify ALL the really abhorrent stuff you've perpetrated on people.

As you may have read above, the Constitution isn't a guideline. IF these guys are so bad, I'm sure the FBI can lock them up using tried and true criminal investigative techniques. And, they could have done it WITHOUT violating ALL of our rights.

excon

None of your rights were violated . Just wanted to demonstrate who you defend... People who repeatedly funded attacks and acts of war on the United States .They are enemies at war with us ,not citizens ho had their rights abused by a repressive government... get a grip !
Their so called charitible work is a front.

none of your rights were violated . Just wanted to demonstrate who you defend.... Hello again, tom:

I've explained this before, but I don't mind explaining it again. Maybe one of these days, you'll get it... They took habeas corpus rights away from the terrorists. You say, it's only terrorists who lost their habeas corpus rights. You, still have yours...

But, let's examine that, shall we?

Habeas corpus rights are those which allow you to challenge your detention in court... Let's say the government designated YOU to be a terrorist, and swept you away. "Wait a minute", you say. "I'm an American". I have habeas corpus rights. But, if NO judge will entertain your petition, and if you're a terrorist with NO rights, NO judge will. Therefore, you in effect, don't have habeas corpus rights...

The part you don't understand about the Constitution is that if they deny rights to SOME, your rights may be next.

By the way, you don't have to remind me who I defend. I defend ANYBODY who's rights have been violated - not because I believe in their cause - but because their rights were violated, and I know, even if you don't, that if I don't defend them, my rights might be next. The fact is, those whose rights are routinely violated are the downtrodden, unpopular, poor, and generally NOT white, and I revel in their causes.

excon

Hello again, tom:

Here's where you guys go wrong... Because, you think these are really bad guys, you don't need to apply the Constitution... You've used that excuse over and over again to justify ALL the really abhorrent stuff you've perpetrated on people.

As you may have read above, the Constitution isn't a guideline. IF these guys are so bad, I'm sure the FBI can lock them up using tried and true criminal investigative techniques. And, they could have done it WITHOUT violating ALL of our rights.

excon

So what does the Constitution say about spies, sabotuers, and avowed enemies of the nation out of uniform? Those are the people we are referring to. We call them terrorists because we are fighting a supra-national enemy so there is no uniform, but they still commit espionage and sabotage inside this coiuntry.

An enemy at war with the nation once inside the borders can conduct their war with the full consititutional protections of a citizen ? And you equate their right to conduct war against the country with a citizens rights to go about their day to day lives. Amazing

As for Obama;as a Senator ,he voted to amend FISA in ways that "legalized" the warrantless surveillance that Bush had approved(2008 FISA Amendments) ;demonstrating that the judges decision (if given the benefit of the doubt ) has more to do with technical aspects of FISA ,and not about the constitutional inherent obligation of the President to exert powers as CIC to conduct war against ALL enemies foreign and domestic.

BTW the reason the Obama justice dept lost the case is because they wanted to lose the case. They withheld key evidence from the judge after the judge's outrageous decision to give al-Haramain standing in the 1st place. I liken this to state AG's who disagree with a law the legislature passes ;so they offer a weak defense of the law guaranteed to lose so the AG can claim to have tried to defend the law.
The cynical Obots did a half-assed defense of the Bush adm. While at the same time Obama voted to amend the FISA act to allow him the same procedures Bush used to execute the war against jihadistan.

An enemy at war with the nation once inside the borders can conduct their war with the full consititutional protections of a citizen ? amazing. Hello again, tom:

What I find amazing is your total lack of understanding regarding who we are as a nation and what exactly we stand for. Beyond that, you don't understand our basic documents. THAT could be the CORE of problem you right wingers have...

The document in question is the Constitution of these great United States... In it, you'll find that the rights it recognizes are INALIENABLE. That means EVERYBODY has them - NOT just citizens...

Maybe if you truly UNDERSTOOD our founding documents we could come together... But, nooooo... You and smoothy DON'T want to understand 'em. That can be the ONLY conclusion, because the words are small, the sentences are short, and the meaning is clear.

excon

The document in question is the Constitution of these great United States... In it, you'll find that the rights it recognizes are INALIENABLE. That means EVERYBODY has them - NOT just citizens....

The Constitution says nothing about inalienable rights.

The constitution does not talk of inalienable rights. It is a governing document of the country and not the world . Perhaps if you understood the difference between the founding documents you would realize the only time unalienable rights are mentioned is in the Declaration of Independence and that the declaration goes on the say That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Now I think President Bush acted lawfully in this case and in constitutional compliance because he acted under the authority of Congress.
I take you back to the declaration of war following the 9-11 attack on the nation by AQ .

Congress passed a joint resolution declaration of war entitled "Authorization for Use of Military Force(AUMF)
September 18, 2001 Public Law 107-40 [S. J. RES. 23]
The language in the resolution was clear and unambiguous.

a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Surveillance against an organization that is now effectively disbanned worldwide(see United Nations Security Council Committee 1267 )for their support for ,and funding of AQ activities easily falls within the mandate Congress established.

The Constitution says nothing about inalienable rights.Hello again, Steve:

Correctamundo. Those are the words in the Deceleration of Independence. Those words are the reason we went to war to establish this great nation. They're also the words that guided the founders who wrote the Bill of Rights. Why wouldn't they be? Did we change our mind about those sentiments since we won the war? I don't think so.

In the first ten amendments to the Constitution, collectively known as the Bill of Rights, the rights of the people were spelled out. They didn't spell out (list) who the "people" were, though. That wasn't a mistake. Indeed, throughout the Bill of Rights, they specifically use words like "the people", "persons" and "the accused". The last one, "the accused" is pretty succinct - to ME anyway.

It doesn't say (like you wish it did), that CITIZENS who are accused... They COULD have chosen that word. But, they didn't. They could have even used words like voters, and/or taxpayers, and/or people who speak English, if they wanted it to say what YOU think it says. But, they didn't use those words. Was that an accident? Weren't they smart enough to envision this controversy? Did they make a mistake?

Nope, not at all. They were pretty smart guys, our founders. They used the exact words they wanted to use. The meaning is clear. The Constitution is NOT a guideline. It's meant to be followed exactly. There are NO exceptions.

excon

It doesn't say (like you wish it did), that CITIZENS who are accused...

