Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - jeffislouie

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 52
51
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: October 06, 2008, 03:56:49 PM »
I'm no koolaid drinker, Louie.  It's all about appearances - people care more about Keating than they do Ayers, because Keating is associated with the economy.  Ayers is a relic from the '60s, when everyone was "radical" (or so history portrays it.)

I've followed the Senate Indian Affairs Committee for over a decade, Lou, so I have so much dirt on McCain, none of which will ever be used by Obama, as voters don't care about Indians (unless we're building a casino in your neighborhood.)  Obama is no saint, but McCain is as dirty as they come.  And he's mean.  And will probably be dead in a year or two from melanoma.  Then we get Palin, whose own husband consorts with domestic terrorists.  Whee!

If it weren't for Palin, I actually wouldn't want this economic mess foisted upon a Democrat.  You Republicans made the mess, you clean it up.  However, Palin sees this as part of the End Times, and god knows what she'd do.  No thank you.  The choice of Palin made an uncommitted like me write for my absentee ballot.

Sorry Fry, but this current economic downturn is certainly more due to with the democrats than the republicans.

In fact, I'd say its primarily the fault of people such as Barney Frank.

I beg to disagree, 'Fused.  I have a pretty good grasp of the economic policies of the past decade.  Not all Democrats are blameless, but this is the Republican's big shitpile.  They own it, and it's a shame we all will be feasting on it for decades to come.

False.  It's the kool-aid talking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63siCHvuGFg

Prove that this is all the right's 'big shitpile' please....

52
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: October 06, 2008, 03:50:52 PM »
I'm no koolaid drinker, Louie.  It's all about appearances - people care more about Keating than they do Ayers, because Keating is associated with the economy.  Ayers is a relic from the '60s, when everyone was "radical" (or so history portrays it.)

I've followed the Senate Indian Affairs Committee for over a decade, Lou, so I have so much dirt on McCain, none of which will ever be used by Obama, as voters don't care about Indians (unless we're building a casino in your neighborhood.)  Obama is no saint, but McCain is as dirty as they come.  And he's mean.  And will probably be dead in a year or two from melanoma.  Then we get Palin, whose own husband consorts with domestic terrorists.  Whee!

If it weren't for Palin, I actually wouldn't want this economic mess foisted upon a Democrat.  You Republicans made the mess, you clean it up.  However, Palin sees this as part of the End Times, and god knows what she'd do.  No thank you.  The choice of Palin made an uncommitted like me write for my absentee ballot.

The Republican's didn't make this mess - democratic policies made this mess.  Barney Frank fought to keep fannie and freddie UNregulated.  This entire mess stems from the 'community reinvestment act':

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

When regulators tried to step in and say something, Democrats tried to kill the messengers while Republican's tried to make changes.  I know, it's a republican lie.  But here's the overlooked video that tells the story quite clearly:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL36nwCSYUM

Note that every Republican at that hearing took it seriously and wanted more information and every Democrat that spoke derided the regulators and claimed nothing was wrong.

The Democrats made the mess and Barney Frank did everything he could to keep regulators away from the banks.  If anything, the fault that should be attributed to the right is that they just didn't make a big enough stink about it....

53
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: October 06, 2008, 03:17:38 PM »
Voters don't care about Ayers.  They don't even care about Iraq anymore.  The majority of voters care about the economic crisis.  That's it.

Frankly, I'm not thrilled that Obama is going to be saddled with this huge shitpile.  But that's 100 times better than putting it in McCain's, and probably Palin's, completely incompetent hands.  Keating is much more related to voters' fears than Ayers is. 

The Dow will drop below 10,000 today, and Obama's polling numbers will jump.  And I am in no way an Obama fan.  But as I'm listening to him right now on MSNBW, he's talking about "you can't ignore the economy."  It's true.  McCain cannot avoid the economy.  And it will bring him down.

ETA:  I imagine Obama's numbers are somewhat depressed because of the incompetence of his field campaign, which is frankly the worst I've seen in a Democratic nominee in decades.  They've gone out of their way to make huge mistakes, and when they win, it will be despite that.  My only fear is that their GOTV will be as disastrous as their voter ID/voter contact programs.  Hopefully, down ticket races will make up for the national campaign.

Yes, Keating.  The scandal that (at least for McCain) wasn't.
http://www.slate.com/id/1004633/

"The Senate Ethics Committee probe of the Keating Five began in November 1990, and committee Special Counsel Robert Bennett recommended that McCain and Glenn be dropped from the investigation. They were not. McCain believes Democrats on the committee blocked Bennett's recommendation because he was the lone Keating Five Republican.
In February 1991, the Senate Ethics Committee found McCain and Glenn to be the least blameworthy of the five senators. (McCain and Glenn attended the meetings but did nothing else to influence the regulators.) McCain was guilty of nothing more than "poor judgment," the committee said, and declared his actions were not "improper nor attended with gross negligence." McCain considered the committee's judgment to be "full exoneration," and he contributed $112,000 (the amount raised for him by Keating) to the U.S. Treasury."

