Ask Me Help Desk

Ask Me Help Desk (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forum.php)
-   Current Events (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=486)
-   -   Can the Democrats tell the truth? (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=200738)

  • Apr 6, 2008, 03:11 AM
    tomder55
    The problem with both Democrat candidates is that so long as the MSM was willing to overlook their problems without investigation then they were safe (Obama 's was Rev Wright and although the press gave him cover ;the new media wasn't about to) ).

    Hillary traces the origin of her tales to a story told by a deputy sheriff at a meeting. She did not bother to fact check because she figured that the MSM would giver her cover. But she was outed by the NY Slimes because their affection has swung to the candidate furthest to the left.

    The fact that Hillary did not fact check the story is indicative of how she would perform in office. I keep on looking for compelling reasons for voting for either Democrat candidate and I can't find any beyond the " first " premise.
  • Apr 6, 2008, 04:11 AM
    Credendovidis
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx
    Can the Democrats tell the truth?

    Can the Democrat, Conservative and/or any other presidential contender tell the truth?

    You have insincere people, you have liars, you have chronic liars, you have car sales men and insurance sales people, you have lawyers, and you have politicians...
    No need for "party colored" glasses!

    'nough said!
    ;)
  • Apr 6, 2008, 04:50 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55
    The fact that Hillary did not fact check the story is indicative of how she would perform in office.

    In other words, she launched the offensive even though there were no health care weapons of mass destruction? :D
  • Apr 6, 2008, 05:11 AM
    BABRAM
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55
    The problem with both Democrat candidates is that so long as the MSM was willing to overlook their problems without investigation then they were safe (Obama 's was Rev Wright and although the press gave him cover ;the new media wasn't about to) ).

    Hillary traces the origin of her tales to a story told by a deputy sheriff at a meeting. She did not bother to fact check because she figured that the MSM would giver her cover. But she was outed by the NY Slimes because their affection has swung to the candidate furthest to the left.

    The fact that Hillary did not fact check the story is indicative of how she would perform in office. I keep on looking for compelling reasons for voting for either Democrat candidate and I can't find any beyond the " first " premise.


    A bigger problem looms for McCain when the focus shifts back to general election coverage. So far he's been able to keep low with bland speeches, while the Democrats go at it. And since there isn't any compelling reason to vote McCain, I take it your voting a write-in candidate?
  • Apr 6, 2008, 05:55 AM
    ordinaryguy
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55
    I keep on looking for compelling reasons for voting for either Democrat candidate

    I don't believe you.
  • Apr 6, 2008, 05:58 AM
    ordinaryguy
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx
    In other words, she launched the offensive even though there were no health care weapons of mass destruction? :D

    Good one. McCain can portray her as offering a "third Bush term".
  • Apr 6, 2008, 06:40 AM
    George_1950
    So where will Obama come down on the right to keep and bear arms? Get ready for a whopper:
    "Ted Kennedy's Poodle is all for gun control. He wants to take guns away from law-abiding citizens. Others who have done this in history have been labeled Fascists. One person who did this was named Adolf. His last name started with an "H"...it's on the top of my tongue but I can't think of it...maybe it will come to me.

    Obama is against law-abiding citizens without any criminal record or history being able to defend themselves. Townhall:

    Barack Obama is embracing anti-gun policies in the run-up to a Democratic presidential debate scheduled on the one-year anniversary of the Virginia Tech shootings.

    “I am not in favor of concealed weapons,” Obama told the Pittsburgh Tribune. "I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations." [Yes, it would have been just terrible had a law-abiding citizen been carrying a concealed weapon to defend and protect him or herself - let alone others - at V-Tech, wouldn't it? - Drake]

    These remarks break from Obama's previous moderate rhetoric on gun control.

    While campaigning in Idaho in February, Obama promised, “I have no intention of taking away folks' guns.”

    Why - is The Poodle flip-flopping on his words? It sure seems so.

    Again from the above Townhall story:

    [Obama said], "a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families."