So you believe "the people" as stated in the United States Constitution and intended by the founding fathers includes foreign enemies at war with us? Amazing.

So you believe "the people" as stated in the United States Constitution and intended by the founding fathers includes foreign enemies at war with us? Amazing.Hello again, Steve:

Yes, I do... But, I don't know why you think our Constitutional Rights are a bar to imprisonment... We couldn't have become the worlds largest jailer if that were true.

Let me ask you this? Given your positions, you DON'T believe that our rights, as described by Thomas Jefferson, are "inalienable", do you? If that's so, why do WE have them, and the rest of the world doesn't? Were the founding fathers WRONG? Were they just libs just wanting to make some social justice? If you think that, does it mean your side is excluded from obeying the Constitution?

excon

You're changing the subject again, ex. We were on who is meant by those specific words "the people." The opening words are "We the People of the United States," which does not include KSM.

You're changing the subject again, ex. We were on who is meant by those specific words "the people." The opening words are "We the People of the United States," which does not include KSM.

That is my thinking too. We the people is unfinished. It is meant to apply to the United States and not for governing others abroad. That's how it is independent of others.

(quote)

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America


Ref:

Preamble to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution)

We were on who is meant by those specific words "the people."The opening words are "We the People of the United States," which does not include KSM.Hello again, Steve:

So, THAT'S where you think the founders listed who the "people" are and who they're not?

Nahh. What they were doing is listing the people who were WRITING the Constitution. The complete sentence says: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

That was the correct place to list who the authors were.

In the Bill of Rights, however, where our rights were specified and enumerated, these same men COULD have listed, like they did earlier, "the people of the United States" as the only people these rights apply to. But, they didn't.

So, are you saying, that anyone who is NOT a citizen is NOT entitled to ANY of our Constitutional protections??

excon

Hello again, Steve:

So, THAT'S where you think the founders listed who the "people" are and who they're not?

Nahh. What they were doing is listing the people who were WRITING the Constitution. The complete sentence says: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

That was the correct place to list who the authors were.

In the Bill of Rights, however, where our rights were specified and enumerated, these same men COULD have listed, like they did earlier, "the people of the United States" as the only people these rights apply to. But, they didn't.

So, are you saying, that anyone who is NOT a citizen is NOT entitled to ANY of our Constitutional protections???

excon

Ill make it clearer. Anyone who is a non citizen or persons not being documented to be here. If you are on visa or permit or visiting here then because you're here by permission then you may have protection under our "rights" as established by law. But anything else and you fall under a different category. Or may fall under international law like the Geneava Convention.

Face the facts ; that the FISA rules were amended by Congress in 2008 to make the very surveillance in question statutory compliant means that at most the Bush program was in conflict with the stautory language and not the constitution...

Or are you saying the FISA act is unconstitutional itself ? I can make that argument that FISA was unconstitutional because of its infringement on the inherent authority of the CIC to conduct foreign surveillance. The fact that the enemy is waging war on American soil is besides the point and irrelevant.

Face the facts ; that the FISA rules were amended by Congress in 2008 to make the very surveillance in question statutory compliant means that at most the Bush program was in conflict with the stautory language and not the constitution....Hello again, tom:

So, the illegal and UNCONSTITUTIONAL wiretapping that went on BEFORE 2008 is just so much chopped liver. I understand. Well, I got news for you.

excon

So "We the People of the United States... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Thanks for making my point.

So, the illegal and UNCONSTITUTIONAL wiretapping that went on BEFORE 2008 is just so much chopped liver. I understand. Well, I got news for you.

All that hopenchange is here now, though...

Obama 'Even Worse' Than Bush On Secret Wiretapping Case, Says S.F. Lawyer (http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2010/04/obama_wiretap_ruling.php)

Hello:

Those of us who supported Obama thought he was going to bring about the change he campaigned on. Those of you who opposed him thought he would too.

We were both wrong.

excon
Obama 'Even Worse' Than Bush On Secret Wiretapping Case, Says S.F. LawyerHello again, Steve:

By embracing the specious legal arguments Bush employed, he IS worse. It least you expect it from a right winger.

excon

The states secrets argument seems sound to me... even if it causes the government to lose the case.

What this tells me is that both sides of the political divide see the rationale .It is extremism that argues for constitutional rights to the enemy under some universal application.

Since "we the people" are free to leave this country if we so wish and live under different laws, that means that the Constitution only covers those who VOLUNTEER to be governed by it.

I can't see how you can stretch it to govern anyone who doesn't want to live under it.

If we say that our Constitution should govern everyone in the world, then would we not be obligated to ENFORCE that on all people?

Hello again, tom:

So, the illegal and UNCONSTITUTIONAL wiretapping that went on BEFORE 2008 is just so much chopped liver. I understand. Well, I got news for you.

excon

This happened well before 2000 FYI... I know democrats have trouble grasping the fact they lost in 2000 and 2004... and Al Bore lost his mind as a result... but this dates back well before 2000... so get over it already.

And State Secrets should remain secrets... after all, they are far more important than say... Obamas School records are which the left isn't calling to be made public.

Obamas School records are which the left isn't calling to be made public.
Once he posts them, you will say, "Thank you, kind sir! That's exactly what we wanted to see. We are satisfied. Now we will move on to our other requests and concerns."

Once he posts them, you will say, "Thank you, kind sir! That's exactly what we wanted to see. We are satisfied. Now we will move on to our other requests and concerns."

We await the revelations with bated breath!

We await the revelations with bated breath!
But you do promise to let it go and move on to some other complaint once you've seen his official records. Right?

Once he posts them, you will say, "Thank you, kind sir! That's exactly what we wanted to see. We are satisfied. Now we will move on to our other requests and concerns."Once he releases his "Records" which apparently are state secrets... the only question that could be posed is "Why did it take so long". And we are entitled to know as the American Public... WHY they were being withheld at this point as well.

This issue is of his own making. Why does the left think he is so special nothing that applied to every other President doesn't apply to him. He's NOT the Messiah.

I seem to remember the left screaming when Bush didn't get his out fast enough to suit them... but ignored the fact John Kerry refused to release his until months after he lost.

