 |
Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
No, I definitely don't think having McCain is a third term Bush... at all. And they are just saying that to put off/scare those voters who really are unhappy with the current Bush Administration.
There may be some similarities, but I seriously doubt a rubber stamp term with Sen. McCain. He seems the type that drives his own ship ( boy, did I leave myself open for that one).
LOL, I'm more interested in making music but some of you can't seem to get the rhythm right :DQuote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
But yet you never seem to answer any music posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
And you never seem to have much of anything positive to say either, or acknowledge when I do say something positive - such as the numerous times I've reminded you and the board about my defense of Obama's patriotism and said I liked the guy.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
By the way, I said I like to "make" music, not answer posts like "I really need ideas on rap songs." Also, I don't see a "music" category here either.
One can simply look at all my posts to see how false that is.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechless
Yet you start a thread titled "Can Democrats tell the truth?" and end your "question" that ends with "..is this what you want in a president, someone who either can't tell the truth or can't distinguish fact from fantasy" Yep, that really sounds like you like the guy. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechless
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/music/Quote:
Originally Posted by speechless
Does anyone know the potential running mates for either side?
I was just wondering.
All speculation
Obama may go for an ex military type and centrist like Jim Webb or Wesely Clark ;or he may try to balance the ticket with a Southerner like John Edwards (although I doubt he is inclined to run as 2nd fiddle again) .I think Bill Richardson set himself up nicely for a nod at Veep also.
Hillary really likes Evan Bayh of Indiana .Also Chris Dodd is a possibility and so is Jim Webb . He is a choice for both so the Dems can continue their Trojan Horse strategy . Her best choice would probably be Obama if she gets the nomination .
I have already floated some names for McCain. I still think Chris Cox would satisfy many Republican fence sitters. Bobby Jindal is less likey . I will also float the names Colin Powell;Fla Gov Charles Crist who pretty much sealed the nomination for McCain . Haley Barbor Gov of Mississippi who did the Katrina job that the La. Governor failed to do. He should not pick the Huckster or Romney . He is also very friendly with Lindsey Graham but I think the Republicans should keep whoever they can in the Senate and House .I am also notthrilled about these Rick Perry rumors. An intriguing selection would be Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska but she does not advance the electoral count so she is not likely .
There was the Al Qaeda in Iraq backlash that McCain had to eat from a few weeks ago and the more recent tip of the iceberg economic ping ponging. Something stuck all right and it has to do with John McCain's head being in a place that I didn't think was anatomically possible. Provided Obama gets the nomination, I can't wait for his campaign focus to be on McCain rather than Clinton. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I don't look at all your posts an apparently you don't look at all of mine either. These ARE the posts of yours I see:Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Quote:
I'll do my part to counter your constant negative posts and mudslinging... when I have the time (it's not my life's ambition as it is yours) :D
Quote:
Considering McCain is another Bush then the answer is a big NO!
Quote:
God these threads are getting tiresome.
Quote:
You have a problem, seek help.
Quote:
It has become apparent to me that America's school system is a pit of despair by reading these threads. Let's be glad we are where we are.
Quote:
Holy crap, is there anything that the US does well? 'Cause it seems there's massive problems with taxation, the public school system, corrupt administrators, illegal immigrants, etc. Is there anything going well there??
Quote:
Cheney On 4,000 Dead Americans: They Volunteered
Quote:
You're funny tom but not when you try to pass off the bullcrap.
Quote:
Another example of american divisiveness.
Not much positive there as far as I can tell.Quote:
Warning: persecution complex.
Even in this post of mine, which would have been more appropriately titled 'can "these" Democrats tell the truth,' I did say I don't question Hillary's patriotism, I do think there are politicians of integrity on both sides, and prior to your first post exonerated Hillary on one of the claims, "Factcheck.org supports Hillary's claim on SCHIP." Nevertheless the facts show the Democratic candidates have a problem with reality lately and I think that matters when selecting the next president. It always seemed to matter when Bush allegedly lied, we're supposed to overlook it in the next president?Quote:
Yet you start a thread titled "Can Democrats tell the truth?" and end your "question" that ends with "..is this what you want in a president, someone who either can't tell the truth or can't distinguish fact from fantasy" Yep, that really sounds like you like the guy. :rolleyes:
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/music/
Thanks, I guess you have to dig deeper because it isn't listed on the home page. I'd still rather make music than spend time here. That's positive ;)
I think Bill Richardson is the practical choice on an Obama ticket.Quote:
Originally Posted by Allheart
Hillary will probably choose someone in Bosnia, around 3 a.m..