    I'm really sick and tired of Democrats using hunting and sportsmanship as their faux argument in pretending and posturing to be pro-Second Amendment. Hunting and sportsmanship have nothing to do with the Second Amendment."
    David Drake: Obama Is All Pro Gun Control
  • Apr 6, 2008, 07:00 AM
    George_1950
    From the past, talking about Democrat fibs being whoppers and the MSM never covering them: "Mr. Clinton introduced the promise of a tax cut for the middle class in a speech in November 1991 at Georgetown University. "I will offer middle-income tax cuts," he said. "The average working family's tax bill will go down about 10 percent, a savings of about $300 a year, and I won't finance it with increasing the deficit."

    As late as 10 days before the election, Mr. Clinton was still promising a tax cut for families making less than $80,000. On Oct. 24, a reporter asked him if it was true, as advisers were saying, that he might postpone the middle-class tax cut for a year if elected, in the light of gloomy economic projections. "Absolutely not," Mr. Clinton said. "I make the economic decisions in this Administration." CLINTON'S ECONOMIC PLAN: The Campaign; Gambling That a Tax-Cut Promise Was Not Taken Seriously - New York Times
    I recall Clinton at a news conference after the 'Economic Summit' (go back and see all the corporate and oil bigwigs that attended) saying, "I've worked harder on this than anything in my life and we just can't find a way...." blah, blah, blah. Oh the lies of Democrats, that never get covered. But this year, Hillary is Obama's shield.
  • Apr 6, 2008, 07:08 AM
    excon
    Hello again,

    I don't know why you righty's want to call the other guys liars, when the head of YOUR party, is the liar in chief - the MOTHER of all liars! To wit:

    There are WMD'S - not

    We're making progress - not

    America has prevailed - not

    We don't torture - not

    We don't spy on Americans - not

    And, these ain't teeny little lies, like I didn't have sex with that woman, or I changed my mind about tax cuts... Nooooo, these are really BIG WHOPPERS where people DIE because of them.

    I DO understand, however, that these are distinctions that you, somehow, CANNOT make. I don't know why. You think lying about a blow job is just like lying about WMD's...

    excon
  • Apr 6, 2008, 11:03 AM
    ordinaryguy
    As long as we're remembering Republican lies, let's not forget Reagan's denial that he sold arms to the Iranians and gave the money to the Contras. I'm still pissed that he got away with that.
  • Apr 6, 2008, 11:33 AM
    George_1950
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
    As long as we're remembering Republican lies, let's not forget Reagan's denial that he sold arms to the Iranians and gave the money to the Contras. I'm still pissed that he got away with that.

    Yeah, fighting for freedom in your own backyard antagonizes liberals. :D
  • Apr 6, 2008, 12:07 PM
    ordinaryguy
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by George_1950
    Yeah, fighting for freedom in your own backyard antagonizes liberals. :D

    Yes it does. The reason is that "fighting for freedom" by secret and illegal means has a way of not staying in the backyard, but coming right into the house.
  • Apr 6, 2008, 03:03 PM
    BABRAM
    Obama has a fairly common standard view: that is that we have right to bear arms as individuals.

    Most recent article I could find with his position on the issue.

    Obama Supports Individual Gun Rights

    The senator, a former constitutional law instructor, said some scholars argue the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees gun ownerships only to militias, but he believes it grants individual gun rights.

    "I think there is an individual right to bear arms, but it's subject to commonsense regulation" like background checks, he said during a news conference.


    I did a little more digging and found his senate record which indicates back in 1998he opposed semi-automatic weapon sales. But for all the false hoopla about losing your fire-arms rights or missing out on that annual hunting trip into the brush thickets of backwoods USA, that's just nonsense.

    His voting record in the Senate, 1998

    Gun Issues

    Indicate which principles you support (if any) concerning gun issues.
    X a) Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
    X b) Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
    c) Maintain state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
    d) Ease state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
    e) Repeal state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms by law-abiding citizens.
    f) Favor allowing citizens to carry concealed firearms.
    X g) Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.
    h) Other
  • Apr 7, 2008, 07:15 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    “I am not in favor of concealed weapons,” Obama told the Pittsburgh Tribune. "I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations."
    There are 288,909 concealed weapons permit holders in Texas and it doesn't bother me a bit. Of the 1379 aggravated assault with a deadly weapon convictions in Texas in the last year statistics are available (2005), 4 were permit holders. Of 63 manslaughter convictions, 1 was a permit holder. Of the 175 murder convictions, 1 was a permit holder. Of the 34,791 listed convictions, 0.3708% (129) were permit holders.