Double standards for everything... badmouth Bush and make slanderous statements earns Herohood to the left... but get visciously indignant if someone won't accept Obamas word as gospel.


And the idiots on the far left claiming anyone who disagrees with Obama is a rascist.

Bullsh*t. I suppose all the Bush bashers were rascist too. Particularly the non-white ones.

Disagreeing with a black man on anything makes you a rascist in the eyes of a left winger. But a Black person, Hispanic person etc... isn't rascist if they disagree with anyone NOT a lefty.


Sorry... I'm entitled to disagree with the "dear leader"... the first amendment thing, remember.


At least dumbo is starting to grasp the fact... he's been in office the last 15 months... not Bush. He wanted the job... time to man up and accept the responsibility that goes with it. I haven't heard the man-child blame Bush for something for at least a week now.

Double standards for everything .....badmouth Bush and make slanderous statements.....but get visciously indignant if someone won't accept Obamas word as gospel.
But... but... but... ummmmm... erm... isn't that what makes U.S. politics so... so.. um... fun and keeps us all so sharp and current, and since both sides do it?

But...but...but...ummmmm...erm...isn't that what makes U.S. politics so...so..um...fun and keeps us all so sharp and current, and since both sides do it?

Difference is... nobody has proven Bush lied about anything. And yeah... haven't you heard the adio and video recordings of every major Democrat who actually saw the same reports that said SH HAD what was claimed... in their own voices that pretended otherwise later?

Nobody has proven Obama has been truthful about anything... in fact... the CBO has proven the claims as false on the Health care destruction agenda.


I have a MAJOR bug up my azz with the halfwits in the DNC calling anyone who disagrees with "The Mesiah" is a rascist. Those are fighting words. Usually tossed around by people that ARE rascists themselves, and thus think everyone else is too.

I want to put my foot so far up the behind of those idiots that I will dislodge their eyeballs from behind with the toe of my shoes.

Calling me or anyone a rascist just because "The Dear Leader" is black is the biggest load of crap since the Western-Pacific hauled a trainload of Manure to California.


We all know Jimmy Carter was an incompetent boob when he was in office... now he's a demented old boob today... his problem can be attributed to dementia, he IS advanced in years... not so with the younger democrats doing that.

But...but...but...ummmmm...erm...isn't that what makes U.S. politics so...so..um...fun and keeps us all so sharp and current, and since both sides do it?

This is what makes politics so fun. A bunch of idiots running the country.

Score one for the Dems.

YouTube - 3-25-2010_Hank_Johnson_Guam_Tip_Over.wmv (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNZczIgVXjg)

just because "The Dear Leader" is black
Black? I thought he was white. Wasn't his mother white?

This is what makes politics so fun. A bunch of idiots running the country.
And McCain-Palin would be doing what for the country right about now?

Black? I thought he was white. Wasn't his mother white?Half Black/ half white... at least he can legitimately claim to be African-American. Most blacks can trace their roots back 4 or 5 generations or more in the in the USA. I can't even do that. Yet I'm NOT European-American.


Doesn't matter if he was Cherokee. He's dark skinned. Hell I know Latinos as dark as him, and some Indians even darker.

I don't care what color he is... I hate his agenda. Idiots come in a rainbow of colors, and so do racists.. Look at Rev. Jeramiah Wright, Louis Farakhan... it isn't just the Klan.

Many in that comminity cry rascism any time a black gets arrested... or if anyone dissagrees with Obama... the fact #1 the 1st amendement grants us that right... and you don't have to be a rascist just because you disagree with anyone on anything. Unles of course, you are white and a conservative. Then you are automatically a rascist if you disagree with a Black Democrat. And Democrats allow people like that to be party spokesmen, or speakers of the house.

And McCain-Palin would be doing what for the country right about now?

It doesn't matter what I think they would be doing. The point is that this person IS in there and doing it to us.

I don't care what color he is....I hate his agenda.
Let's see what we can agree on about him. Can you think of one thing you like about him?

Let's see what we can agree on about him. Can you think of one thing you like about him?Give me some time to think... there must be SOMETHING, I will admit to that much. I could think of good things Hitler did... Obama must have one or two as well. I just can't think of it off the top of my head right now.

Give me some time to think....there must be SOMETHING, I will admit to that much. I could think of good things Hitler did...Obama must have one or two as well. I just can't think of it off the top of my head right now.
It could be something about him as a person that you like, or about what he has done or says he will do. I've already said Bush is good-looking and charming and someone I'd meet at the Crawford diner for lunch and a fun conversation. (I even like to talk about horses and cows.)

It could be something about him as a person that you like, or about what he has done or says he will do. I've already said Bush is good-looking and charming and someone I'd meet at the Crawford diner for lunch and a fun conversation. (I even like to talk about horses and cows.)I've actually met Bush... he really is a nice guy... I disliked Bill Clintons politics... but I have met him too, and at a personal level, he isn't that unpleasant either. Can't say that about Hillary however... she rubbed me the wrong way.

I however dislike anyone who always tries a hard sell, be it cars, vacuum cleaners... etc... or bearded bozos on infomercials.


Nothing worth having NEEDS a hard sell. Anything that IS sold with a hard sell, is to sucker people into buying a turd.


Now there was one thing he did I liked... but I forgot what it was... at least its not coming to mind right this minute.

It could be something about him as a person that you like, or about what he has done or says he will do. I've already said Bush is good-looking and charming and someone I'd meet at the Crawford diner for lunch and a fun conversation. (I even like to talk about horses and cows.)

I'll give him credit for jumping in with both feet as soon as he took office. Some will argue that was because he knew he only had a short time before his Congressional majority evaporated and others will point out the severity of the situation when he took office(and both be correct) but he at least did not take a lot of "study" time.

You guys seem to be bashing your heads against a wall here and nothing gets resolved. You are going in circles. Except for Wondergirl, who seems to be the only one on here with a purpose and sensible comments.

And then there is ex, who has some good points too, and a purpose; you all just read around him and miss the point. Get the point. I am Canadian and I get the point.

Its good Friday, I have just had supper, its 1900H here in southeastern Ontario, a lovely bright sunny day and why I am on here, I don't know. I am off to watch TV and rest after a busy day working outside where all of you should have been if you are in the same climate.