McCain needs to find someone who's stronger suit is economics. But they can't stand in for him at the national debates. John's going to have hope to skew the questions on economics towards Iraq, which is not a winner for him either. Another problem is finding someone willing to take criticism from his own Republican party in following McCain's lead.
Thanks Tom - Man Colin Powel, now that would be a great ticket. Has his name been floated about? I would just love that and it for sure would be my choice! I think it would be strong and rock solid, with great name recognition for both. And who could not possibly help but respect Colin Powel. I'd be thaaarilled :).Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
People are still talking about the al-Qaeda thing? Or dropping out of public financing? Or his alleged affair? All I'm hearing over and over is the "100 year war" claim, which as I understand it, Obama got hammered by the media over that a little bit today. He's not emerging from this race unbruised any more ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by BABRAM
Perish the Rick Perry thoughts, even though it would get him out of our hair in Texas.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
His name has actually surfaced the black communities on the Obama ticket, but it's really not plausible to either party. Republicans all but ostracized him (or viceversa) under the Bush admin, and Powell has stated that he doesn't want to be in the political fray.Quote:
Originally Posted by Allheart
Richardson would be a good choice for Obama. McCain's problem in the debates is going to be restraining himself from calling whoever his opponent is an a**hole. Then again, maybe that would work in his favor :DQuote:
Originally Posted by BABRAM
Did you think Al Qaeda was not an issue? Wow! Steve! Wow! As for that Obama not emerging from the race "unbruised anymore" comment, you should have a gig on the Comedy channel. Obama thrives on adversity. We rather speak on meaningful issues, but we welcome anything. In fact I spent days, perhaps weeks, tackling silly arguments about retired pastors and campaign funds. Again, provided Obama gets the nomination, I can't wait for his campaign focus to be on McCain, rather than Clinton.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I agree. McCain's temperament reflects poorly for leadership of this country, and the same goes for Hillary. I've heard Republican commentators openly criticize McCain for his anger management problem.
Yeah, but I like a guy who doesn't back down from an a**hole. Of course a big question if it is Obama and McCain is who will be able to sound intelligent without a teleprompter. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by BABRAM
It could happen. GWB called a reporter an as$hole, and he got elected.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Perfect! McCain gets his oxygen bottle line wrapped up with the extension cord going to the teleprompter, spits his false teeth, and starts yelling explicits at the debate moderator for asking him how he's going to repair a failing economy. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
And that's the kind of leadership that some McCain supporters have come to admire. But in the soon to be ex-president's defense, perhaps Dubya acquired his superb recognition skills from personal experience? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
Hate to tell you but McCain was correct about Iran training and supplying both Shia and al-Qaeda "insurgents " . Those IEDs that kill our troops are made in Iran ;those mortars attacking the green zone are made in Iran.
McCain should've stuck to his guns on that comment because he was right.
Obama mistakes the moderator asking "how is your wife" for "what about Wright" and Obama launches into a G.D. America speech. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by BABRAM
Did you see McCain and Letterman trading jabs last night?
I'm sure Obama missed his teleprompter for this one...
Quote:
"Speaking about sex education at an event in Pennsylvania Saturday, Obama said, according to the Christian Broadcasting Network, that he will educate his young daughters but ‘if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD at the age of 16.’
Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Steve, I LOVED that. Thanks for sharing... good funny stuff... "You look like the guy"... :)
Can Obama tell the truth ?
Obama had greater role on liberal survey - Kenneth P. Vogel - Politico.com
Seems Obama changes his views to fit his particular audience. And when he gets caught at it... no problem... blame a staffer! The list is beginning to become impressive.
He never saw a survey that he says misrepresents his views, despite the fact that his handwriting is on the survey.