    Quote:

    The number of homicides in Texas has decreased almost every year since recording 2,022 homicides in 1994 to 1,407 in 2005, according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Report data. During the same time span, Texas' population has risen from 18.3 million to about 23 million residents.
    The article claims a spike in homicides in Texas although 2006, the last year available, 1,384 were reported. Texas' population has increased 26 percent since the concealed weapons law went into effect and yet homicides have decreased by a third. Mr. Obama should not worry about maybes so much.
  • Apr 7, 2008, 05:22 PM
    BABRAM
    Steve,

    Here in Vegas, like in LA, NYC, Philly, Chi-Town, and some other large cities, we have many concealed weapon carriers that are known as: citizens with permits, police department, federal agents, Bloods, M13's, numerous biker gangs and of course the mob. Down your way in Texas (Houston, Big D, Austin and SA) add others in the mix such as: the Texas Syndicate, Mexican mafia, Skin heads, and numerous other smaller links in the food chain.

    Obama advocates individual rights to own fire-arms. But I take this in a broader scope than Obama and disagree with him in part. His view against concealed weapons would be nearly impossible for him to overturn because he's not going to get enough support on this particular issue to change it later. At least I'm doubtful of that occurring. And even if he could accomplish this feat it would not effect the vast majority of the nation since most don't have the permit in the first place. Besides you would still have that sawed off shotgun in the closet and our police forces would be excluded because they carry off duty anyway.

    Personally I would make it where nobody even had to have a concealed weapons permit to carry a fire-arm and I'm not even sure registration warrants that much value either. The Brady law was enacted after the fact, only delays, and never will stop bullets from leaving the chamber. There are numerous ways to elude laws if anyone has the will to perpetrate homicide. On this issue my ideal candidate would make it mandatory to take a standardized class to respect the responsibility of ownership. Easy enough and no hassle. My plan is that you buy a fire-arm, no registration, you take the class certification for "responsibility of ownership," and you can leave free to carry your fire-arm, concealed or not, everywhere accept when private property posts otherwise, or in city, state, or federal government buildings.

    Another inexcusable law is the length of knives that can be carried. You can cut several vital places on the body with less than a two inch blade that could take a life. When I was younger and into martial arts, I took Kali (Filipino style). Part of the classes focused on anatomy of the body. The gun/knife weapon issues is just something that most politicians don't fair well with me. I don't agree with either Republicans or Democrats on the subject.
  • Apr 7, 2008, 06:11 PM
    Skell
    Yeah the guns are really making you safer!

    List of countries by firearm-related death rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    http://www.guncite.com/cnngunde.html

    But I understand it is a different set of social circumstances over there and you value highly the right to own guns. If only you could see the damage it is doing.
  • Apr 8, 2008, 03:27 AM
    tomder55
    Quote:

    Obama is also self-triangulating on the issue of gun control. In 1996, he said in response to a questionnaire that he favored banning the manufacture, sale, and possession of hand guns. For several years thereafter, he was on the board of a Chicago-based foundation that takes aggressive gun control positions. Lately, though, his views have become more nuanced. Parting company with hard-line gun control advocates, Obama contends that the Second Amendment's right to bear arms applies not just to militias but to individuals as well. However, he also insists that this constitutional guarantee does not preclude local “common sense” restrictions on firearms. But when asked several times by Novak how he applies this set of principles to the District of Columbia's gun law, the constitutionality of which the Supreme Court is now considering, Obama declines to answer. Perhaps he feels the District has the better arguments, but would vote with the Court's conservatives if it were close. It's overwhelmingly likely that deep-down Obama is a solid leftist. That's how he was raised and educated, and that's where he started on the war, gun control, and a host of other issues.
    Power Line
  • Apr 8, 2008, 09:36 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Skell
    Yeah the guns are really making you safer!

    Skell, I noticed in today's paper you guys had some kids with baseball bats and machetes rampaging through a school. I hope school violence isn't becoming a trend down there for you guys, it seems to just get uglier. We just had a bunch of 3rd Graders plotting to attack their teacher.