In other words, he didn't do anything improper and was kept on during the probe because he was the LONE REPUBLICAN.

More speculation with absolutely no merit.

And I also find it hypocritical that Obama says that McCain is slinging mud while paying for and responsible for the creation of a website intended to fool voters into believing that McCain was guilty.

He was not.  The investigator flat out stated that McCain did nothing wrong and recommended his name be removed from the probe.

In other words, more BS from the Obama Chicago-Dirty-Politics-Machine.

Stop drinking the kool-aid.

54
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: October 06, 2008, 03:11:34 PM »
...looks like we are going to get to the bottom of obama's connection with bill ayers...

with more of the voting public tuning in...the vetting of obama is moving to an intensity to match the palin vetting..


bill ayers who is now a teacher was a member of the "urban terrorists" the weatherman underground who posessed some extreme radical ideology which made ayers conspire to bomb the capitol and the pentagon...associations with former fugitive bombers???

aye don't know...ayers setting up meet and greets with people who could  help obama with his career...who knew?

Yes, Ayers was a terrorist. His connection to Obama? They served on the same charity board once and they live in the same neighborhood. They're bff's, alright.

The easy explanation? McCain-Palin know that they're only chance of winning is to sling enough mud around so that the voters can't see the real issues anymore, and hope no one calls them on their bull until after the election.

Why continue to swallow the lies that Obama has told you over and over again?
Ayers was a terrorist.  He IS an unrepentant terrorist.  He's also an active radical.  They did serve on a board (actually, two boards), but it wasn't a charity board - it was a huge financial board that was supposed to be aimed at improving education in Chicago.  By all measures it was a complete failure.  Ayers and Obama worked closely together on this board and had many meeting where they exchanged ideas.  And I agree if that and their neighborhood acquaintance that we were looking at, it might not be that big of a deal.  But that's just the beginning of the story.
When Obama wanted to run for office, Ayers threw the fundraiser/coming out party at his home.  Ayers' father used to run ComEd, the enormous power conglomerate in Illinois.  Ayers' father was known as the 'don of Chicago politics' because when people wanted to get elected, they worked directly with him.

Mr. Obama and Mr. Ayers served on the Woods Fund board together 1999, 2000, 2001, and through mid-December 2002, during which time they together approved grants to many progressive enterprises, including Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity Church and a Chicago organization closely associated with the prominent radical Palestinian booster and confrontational Professor Rashid Khalidi (right), then of the University of Chicago and now of Columbia University.

Barack Obama and his spokespersons have changed the explanations about the nature of the relationship between Mr. Ayers and Mr. Obama several times since the fact of it was first introduced to the presidential campaign this year.  In February, campaign strategist David Axelrod said the men knew each other because their children attended the same private school — despite the generational age difference between the grown Ayers children and very young Obama children.

But that's not the real problem.  It's only a piece of the puzzle.

The valid question discusses Obama's pattern of relationships with radicals.  So why ignore or minimize it?  If McCain had acquaintances with unrepentant terrorists and radical white power ministers, you know that would be an issue.  So why isn't it one for Obama?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y3U383Ffuk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxfQD4If7kk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxCZzxEfUAs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7g__--BJ9I

Ayers, Acorn, Palestinian terrorists who want to destroy Israel, Wright....

Where is the MSM reporting about this?  I mean, of course, the actual reporting not the reporting where reporters have taken Obama's word for it while refusing to investigate?

55
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: October 05, 2008, 05:11:29 PM »
yawn

Figures.  You are more than happy to propel rumors that simply aren't substantiated.  Once your point has been discredited, all you can say is 'yawn'.

How long have you been wearing tin-foil hats again?

Your questions related to your perception that the media was 'ignoring' the third wave allegations.  Which is logical, because the MSM has been very hesitant to attack her or investigate her.  It's not like they sent dozens of reporters to Wasilla to investigate Palin in the hopes of finding any juicy stories.  Nope, your conclusion is a lock - the media is coddling Palin and has been not only fair, but has refrained from sexism, misrepresentation, or speculation.

This was investigated.  I guarantee it.  The rabid left from the MSM wouldn't dare let a knockout story like this go - it's a no brainer.

I still don't get how Obama supporters dare to make the claim that McCain and/or Palin have been given a free pass by the media.  I still don't understand how Obama supporters choose to ignore potential scandals, damaging and radical associations, a total lack of leadership and/or executive experience, and a do nothing record.  I still don't understand why American's aren't hopping mad at the way the media has conspired to annoint Obama President.  Our media is designed to investigate and report the truth, not just the truth as their candidate presents it.

The media ignores the misstatements of fact made by Biden (or were they lies?) while hammering Palin for refusing to answer questions.  Just this morning I watched a guest on Chris Matthews show lie and say that the Republican party is dead (false), Republicans are throwing in the towel (false), and that Palin told Gwen Ifill that she isn't going to answer that question and chose to answer with her own topic.  That's just not what happened.  Ifill asked a yes or no type question.  Palin said that it was a quick answer, said yes, then used her time to talk about a misstatement of fact Biden made.

But you probably didn't know that.  Or don't care.