He didn't realize Rezko was under investigation when he entered into the shady house deal, even though it was well established in the local Chicago press.
He didn't know about the 11 low-income housing units going under in his state senate district that were owned by Rezko even as he asked for funds for these buildings.
He didn't know the difference between a yea vote and a nay vote, so he "pressed the wrong button" six times... at least two times in close votes .
He didn't know the Kyl-Lieberman vote was taking place, but somehow every other candidate knew about it.
He didn't realize that his spiritual mentor and pastor of 20 years was saying very controversial things in church (er.. but now maybe he says he did know... ). By the way Wright's retirement home is in a gated community on a golf course that is 98% white. Glad to see he has foresaken "middleclassness".
He didn't know his top economic adviser, Austin Goolsbee, met with the Canadian government and suggested that his position on NAFTA was just political posturing.
He was for the decriminalization of pot before he was against it because he did not know what decriminalization meant (strange admission from a Harvard graduate lawyer ) .
What's really sad to me tom is that I think he WAS telling the truth when he said he didn't want his daughters "punished with a baby." That is a classic argument by the abortion crowd and Obama "had a 100 percent rating from the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council."Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Not only that, but Obama voted "present" in the Illinois Senate on several abortion votes with Planned Parenthood's blessing so he couldn't be "pigeonholed" in elections. Nothing like having the character to stand for what you believe in instead of covering your a$$ to get elected. That's leadership isn't it?
So a "leadership vote" is not taking a position at all?Quote:
"We at Planned Parenthood view those as leadership votes," Pam Sutherland, the president and CEO of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, told ABC News. "We worked with him specifically on his strategy. The Republicans were in control of the Illinois Senate at the time. They loved to hold votes on 'partial birth' and 'born alive'. They put these bills out all the time.. . Because they wanted to pigeonhole Democrats."
Speaking to ABC News as Obama was preparing to join Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and the wife of Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., in addressing Planned Parenthood’s national conference in Washington, D.C., Sutherland said Obama approached her in the late 1990s and worked with her and others in crafting the strategy of voting "present." She remembers meeting with Obama outside of the Illinois Senate chambers on the Democratic side of the aisle. She and Obama finished their conversation in his office.
"He came to me and said: 'My members are being attacked. We need to figure out a way to protect members and to protect women,'" said Sutherland in recounting her conversation with Obama. "A 'present' vote was hard to pigeonhole which is exactly what Obama wanted."
"What it did," she continued, "was give cover to moderate Democrats who wanted to vote with us but were afraid to do so" because of how their votes would be used against them electorally. "A 'present' vote would protect them. Your senator voted 'present.' Most of the electorate is not going to know what that means."
While Sutherland was happy to give Obama latitude in voting "present," rather than "no," she was quick to note that "it’s also not a 'yes' vote."
As reported by The Wall Street Journal, some of the specific abortion votes in question include two occasions in 1997 (HB 382 and SB 230) when he voted "present" on bills which would have prohibited a procedure referred to by its critics as "partial-birth abortion." In 2001, he voted "present" on two parental notification abortion bills (HB 1900 and SB 562), and he voted "present" on a series of bills (SB 1093, 1094, 1095) that sought to protect a child if he or she survived a failed abortion.
If Obama makes it to the general election, he can expect the Republican National Committee to use his "present" votes on abortion -- and other controversial issues -- to paint him as “A Leader Who Has Never Led.”
"Nothing quite says principled and strong leadership like a 'present' vote on a controversial issue," RNC spokesman Dan Ronayne told ABC News. "Apparently the rookie didn't take all his at bats in the minors."
On a vote that angered fellow Illinois Sen. Rickey Hendon, Hendon acknowledged on pressing the wrong button "it happens," but added "I've never done it." Maybe he really is "color blind." ;)Quote:
He didn't know the difference between a yea vote and a nay vote, so he "pressed the wrong button" six times... at least two times in close votes .
LOL, somebody must have left that out of his script so he was wingin' it.Quote:
He was for the decriminalization of pot before he was against it because he did not know what decriminalization meant (strange admission from a Harvard graduate lawyer ) .