    Anyway, on your statistics, I found a WHO report (pdf) that shows the homicide rate is greatest in the African region, the suicide rate was greatest in the Western Pacific region. The suicide rate in the European region was on par with the homicide rate in the Americas, and the European homicide rate was roughly the same as the suicide rate in the Americas.

    According to Nationmaster, the US is 24th in murders per capita and 8th in murders with firearms per capita:

    #1 South Africa: 0.719782 per 1,000 people
    #2 Colombia: 0.509801 per 1,000 people
    #3 Thailand: 0.312093 per 1,000 people
    #4 Zimbabwe: 0.0491736 per 1,000 people
    #5 Mexico: 0.0337938 per 1,000 people
    #6 Belarus: 0.0321359 per 1,000 people
    #7 Costa Rica: 0.0313745 per 1,000 people
    #8 United States: 0.0279271 per 1,000 people

    Violence is a problem everywhere Skell, and while people like to focus on firearms in America, I wonder why suicide rates are highest in the western pacific and Europe.
  • Apr 8, 2008, 06:07 PM
    Skell
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx
    Skell, I noticed in today's paper you guys had some kids with baseball bats and machetes rampaging through a school. I hope school violence isn't becoming a trend down there for you guys, it seems to just get uglier. We just had a bunch of 3rd Graders plotting to attack their teacher.

    Violence is a problem everywhere Skell, and while people like to focus on firearms in America, I wonder why suicide rates are highest in the western pacific and Europe.

    Yes that story you mention is just horrible and something we are unfamiliar with down here. I also hope it isn't a trend we see develop down here. We have problems with ciolence but generally schools are a place of learning. A safe haven for children to enjoy.

    Interestingly enough the gang that did this has named themselves after famous american street gangs and it is there 'ambition' to bring the american gang culture to the streets of Sydney. They are of Pacific Islander decent and appear to idolise the american gangsta life. It is very scary and one our government needs to really act on swiftly.

    The difference as I see it Steve is that because guns are harder to obtain here than the US, those punks were 'only' carrying machetes and bats. Sure they may have access to guns, but in this instance they weren't carrying them. No one was killed. Some people suffered non life threatening injuries. In the US we see a different outcome. We see mass shootings of innocent kids going about there schooling each week (or so it seems). The argument that bearing arms protects you just doesn't sit with me. The statistics say otherwise.

    And I agree Steve that violence is a problem everywhere, not just in the US. No doubt. But for a developed nation. A great and intelligent nation to just sit by and watch 1000's of innocent people slaughtered each year by guns and simply trot out the old "guns dont kill people, people do" line simply astounds me. Just cause its in your constitution doesn't make it right. Especially in the world we live in today.

    But I have had my say on this before (particualry with Elliot) and I have come to the conclusion to simply leave it as a clash of cultures and attitudes. We are just poles apart on this issue. Perhaps you guys are too far down the gun culture path to ever safely go back.
  • Apr 8, 2008, 07:43 PM
    BABRAM
    Skell-

    I remember the debates over the gun ownership issue with Elliot. I think both sides of the argument was in-depth and presented very well. You're correct in that ideally the removal of all guns would solve a lot of the violence. However it is not practical for the US. At this point and time of our country's history asking people to turn over their guns would never would be enough. Perhaps a very small percentage under a "pay for voluntary giving up fire-arms" using a tax deduction after appraisal, but nothing near enough. Even if the government ordered the military to help out the local police forces in trying to remove fire-arms that would only cause a civil disaster, numerous funerals, initiated both by citizens otherwise fit for society, and those gang or mafia ilk. It's just not practical here in the States. The government similarly once tried the same with the prohibition of alcohol and it just produced more body bags and underground speakeasies.
  • Apr 8, 2008, 07:51 PM
    Skell
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by BABRAM
    Skell-

    I remember the debates over the gun ownership issue with Elliot. I think both sides of he argument was in-depth and presented very well. You're correct in that ideally the removal of all guns would solve a lot of the violence. However it is not practical for the US. At this point and time of our country's history asking people to turn over their guns would never would be enough. Perhaps a small percentage under a pay for fire-arms tax deduction after appraisal, but nothing near enough. Even if the government ordered the military to help out the local police forces in trying to remove fire-arms that would only cause a civil disaster, numerous funeral, initiated both by citizens otherwise fit for society, and those gang or mafia ilk. It's just not practical here in the States. The government similarly once tried the same with the prohibition of alcohol and it just produced more body bags and underground speakeasies.