Tick

And then there is ex, who has some good points too, and a purpose; you all just read around him and miss the point.Hello tick:

It IS like arguing with a bill board, isn't it?? But, I'm not trying to convince them. That'll NEVER happen. I write for the silent readers amongst us. You're one of 'em. You can see the truth.

excon

Hi, tick. The circular arguments are precisely the point of these discussions. They're also the only forums I know of that never devolve into obscenity. Rational discussions on the internet are pearls beyond price.

Hi, tick. The circular arguments are precisely the point of these discussions. They're also the only forums I know of that never devolve into obscenity. Rational discussions on the internet are pearls beyond price.

I agree.. And also agee to disagree when needed :)

I agree.. And also agee to disagree when needed :)

Of course!

Hi, tick. The circular arguments are precisely the point of these discussions. They're also the only forums I know of that never devolve into obscenity. Rational discussions on the internet are pearls beyond price.

Yes I know about 'circular arguments' and I thinks its wonderful and quite amusing that you guys are civil with each other, still, under the political conditions of your universe, and now the healthcare thrown into the mix.

Tick

Even more change from the Obama administration, tighter screening (http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-flight-screening2-2010apr02,0,3227425.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fnews+%28L.A.+Times+-+Top+News%29) for passengers flying to the U.S. we'll now be screening passenger's "personal characteristics" to weed out potential terrorists. Sounds positively like the evil of profiling, but not so according to the powers that be:


Under the new system, passengers on flights from all countries could be subject to special screening before boarding if they have personal characteristics that match the latest intelligence information about potential attackers, the senior official said.

"We believe it is a much more effective system" that is "tailored to optimize our ability to interdict would-be terrorists," said the official, who requested anonymity in describing the plan.

Even U.S. citizens traveling to the United States from abroad would be subject to special screening if they matched certain characteristics, the official said.

Administration officials said the system would provide greater fairness than the current method.

They said it would not amount to improper profiling because it would rely on specific and frequently updated intelligence and involve more countries than the current 14.

I love this Orwellian regime of ours, ain't it great that Bush is gone?

I love this Orwellian regime of ours, ain't it great that Bush is gone?Hello again, Steve:

A little bit.

excon

Hello again:

Now, I don't know WHY it doesn't piss you off that the NSA is monitoring your phone calls and reading your emails... Nope. I have NO clue why good right wingers such as those contributors to this board, TRUST the government soooo much. Maybe you can splain it to me.

Let me ask you this. Would it piss you off if they were WATCHING you through your web cams? Probably not. You righty's LOVE the government so much... I mean, if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't mind a little snooping, right?? That IS the right wing mantra, isn't it??

You DO know, of course, that the feds HAVE the capability, don't you? You also know, of course, that since they THINK they don't have to get a warrant to monitor your phone calls, certainly they don't think they'll have to get a warrant to WATCH you in your own home..

I wonder who amongst us, is willing to grant the government that kind of license... Wait a minute. It's YOU - the right wingers here. You know, I COULD call you UNPATRIOTIC for letting (no ENCOURAGING) the government to do that. But, I understand you didn't do it because you're unpatriotic. You did it because you're scared, and you TRUST government... I don't know WHY you do that, but you wingers do. Oh, well...

Well, I for one, MIND very much that my government is spying on me. Frankly, as an AMERICAN, I'm appalled that you think it's just hunky dory.

excon

Hello again:

Now, I dunno WHY it doesn't piss you off that the NSA is monitoring your phone calls and reading your emails... Nope. I have NO clue why good right wingers such as those contributors to this board, TRUST the government soooo much. Maybe you can splain it to me.

Lemme ask you this. Would it piss you off if they were WATCHING you through your web cams? Probably not. You righty's LOVE the government soo much... I mean, if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't mind a little snooping, right??? That IS the right wing mantra, isn't it???

You DO know, of course, that the feds HAVE the capability, don't you?? You also know, of course, that since they THINK they don't have to get a warrant to monitor your phone calls, certainly they don't think they'll have to get a warrant to WATCH you in your own home..

I wonder who amongst us, is willing to grant the government that kind of license... Wait a minute. It's YOU - the right wingers here. You know, I COULD call you UNPATRIOTIC for letting (no ENCOURAGING) the government to do that. But, I understand you didn't do it because you're unpatriotic. You did it because you're scared, and you TRUST government.... I dunno WHY you do that, but you wingers do. Oh, well....

Well, I for one, MIND very much that my government is spying on me. Frankly, as an AMERICAN, I'm appalled that you think it's just hunky dory.

excon

I may be considered right winger with some of my attitudes but in reality Im an independent. I do object to random spying without reason. The problem occurs when your talking terrorists. There is a fine line between being pro active and reactive. We are all aware that you can't arrest someone until a crime has been committed. And with terrorism that's another side that we find difficult to look at because with the random nature of the acts you can't really wait. It's a tough call to make. It was Clinton where it started the "lets check everything" mentality since technology had progressed to a point to where it could be done by monitoring certain words or phrases. Yes a sad day indeed. I have seen the innocent intursion of government that expanded into laws to subject the innocent to investigation. Once you give the goobermint a foot in the door they think they own the place. All I can say to that matter is be aware, be informed and please vote.

Hello again, Steve:

A little bit.

excon

I know, the thrill isn't quite what it was a year ago.

Now, I dunno WHY it doesn't piss you off that the NSA is monitoring your phone calls and reading your emails... Nope. I have NO clue why good right wingers such as those contributors to this board, TRUST the government soooo much. Maybe you can splain it to me.

I'll say it again, Ex. There has never been a time since the invention of the telegraph that the Federal government has NOT monitored long distance communications.

Why are you so mad all of a sudden?

The rest of us just assume it, since it's always happened.

Hello again, Cats:

Because other presidents have violated the law, does not excuse the president we have, or the ones we can find and still prosecute. Why, as a good right winger, do you want to let felons off the hook? I thought you guys were FOR LAW & ORDER. Or, would that be LAW & ORDER for the little guy, but not our leaders? I understand how you are. Really, I do.

As we've discussed, the Constitution is the law of the land. It's NOT a guideline.

excon

As we've discussed, the Constitution is the law of the land. It's NOT a guideline.