I don't know if you are addressing me, but I was speaking of the situation in Iraq before the proverbial drek hit the fan. If there is one thing that's certain, it is that once you stir the ant-bed with as much anti-American sentiment that's out there, others will certainly pour gas on the fire. Having said that Al-Qaeda became part of the insurgency in the Iraqi grab bag after the war began along with extremist from Syria, Palestinian, and Iranians among others in an already civil war torn country with it's factions. Those idiots are pouring gas on he fire and McCain's willing to pour my money down the drain in Iraq; both are wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Fortunately for our nation Obama's the even temperament candidate of the bunch. McCain's shtick is better suited for Letterman's scripted softballs. Last night I was watching Larry King's interview with Jesse Ventura. If you like Ron Paul or are tired of both Republicans and Democrats, business as usual, you'll enjoy this: YouTube - Jesse Ventura Discusses Politics Part 1Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Bobby ; McCain has been mocked because he said Iran was training al Qaeda and Joe Leiberman whispered into his ear a correction. My point was that McCain need not have corrected himself because clearly Iran is training and supplying al Qaeda fighters in Iraq.
There is this silly notion that I have heard since the war began that there is such a divide between Sunni and Shia that there could be no possibility of cooperation between them . The other correlary was that Iraq was a secular state and Saddam would never have coordinated and cooperated with jihadists .
Both assertions have been proven incorrect.
Tom-
I wasn't referencing Lieberman. I think we were on two different issues that were brought up in the past month or so on the campaign trail. I'll leave it at that. I'm going to the store and stock up on family groceries. Catch everyone later. :)
More bad news for Hillary according to columnist Dan Calabrese.
Quote:
March 31, 2008
Watergate-Era Judiciary Chief of Staff: Hillary Clinton Fired For Lies, Unethical Behavior
As Hillary Clinton came under increasing scrutiny for her story about facing sniper fire in Bosnia, one question that arose was whether she has engaged in a pattern of lying.
The now-retired general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, who supervised Hillary when she worked on the Watergate investigation, says Hillary’s history of lies and unethical behavior goes back farther – and goes much deeper – than anyone realizes.
Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquid affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.
Why?
“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”
How could a 27-year-old House staff member do all that? She couldn’t do it by herself, but Zeifman said she was one of several individuals – including Marshall, special counsel John Doar and senior associate special counsel (and future Clinton White House Counsel) Bernard Nussbaum – who engaged in a seemingly implausible scheme to deny Richard Nixon the right to counsel during the investigation.
Why would they want to do that? Because, according to Zeifman, they feared putting Watergate break-in mastermind E. Howard Hunt on the stand to be cross-examined by counsel to the president. Hunt, Zeifman said, had the goods on nefarious activities in the Kennedy Administration that would have made Watergate look like a day at the beach – including Kennedy’s purported complicity in the attempted assassination of Fidel Castro.
The actions of Hillary and her cohorts went directly against the judgment of top Democrats, up to and including then-House Majority Leader Tip O’Neill, that Nixon clearly had the right to counsel. Zeifman says that Hillary, along with Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar, was determined to gain enough votes on the Judiciary Committee to change House rules and deny counsel to Nixon. And in order to pull this off, Zeifman says Hillary wrote a fraudulent legal brief, and confiscated public documents to hide her deception.
The brief involved precedent for representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding. When Hillary endeavored to write a legal brief arguing there is no right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding, Zeifman says, he told Hillary about the case of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, who faced an impeachment attempt in 1970.
“As soon as the impeachment resolutions were introduced by (then-House Minority Leader Gerald) Ford, and they were referred to the House Judiciary Committee, the first thing Douglas did was hire himself a lawyer,” Zeifman said.
The Judiciary Committee allowed Douglas to keep counsel, thus establishing the precedent. Zeifman says he told Hillary that all the documents establishing this fact were in the Judiciary Committee’s public files. So what did Hillary do?
“Hillary then removed all the Douglas files to the offices where she was located, which at that time was secured and inaccessible to the public,” Zeifman said. Hillary then proceeded to write a legal brief arguing there was no precedent for the right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding – as if the Douglas case had never occurred.
The brief was so fraudulent and ridiculous, Zeifman believes Hillary would have been disbarred if she had submitted it to a judge.