    Thinking about it more and more I tend to agree, hence my final comment in the previous post regarding being too far down the gun path. It would appear that the practicalities of removing guns from the streets make it simply impossible. Indeed it was impossible here. However there is statistical evidence also down under here that shows a sharp reduction in gun violence since the inception of strict guns laws.

    I would just like to see something more done over there to prevent the alarming rate of mass shootings and other gun related deaths. It is just so sad and from the outside looking in it appears that nothing proactive is being done.
  • Apr 8, 2008, 07:54 PM
    Skell
    And its funny Bobby you should mention alcohol. There is a bit of problem down under here at present with alcohol fuelled violence amongst youth. Reports suggest it is linked to binge drinking culture among young people. The local council where I am from has recently tightened licour licencing laws and are enforcing a 3am lock out of all inner city drinking premises. It has caused some heated debate. It will be interesting to see if it works. But at least something is being tried.
  • Apr 8, 2008, 08:09 PM
    BABRAM
    Almost all our convenient stores nationwide now ID you if you appear to be under the age of forty. It seems a bit extreme, but I'm sure it has saved some lives. Also having curfews especially in the larger cities is a step in the right direction. Where I live, in Las Vegas, we have a juvenile curfew ordinance.
  • Apr 8, 2008, 08:36 PM
    biggsie
    Could this be a three way race -- Most people don't like Mc Cain

    Most people don't like Obama -- Most people don't like Clinton's

    I don't think any of them can fix the problems of this country
  • Apr 9, 2008, 04:04 AM
    George_1950
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by biggsie
    Could this be a three way race -- Most people don't like Mc Cain

    Most people don't like Obama -- Most people don't like Clinton's

    I don't think any of them can fix the problems of this country

    I like this answer because it exposes a problem, sort of: this country wasn't created so that someone or anyone could come along and fix it; but just the opposite. We are so far down the road of socialism/fascism that we need some kind of overhaul, a diminution, of government. But what we have are the Dem/fascist candidates that promise 'more, more, more'; and the GOP candidate who may be sleepwalking and whose party has become effete. We are needing a return to first principles: Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; not cradle to grave security.
  • Apr 9, 2008, 06:03 AM
    ordinaryguy
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by George_1950
    I like this answer because it exposes a problem, sort of: this country wasn't created so that someone or anyone could come along and fix it; but just the opposite.

    What do you mean, "just the opposite"? Why do you think it was created?
    Quote:

    We are so far down the road of socialism/fascism that we need some kind of overhaul, a diminution, of government.
    Battle cry of the Reagan Revolution: "The Government can't solve the problem, the Government IS the problem." The present Administration is the bitter harvest of that "revolution".

    Quote:

    But what we have are the Dem/fascist candidates that promise 'more, more, more';
    Your use of the "/fascist" formulation is brilliant, rhetorically speaking.

    Quote:

    and the GOP candidate who may be sleepwalking and whose party has become effete.
    Effete Republicans? Surely you jest.
    Quote:

    We are needing a return to first principles: Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; not cradle to grave security.
    After enumerating the rights mentioned, the Preamble goes on to say:
    Quote:

    That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men
    This is the proper and necessary function of Government, the standard against which every political party doctrine or Executive Branch policy should be measured. By that standard, this Administration has been an abject failure, in my estimation.

    The real issue here is what do we owe each other as members of a collective--a Nation, a People? Saying that the answer is "Nothing" simply won't do. Individuals DO benefit from collective action, and DO owe the body politic something in exchange for those benefits, starting with respect for the rights of others. There IS such a thing as GOOD government--one that is really delivers on the promise to "secure" those rights for every citizen.
  • Apr 9, 2008, 07:07 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Skell
    I would just like to see something more done over there to prevent the alarming rate of mass shootings and other gun related deaths. It is just so sad and from the outside looking in it appears that nothing proactive is being done.