Unless it's your heroes doing the violating, like Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus or FDR trying to mandate old age savings (then he got caught and had to call it a tax) or Truman and Clinton sending our troops off to wear different uniforms or Obama mandating the purchase of a service from private companies. Yeah, for the Conservatives it's the LAW. For Liberal/Progressives it is like directions, kind of, depending on your definition of "is."

I can assure you that my conversations aren't being monitored. I do not call AQ HQ coordinating and financing attacks on the country like al-Haramain did .

I can assure you that my conversations aren't being monitored. I do not call AQ HQ coordinating and financing attacks on the country like al-Haramain did .

Rumor has it there's a cute little trojan on all the "us.gov" sites that sets up monitoring your internet connections. Have you got really good Malware protection?

Rumor has it there's a cute little trojan on all the "us.gov" sites that sets up monitoring your internet connections. Have you got really good Malware protection?Are you serious??

Rumor has it there's a cute little trojan on all the "us.gov" sites that sets up monitoring your internet connections. Have you got really good Malware protection?

The rumor exsists because of the way the law reads. The federal government is forbbidin by law to record your IP address without your knowlage.

Its not true at all. It's a hoax.

I can assure you that my conversations aren't being monitored.Hello tom:

Uhhh, no you can't! Because if they can illegally snoop on SOME people, they can snoop illegally on YOU.

The only way to KNOW you're not being spied upon, is if you made sure your government does NOT spy on anybody. But, you're fine with them snooping on some people and you only TRUST that they're not snooping on you...

Me? I don't trust 'em.

excon

Hello again, wingers:

I'm confused. I thought you guys were the ones who're interested in RESTORING the Constitution... I hear that squawk all the time from the tea partiers.. I've even heard the words that smoothy recited about the Constitution NOT being a guideline.

I agree.

Then, in the next breath, as an excuse for violating that very document, you say, well other presidents did it, so it's OK... Therein lies the basis for my confusion. What happened to your "it's not a guideline" schtick?? In fact, not only doesn't it bother you that the Constitution is flouted, you support it 1000%. Then, you have the temerity to talk about restoring the Constitution... I'm blown away..

Now, I'll admit that I don't know if any other president, beside Nixon, illegally spied on us or not, so I'm not going to argue that. It's a red herring anyway. What I DO know is for more than 20 years, it was settled law, born of bitter experience, that the government may not eavesdrop on people in the United States without a warrant.

Until, that is, after the 9/11 attacks, when President George W. Bush ordered the National Security Agency to ignore the law.

Fortunately, a judge of the Federal District Court in San Francisco, ruled last week that the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was the law of the land, and that when Bush failed to get a warrant to wiretap, he broke the law. It's a FELONY.

There are fewer threats to liberty, as the Supreme Court said more than 40 years ago, “greater than that posed by the use of eavesdropping devices.” Being liberty loving patriots, I don't understand why you don't understand that.

excon

I can assure you that my conversations aren't being monitored.
Try this. Let me know when you and a friend carry on phony phone conversations about a terrorist activity you two are cooking up, say, to blow up some government building in your area. I'll watch the news.

I'll watch the news.Happy Easter, Carol:

;)

excon

Happy Easter, Carol:

;)

excon
Happy Easter to you too, my dear friend. Did you hide all the eggs real good this time? ;)

There is no logical reason for the government to be listening in to my conversations. In the al -haramain case they were a known funder of AQ and had funded and supported previous attacks on the country .They have since been disbanned by UN sanction . Let's keep this in the real world.
There is absolutely no reason why I would either plot an attack for real or make a punk call faking it.

But if someone is plotting to commit an attack or other act of war on the country I will not lose any sleep at all that the NSA was listening in.

There is absolutely no reason why I would either plot an attack for real or make a punk call faking it.
That's why they haven't picked up keywords in your conversations and arrested you. But they're out there and listening.

That's why they haven't picked up keywords in your conversations and arrested you. But they're out there and listening.

Here are a few links on the matter.

Ref:

Electronic Surveillance (http://www.surveillance-source.com/Electronic_Surveillance.htm)

NSA warrantless surveillance controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy)

Electronic Surveillance Laws (http://www.ncsl.org/IssuesResearch/TelecommunicationsInformationTechnology/ElectronicSurveillanceLaws/tabid/13492/Default.aspx)

Any other hobgoblins I should be concerned about ? If they are listening in on me they are bored out of their minds. Oh the outrage!

To Ex's point ;the decision by this San Fran judge will be reversed if the Obama Justice Dept is so inclined to challenge it. The judges whole decision was based on a technicallity because both the Obama and Bush Justice Dept deemed the secrets that could've been revealed were worth protecting .

This is a position that Obama took as Senator also :
"
I think it is appropriate to say that there are going to be cases in which national security interests are genuinely at stake, and that you can't litigate without revealing covert activities or classified information that would genuinely compromise our safety. But searching for ways to redact, to carve out certain cases, to see what can be done so that a judge in chambers can review information without it being in open court-you know, there should be some additional tools so that it's not such a blunt instrument."

This is also the reason why Obama will probably not appeal. He gets to keep the Bush program (Congress amended the law to get rid of any ambiguity about the President's inherent right to spy on the enemy. )while at the same time have the Obots howling at the moon about the "criminal "activities of his predecessor..

any other hobgoblins I should be concerned about ? if they are listening in on me they are bored out of their minds. oh the outrage !!
So nothing will happen to me if my brother and I have phone conversations about bringing down the Sears Tower (ooops, Wilis Tower) in Chicago?

There must be a sale on tinfoil hats this week.
Why would you have that conversation ? Are you and your brother employed by some front organization for jihadistan ?

If for some reason they are wasting their time monitoring your phone calls with your brother ,and the topic came up ,they know Shiite from shinola .

Most of the people with their panties in a knot about evesdropping on terrorists are people that were nowhere neer targets on 911.

You won't convince many that work in Manhattan, much less anyone who ever worked in the Twin Towers... and you won't convince anyone who knew people that died... or people that were almost victims themselves.

I fall in that last category. I am still breathing today because I was cranky, hungry and tired that morning.