Zeifman says that if Hillary, Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar had succeeded, members of the House Judiciary Committee would have also been denied the right to cross-examine witnesses, and denied the opportunity to even participate in the drafting of articles of impeachment against Nixon.
Of course, Nixon’s resignation rendered the entire issue moot, ending Hillary’s career on the Judiciary Committee staff in a most undistinguished manner. Zeifman says he was urged by top committee members to keep a diary of everything that was happening. He did so, and still has the diary if anyone wants to check the veracity of his story. Certainly, he could not have known in 1974 that diary entries about a young lawyer named Hillary Rodham would be of interest to anyone 34 years later.
But they show that the pattern of lies, deceit, fabrications and unethical behavior was established long ago – long before the Bosnia lie, and indeed, even before cattle futures, Travelgate and Whitewater – for the woman who is still asking us to make her president of the United States.
I'm so fed-up with the Clintons (and the Bush clans, for that matter). I went to school with a Calabrese... hmm could it be? Anyway I hope the televised heads of news commentary blast this one to the satellites and through our nation's rooftops.
I'm not holding my breath on that one, but who knows?Quote:
Originally Posted by BABRAM
More of her vaunted smoke and mirrors 'experience '.Evidently the Watergate experience set such new high standards for our public servants.
Notice how she was protected by the MSM all this time . Carl Bernstein of Watergate fame wrote a glowing tribute to Evita last year called "A Women in Charge " . This after he had clearly must have uncovered that her narrative did not match the facts . He had almost unlimited access and since he was so intimately involved in the Watergate episode it is had to believe that these facts escaped him.
The hits just keep coming...
Army, Marines - whatever. No word on whether she was interested in sniper training.Quote:
Possibly to avoid being one-upped on Indiana national security politics, former President Bill Clinton told a crowd in Columbus, Indiana, today that his wife had tried to join the Army.
Listen to an excerpt HERE.
"I remember when we were young, right out of law school, she went down and tried to join the Army and they said 'Your eyes are so bad, nobody will take you,'" he said, after heralding her record on issues of concern to the military, such as body armor and access to health care.
I assume this is a version of the "Hillary Clinton tried to join the Marines" anecdote that then-First Lady Clinton told in 1994 that we wondered about since it's a story she never seems to have told again.
The original story was that in Fayetteville, Arkansas, in 1975, Hillary walked into a local Marines recruiting office. The Marine recruiter looked at her, she recalled, and asked how old she was. Twenty-seven, she said.
"He looked at me, and in those days that was before I learned how to wear contact lenses," Sen. Clinton told a crowd of women veterans in 1994. "I had these really thick glasses on. He said, ‘How bad's your eyesight?' I said, ‘It's pretty bad.' …Finally said to me, he said, 'You're too old. You can't see. And you're a woman.…But maybe the dogs would take you.'"
("Dogs" being a reference to the Army.)
Perhaps she did so -- and hence Bill Clinton's Army story today?
Or maybe he's conflating the two stories?
(Add that Bosnian sniper fire, and you might have something there that Julia Roberts would want to option.)
Ooops: another one? I heard her spin this and got neauseated while listening; just another Clintontoid, I suppose: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/05/us...nt&oref=slogin
Oops, she did it again. I'm really wondering what we CAN believe out of Hillary.Quote:
Originally Posted by George_1950
Sad thing is, without an Obama, this is overlooked: "Oh, she means well."Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
How about this! Hillary's going to be grilled (deservedly so) over the story she's been using about a woman and child that she (Hillary) says died because a hospital turned down the mother for lack of coverage. Hillary apparently wanted to embellish it into a tale to promote her universal health-care proposal. According to the bit of news that's starting to come out, the hospital is setting the story straight and have asked Hilary to stop falsifying the facts. According the hospital they never turned the woman down due to lack of insurance. Eventually we may find out the woman did indeed have insurance. This is adding up to another ducking bullets in Bosnia type campaign farce that Hillary's going to eat. How much did Hillary and Billy-boy make over the past six years according to tax their statements? Better yet, why are people still paying the Clinton's for speaking engagements when they lie habitually? Oh! Wait a minute she "misspoke," again.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:48 PM. |