    Skell, I don't see it as a gun problem, I see it as a cultural problem - but that's another discussion. ;)
  • Apr 11, 2008, 10:44 AM
    speechlesstx
    ABC News Senior National Correspondent Jake Tapper counts 8 "misremberings" by Bill Clinton on Evita's Bosnia trip:

    Quote:

    From the Fact Check Desk: Former President Bill Clinton's Defense of His Wife's Bosnia Sniper-Fire Story

    April 10, 2008 9:35 PM

    Former President Bill Clinton offered this bit of revisionist history of his wife's Bosnia story in Jasper, Ind. today, one riddled with a veritable sniper fire of errors -- ones necessitating footnotes.

    Watch the former President's misstatement-riddled explanation for his wife HERE.

    "She took a terrible beating in the press for a few days," he said, per ABC News' Sarah Amos, "because she was exhausted at 11 o'clock at night (1) and she started talking about Bosnia and she misstated the circumstances under which she landed in Bosnia. (2)

    "Did you all see all that? And oh, they acted like she was practically Mata Hari,"
    he said -- referring to the Dutch exotic dancer accused by the French of spying for the Germans and executed by a firing squad during World War I -- "like she was making up all this stuff.

    "And then the president of Bosnia said, 'Well, it was quite dangerous when she came, there were snipers in the hills all around,' (3) And then Gen. Wes Clarke, who was there trying to make the peace among the Bosnians, said 'Yeah, it was dangerous, let me remind you three of the Americans who were on my peace-keeping team were killed because they had to take a dangerous road 'cause they couldn't go the regular way.'

    "And she had to go up into the cockpit with our daughter, in a bullet-proof area, and all the other people had to sit on their bullet-proof flak jackets (4) because it was dangerous. So she immediately (5) said 'OK, I misremembered that, they didn't cancel the welcoming ceremony, but it was pretty dangerous.' "


    In Boonville, Ind. also today, he told a different version, saying his wife, "one time late at night (1) when she was exhausted, she misstated and immediately (5) apologized (6) for it, what happened to her in Bosnia in 1995. (7) Did y'all see all that? Oh, they blew it up. Let me just tell you.

    "The president of Bosnia and Gen. Wesley Clark -- who was there making peace where we'd lost three peacekeepers who had to ride on a dangerous mountain road because it was too dangerous to go the regular, safe way -- both defended her because they pointed out that when her plane landed in Bosnia, she had to go up to the bulletproof part of the plane, in the front. Everybody else had to put their flak jackets underneath the seat (4) in case they got shot at. And everywhere they went they were covered by Apache helicopters.

    "So they just abbreviated the arrival ceremony. Now I say that because what really has mattered is that even then she was interested in our troops. And I think she was the first First Lady since Eleanor Roosevelt to go into a combat zone. (8) And you woulda thought, you know, that she'd robbed a bank the way they carried on about this."


    (1) Her most glaringly wrong telling of the tale, on March 17, 2008, was in the morning.

    (2) She actually told versions of the story several times. (And none was at night.)

    (3) In an e-mail to journalist Eric Jansson, former acting Bosnian president Ejup Ganic said "we didn't expect snipers," though, "we still believed that some positions on the hills were occupied by radical Serbs, so I was worried about the overall safety."

    (4) Not according to the pilot Colonel William "Goose" Changose (Ret.), who said, "nobody under my watch has ever directed anyone to sit on their flak jackets. ... We do not direct people to sit on their flak jackets."

    (5) It wasn't immediate at all -- it was 11 days later, first in an editorial board meeting with the Philadelphia Inquirer/Philadelphia Daily News, then later in a press availability.

    (6) She never apologized.

    (7) It was 1996, not 1995.

    (8) He qualified it with "I think," but then-first lady Pat Nixon went to a combat zone in Saigon, Vietnam, in July
    LOL, I wonder when Hillary is going to fire Bill from her campaign.
  • Apr 11, 2008, 12:21 PM
    svatnsdal
    All I can say is, no matter what country you're in, no political human can ever tell the truth! That's how they all get into power! They lie like crazy, they tell you what you want to hear, then when you vote them there, they do what they always wanted to.
    I always think any human who believes a political person will never know the difference between the truth and a lie.
  • Jan 28, 2009, 02:20 AM
    loopy123
    How do you know when a polition is telling a lie??

    Their lips move.

  • All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:10 PM.