I don't give a damn if terrorists or anyone they talk to are eavesdropped on... unlike most of the paranoid crowd... I actually know how this is done.

Since I'm not a militia member planning sopmething illegal, because I'm not one of them, I don't have to worry about being overheard replenishing my stash from the local drug dealer because I don't use anything illegal...

And most of the people who are saying things to others that will get them into trouble... also seem to be the same bunch that want to hand of Everyone's medical records to politicians to have them decide who gets a treatment, IF they get it and when they get it... yet doesn't trust them to overhear the very same conversations they have every day IN PUBLIC on their cell phones with dozens around them listening.

And yeah... quite often I can hear BOTH SIDES of those cell phone conversations.

not planning something illegal...don't use anything illegal...conversations they have every day IN PUBLIC on their cell phones with dozens around them listening.
I don't plan illegal stuff either and use my cell phone only at home or in my STOPPED car, and never in public. And the government and my insurance company already have all my personal information.

I don't plan illegal stuff either and use my cell phone only at home or in my STOPPED car, and never in public. And the government and my insurance company already have all my personal information.

You are in the minority... I see people every day walking out into TAFFIC yapping on their cell phones oblivious to the fact there is a DO NOT WALK sign lit. And yeah... I actually see that at least once a day. Or pass someone yaping about something obviously highly personal on the sidewalk.

I've actually heard both men and women talking with their lovers ABOUT their spouses... and once even heard them talk about possible pregnacies with their lovers... yeah, its been both men and women and more than twice over the last few years...

Do these people not know others can hear them ON THE SIDEWALK...

Hell once I heard someone giving their credit card info, address, full name, etc... on their cell, at lunchtime walking on the sidewalk with dozens near them.

I don't give a damn if terrorists or anyone they talk to are eavesdropped on...Hello again, smoothy:

So, all your talk about restoring the Constitution, and about it NOT being a guideline, was just so much BUNK.

Let me be clear, if I wasn't already. The tea partiers, the birthers, YOU and/or whatever right wing wacko group you're fronting for, ARE ALL FULL OF CRAP! YOU KNOW NOTHING OTHER THAN WHAT GLENN BECK OR THE LIMP ONE TELL YOU.

Restoring the Constitution, hell. You have NO idea what it's about.

excon

Hello again, smoothy:

So, all your talk about restoring the Constitution, and about it NOT being a guideline, was just so much BUNK.

Let me be clear, if I wasn't already. The tea partiers, the birthers, YOU and/or whatever right wing wacko group you're fronting for, ARE ALL FULL OF CRAP! YOU KNOW NOTHING OTHER THAN WHAT GLENN BECK OR THE LIMP ONE TELL YOU.

Restoring the Constitution, hell. You have NO idea what it's about.

excon

Right... we all know God gave you the gift of knowing everything and being perfect in all possible ways.

YOU are the one who doesn't have a clue...


And while we all know YOU have a Obama Poster you worship every night... MOST of the American Public is on to his scam.


And we also know that the Constitution was written in plain english... by Men who were very smart.

Not by today's democrats who twist every word to mean its opposite.


Why don't you grow up already...

You are seriously delusional iif you believe even 10% of what Obama says or 95% of what the DNC says... or anything at all Nancy Pelosi says. You obviously believe 100% of what they say... otherwise why do you get your panties in such a knot when those of us know better won't.

And incidentally... I've spent most of my life the last 25 years in and around communications offices of government offices, military instalations and Embassies (of over 40 countries) in two countries on two continents.


Not in PODUNK IOWA listening to CNN to get my information of there outside world.

Do these people not know others can hear them ON THE SIDEWALK....
And these people have given their young children cell phones "for emergencies." Sexting has become a huge problem among teens and even preteens. Where or where is this country going, smoothy? (At least we agree on ONE thing!)

And these people have given their young children cell phones "for emergencies." Sexting has become a huge problem among teens and even preteens. Where or where is this country going, smoothy? (At least we agree on ONE thing!)

Oh yeah... and there is THAT.


Imagine a unsuspecting father that loans his phone to his kid... and they do that... and well, you see where that's going legally.

I am FAR from being a prude... but heck, what ARE these kids thinking. They HAVE to understand once its out there... its out there, and will always be.

Hello again,

George Bush merely eavesdropped and/or detained American citizens without due process rights. I complained loudly about that stuff. My protestations, however, were disparaged on these boards. You supported Bush, when he claimed the powers of a King.

Yet here you have Barack Obama not merely eavesdropping on/and detaining American citizens without oversight, but ordering them killed with no oversight and no due process of any kind.

That ain't going to fly with me. But, I'll bet you righty's love it... If only it weren't coming from HIM.. How do you reconcile that?

excon

Are you talking about the order to wack Anwar al-Awlaki who is overseas waging war against the United States ? Yeah I say go go for it.
Does it matter where the "battle field " is in this war when one day it is in AfPakia ,the next in Yemen ;the next on a flight to Detroit ,or some diplomat testing our defenses by having a smoke in an airliner lavatory ?

This cleric is actively recruting jihadists to kill Americans . I don't care if he is an American citizen .As far as I'm concerned his citizenship should be revoked

Are you talking about the order to wack Anwar al-Awlaki who is overseas waging war against the United States ? Yeah I say go go for it.Hello tom:

You mistake my support for the Constitution and the Rule of Law to be support for our enemy. I understand the knee jerking. So did the founders. That's why they wrote the Bill of Rights.

I'm just like you. MY knee jerks too. But, I'm willing to let my knee jerk get filtered through the Constitution. Right wingers, like yourself (and Barack Obama, apparently), don't want to do that. I'm fine with this traitorous SOB getting killed in the normal course of battle. I'm NOT fine with the president targeting him.

excon

Why not ? It's no different than taking out any other jihadi leader ? What gives him special protection ? You are mistaking acts of war and criminal action. They are not the same.

Why not ? It's no different than taking out any other jihadi leader ? What gives him special protection ?Hello again, tom:

Ahhh, but he IS different. If I'm not mistaken, you regularly argue that jihadists shouldn't be covered by OUR Constitution. It, you say, should be reserved for American citizens.

Okee doakee, then. The CONSTITUTION gives him special protection.

excon

Hello again,

George Bush merely eavesdropped and/or detained American citizens without due process rights. I complained loudly about that stuff. My protestations, however, were disparaged on these boards. You supported Bush, when he claimed the powers of a King.

Yet here you have Barack Obama not merely eavesdropping on/and detaining American citizens without oversight, but ordering them killed with no oversight and no due process of any kind.

That ain't gonna fly with me. But, I'll bet you righty's love it.... If only it weren't coming from HIM.. How do you reconcile that?

excon

Typical George Bush bashing still, get over it... he's been out of office 14 months now. And he's NOT eligible to even run for it again. Time to get over it now.

Bill Clinton did it... Jimmy Carter did it... Obamas doing it..

And realistically... it goes back further than Jimmy Carter. And snooping goes back before the telephone and the telegraph before it were ever invented.

Lefties love their right to conspire with communists and others... otherwise why the huge concern about Terrorists and their "rights" when they don't really give a damn about Americans and their rights.

Example being how they bash everyone Else's right to free speech or try to take away anyone's right to own guns...

And as far as Terrorists acting against the USA outside of American soil...

Too bad... they are fair targets. They forfited that when they took up arms against the USA... and doing so on someone else's sovereign land means they forfeit any legal protections. I support just killing the SOB rather than my taxdollars going to pay some liberal lawyer to defend him like the circus with KSM and the other terrorist lowlifes in Gitmo.

Pakistan or Yemen is NOT a USA territiory, and is not subject to our laws any more than we are subject to their laws here in the USA. Which is as it should be.


And it also shows a basic and complete lack of understanding about how and what this "evesdropping" really is.

It isn't someone sitting in a phone closet or on a pole outside listening to every word being said. That's TV. And has been mentioned by OTHER members who know the processes involved as well... real life ISN'T what you watch on CSI.

Sorry Ex ; the Supremes have said differently twice.

The Ex parte Quirin case in WWII and the Hamdi decision hold that American citizens who fight for the enemy in wartime may be treated as enemy combatants, just like aliens.

BTW ;the answer for people who don't like the President's wartime powers would be to convince Congress to rescind or sunset the 2001 Authorization Act (AUMF)

Obama seems to have delusions of adequacy.

His track record on our Allies seems to be working-

UPDATE 4-Netanyahu cancels trip to Obama's nuclear summit | News by Country | Reuters (http://af.reuters.com/article/egyptNews/idAFLDE6372DV20100409?feedType=RSS&feedName=egyptNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reuters%2FAfricaEgyptNews+(Ne ws+%2F+Africa+%2F+Egypt+News)&sp=true)

His track record on our Allies seems to be working-

UPDATE 4-Netanyahu cancels trip to Obama's nuclear summit | News by Country | Reuters (http://af.reuters.com/article/egyptNews/idAFLDE6372DV20100409?feedType=RSS&feedName=egyptNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reuters%2FAfricaEgyptNews+(Ne ws+%2F+Africa+%2F+Egypt+News)&sp=true)The cancellation has nothing to do with Obama. You knew that, right?

The cancellation has nothing to do with Obama. You knew that, right?

Other than Barry made a promise he knew he couldn't keep, sure.

Other than Barry made a promise he knew he couldn't keep, sure.
Who is Barry?

Who is Barry?

Barrak Obama is known as Barry to certain people.

Barrak Obama is known as Barry to certain people.
Barack. Do we spell smoothy "smothy"?

Or, worse, "soothy"?

Barack. Do we spell smoothy "smothy"?

I don't care HOW he spells it. My nickname for him isn't appropriate on this site. And isn't as benign as "Barry".


And incidentally... I don't have a spell checker that functions on this machine, and no I can't put one on. You can thank Active Directory for that. Even Admin rights on a machine can be trumped by a higher authority on a Domain via policies that can't be modified locally.

Ask a system administrator about this if you don't understand what I am talking about or believe me.

I'm an engineer, not an English Major. And I certainly am NOT a good typist.

The reason Bibi is going to miss the meeting is that Obama has the US -Israeli relations at the lowest point it's been since the Suez Crisis .
He isn't going because he doesn't plan on being the piñata at an anti-Israel bash fest . Instead of it being about proliferation violations by the Mahdi-hatter and the 12ers in Tehran they plan on using the meeting hammer Israel instead.

Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor will attend ;which should be good enough for the President who had no issue meeting Putin's sock-puppet Medvedev this week to sign a START treaty.

Who is Barry?

This is Barry. Sigh...

http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20100412/capt.52d493edeb0243ef84cbfc87f58f4b6a-52d493edeb0243ef84cbfc87f58f4b6a-0.jpg?x=400&y=236&q=85&sig=7ExLDMeF0GRpZtR03CoBUA--

AGAIN: President Obama bows to foreign leader - China Pres. (http://krmg.com/blogs/the_krmg_morning_news_blog/2010/04/again-president-obama-bows-to.html)

This is Barry. Sigh...Hello again, Steve:

Yeah, he sucks. But, being polite to foreign dignitaries ISN'T one of the reasons.

excon

Who else did he bow to ?

The Last Tradition: President Bows to Burger ing at Nuclear Summit (http://thelasttradition.blogspot.com/2010/04/president-bows-to-burger-ing-at-nuclear.html)

Seriously though .There are 40 world leaders at the summit. Did he bow to all of them or is Hu Jintao his sugar daddy ?

or is Hu Jintao his sugar daddy ?Hello again, tom:

Wikkipedia defines sugar daddy as "a slang term for a rich man who offers money or gifts to a less rich younger person, usually female, in return for companionship or sexual favours."

Looks like Hu Jintao IS his sugar daddy.

excon

I'm...not an English Major. And I certainly am NOT a good typist.
I noticed, but I love you anyway.

Hello again, Steve:

Yeah, he sucks. But, being polite to foreign dignitaries ISN'T one of the reasons.

The president of the U.S. bowing to foregin leaders isn't politeness, it's a shameful embarrassment.

Hello again, Steve:

Yeah, he sucks. But, being polite to foreign dignitaries ISN'T one of the reasons.

exconThe problem isn't him being polite to foreign dignitaries, that part is expected... its him BOWING to them. And there IS a protocol to bows. Bowing deeper than the other guy does signifies you are the inferior one.

OUR Culture does not bow.

Simple Google on the topic will give better information on it.

The president of the U.S. bowing to foregin leaders isn't politeness, it's a shameful embarassment.Hello again, Steve:

I don't know. Politeness does all that?? Really Dude! Changing us from a people, who were a beacon of light in support of human rights, to a country that supports TORTURE, is pretty embarrassing to me.

But, to each his own.

excon

http://www.treehugger.com/bush-abdullah-holding-hands.jpg

Um... you are aware that Bush hasn't been president in 16 months. And without changing the Constitution, he's not going to be again either. Also there is no picture of him BOWING to every Tito , Quang and Wang out there. Which signifies he is their inferior. Not superiour or even equal.

And what's worse... he keeps doing it. Is he just dumb, or are his yes men just not telling him about it?

Um.....you are aware that Bush hasn't been president in 16 months. I don't remember you screeching 16 months ago when your president was lovingly holding hands with the country that helps fund terrorism against your country. Is holding hands OK?

I don't remember you screeching 16 months ago when your president was lovingly holding hands with the country that helps fund terrorism against your country. Is holding hands ok?

Far cry different than bowing so deep he could kiss the shoes of a growing number of foreign leaders just by extending his lips.

Also there is no picture of him BOWING to every Tito , Quang and Wang out there. Which signifies he is their inferior.Hello again, smoothy:

Some people in our society think machismo equals strength. There are others who don't think that at all. Count me among the latter. Does that make me better than you? Yes.

excon

I dunno. Politeness does all that???

I don't care if Obama is polite, kissing the a$$ of virtually every dictator he meets - especially while pi$$ing on our friends - is another story.

I don't remember you screeching 16 months ago when your president was lovingly holding hands with the country that helps fund terrorism against your country. Is holding hands ok?

You sure have a way of turning things into Bush hatred threads.

You sure have a way of turning things into Bush hatred threads.You make it seems like Obama is the only one who does certain actions. Isn't good to know that he isn't? Even Nixon bowed.
Are you saying it's OK to go for a hand-holding walk with the people that funded the death of over 3,000 of your fellow citizens?

Hello again, smoothy:

Some people in our society think machismo equals strength. There are others who don't think that at all. Count me among the latter. Does that make me better than you? Yes.

excon

Not in my mind.. Someone with a habitual need to appologize for everything that needs no appologizing for... has a mental problem.

That is NOT somethig to be proud of.

And while people do make mistakes... only morons don't learn from them.

And its clear that Obama isn't capable of grasping the concept of when, how, and to whom one bows... because he didn't just do it once... or twice... he keeps on doing it.

Perhaps he should pick his butt and smell his fingers too... since the man has no concept of what one does and does not do.

HE may have a lot to appologize for... but not the rest of the country.

http://www.stolendroids.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/bush_bow.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_lzgTXA_Iqpc/SeKFUACs8xI/AAAAAAAAAFg/Q628L9H-kwY/s400/bow.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ZEf6TUYdm_0/Sv9Su61hZqI/AAAAAAAAACA/LSberRcyG4g/s1600/eisenhower%2Bbow.jpg
http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/redeye-royalty/2009-11-17-Obamabow1.jpg

You make it seems like Obama is the only one who does certain actions. Isn't good to know that he isn't? Even Nixon bowed.
Are you saying it's ok to go for a hand-holding walk with the people that funded the death of over 3,000 of your fellow citizens?

Well, Obama is shunning Isreal and sucking up to Hamas, Hezbolah, Iran and the Palestinians... who are all Terrorists... and HIS administration is banning the use of the Term Islamic Terrorist...

Because terrorists dislike it.

After all how many Buddhist Terrorists do you see...

How many Sikh Terrorists...

How many Jehovah Witness Terrorists...

How man Bahai Terrorists..




Right... THOSE are the actions to be proud of...

Well, Obama is shunning Isreal and sucking up to Hamas, Hezbolah, Iran and the Palestinians....who are all Terrorists....and HIS administration is banning the use of the Term Islamic Terrorist.....

Because terrorists dislike it.


Right.....THOSE are the actions to be proud of.....Why did you quote me when your response has nothing to do with the text you quoted?

Since the lefties are incapible of research...

How to Bow in Japan - Learn How to Bow Properly in Japan (http://gojapan.about.com/cs/etiquetteinjapan/a/bowing.htm)

Bowing Etiquette | Korea.net (http://www.korea.net/detail.do?guid=28285)

Bowing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowing)



THere is a HUGE difference in Obamas toe sucking bows and a nod.

Why did you quote me when your response has nothing to do with the text you quoted?

It has everything to do with it.


Obama loves terrorists and despots... and hates the majority of the American public.

It has everything to do with it.


Obama loves terrorists and despots...and hates the majority of the American public.You're funny and sad at the same time.

I tell it like it is... there is NO other POSSIBLE explanation to his actions.

He shares more in common with Adolf the Iranian Madman than he does with the average American.

I tell it like it is.....there is NO other POSSIBLE explanation to his actions.

He shares more in common with Adolf the Iranian Madman than he does with the average American.
I see you as a typical republican, do you think they all share this view?

MOST americans, not just republicans feel this way, including most Independents.

Check the polls. Record LOW numbers, 47% approve and still dropping.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/127316/Obama-Weekly-Approval-Lowest-Yet-One-Point.aspx

Only a small core of Democrats that ignore all reality think he's the Messiah who can do no wrong.

No wonder CNN has lost half its viewers, the New York Times and Washington post are almost bankrupt...

There is no money in fantasy if you are a newspaper.

Ah I see. <chuckle>

Ah I see. <chuckle>

Happy in your fantasy world?

You make it seems like Obama is the only one who does certain actions.

No, he's the only one that's currently our president.


Are you saying it's OK to go for a hand-holding walk with the people that funded the death of over 3,000 of your fellow citizens?

I've never hinted at anything of the sort, but Bush is no longer president and Obama is the one currently genuflecting to dictators and alienating our allies.

If you have evidence the House of Saud funded 9-11 I'd love to see it. The truth is however that the Sauds kicked OBL out of the country and OBL has a fatwah against them just as he has against us.

And the circle closes
30343