Truth is pesky.....

Especially if goes against Howard Dean's brainwashed minion speak.

56
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: October 05, 2008, 04:11:08 PM »
Oh, you meant that third wave nonsense?
Meaningless tripe intended to play on the fear democrats have relating to religion.  She's too christian.....

The MSM hasn't done anything with it because the connection is as weak as it is silly.
http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20080920/news/809208053

"Palin gets dragged into this in what amounts to guilt by association. Some people who may have attended workshops at a Third Wave center also taught at Wasilla Assembly of God, etc., etc. Wilson and Sanchez engage in the same kind of connecting-the-dots speculation that has marked the worst of the right wing commentators for years.

It is true that Third Wave theology and practices are not what you would call mainstream. But as one respected scholar put it in a helpful article by Kimberly Winston of Religion News Service, “It’s marginal in the big picture, but front and center in certain charismatic networks.” Marginal is the key word.

It’s worth pointing out that Palin left Wasilla Assembly in 2002 for a church that is not Pentecostal but evangelical. She has not disclosed the reasons she left her childhood church, but it’s not unusual for a person’s beliefs to evolve.

Palin clearly is a Christian with quite conservative political and theological views, but so is President George W. Bush, and the last time I checked I was not living in an America governed by biblical law.

It’s fair to ask what she believes, but anyone who starts hyperventilating about vague connections between Sarah Palin and Third Wavers like Todd Bentley should breathe into a paper bag for awhile."

This is one of the more ridiculous arguments I've read.
Spastic attacks and speculation hidden as declarative truth doesn't do anyone any good.  This is just as ridiculous as the claim that Obama is really a Muslim.

It is not, however, anywhere near as damning as Obama's long association with Rev. Jeramiah Wright.  Obama admits to being a member of that church for over 20 years.  Wright married the Obama's and baptized their children.  I know Obama CLAIMS that he had no idea that the racist, race-baiting, america bashing pastor ever spoke like he did (I guess that all started when Obama decided to run for President, right?), but that's a lie.  And an obvious one.

This from Obama's own book:

"The painting depicts a harpist," Revernd Wright explained, "a woman who at first glance appears to be sitting atop a great mountaintop. Untill you take a closer look and see that the woman is bruised and bloodied, dressed in tattered rags, the harp reduced to a single frayed string. Your eye is then drawn down to the scene below, down to the valley below, where everywhere are the ravages of famine, the drumbeat of war, a world groaning under strife and deprivation.
It is this world, a world where cruise ships throw away more food in a day than most residents of Port-au-Prince see in a year, where white folks' greed runs a world in need, aprtheid in one hemisphere, apathy in another hemisphere ... That's the world! On which hope sits."
And so it went, a meditation on a fallen world. While the boys next to me doodled on their church bulletin, Reverend Wright spoke of Sharpesville and Hiroshima, the callousness of policy makers in the White House and in the State House. ..."

Sounds like Wright sermon that talked about "white folks' greed runs a world in need" - and Obama is proud of this inspirational hate speech, so much so he repeated it and claims that it inspired the title of his book "the audacity of hope"

Keep on searching for more anti-palin info - it doesn't surprise me that this came from the HuffPo piece that lacked any substantiation......

Guilt by association is only relevant if the one we want to declare guilty is a republican.  All Democrats get a pass.

Excellent.

57
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: October 05, 2008, 02:01:45 PM »
Biden lied to the American people during his one and only debate:

http://www.johnmccain.com/McCainReport/Read.aspx?guid=343ba934-6417-4b65-ac9e-92348acb5e97

Joe Biden's 14 Lies

1. TAX VOTE: Biden said McCain voted “the exact same way” as Obama to increase taxes on Americans earning just $42,000, but McCain DID NOT VOTE THAT WAY.

2. AHMEDINIJAD MEETING: Joe Biden lied when he said that Barack Obama never said that he would sit down unconditionally with Mahmoud Ahmedinijad of Iran. Barack Obama did say specifically, and Joe Biden attacked him for it.

3. OFFSHORE OIL DRILLING: Biden said, “Drill we must.” But Biden has opposed offshore drilling and even compared offshore drilling to “raping” the Outer Continental Shelf.”

4. TROOP FUNDING: Joe Biden lied when he indicated that John McCain and Barack Obama voted the same way against funding the troops in the field. John McCain opposed a bill that included a timeline, that the President of the United States had already said he would veto regardless of it’s passage.

5. OPPOSING CLEAN COAL: Biden says he’s always been for clean coal, but he just told a voter that he is against clean coal and any new coal plants in America and has a record of voting against clean coal and coal in the U.S. Senate.

6. ALERNATIVE ENERGY VOTES: According to FactCheck.org, Biden is exaggerating and overstating John McCain’s record voting for alternative energy when he says he voted against it 23 times.

7. HEALTH INSURANCE: Biden falsely said McCain will raise taxes on people's health insurance coverage -- they get a tax credit to offset any tax hike. Independent fact checkers have confirmed this attack is false

8. OIL TAXES: Biden falsely said Palin supported a windfall profits tax in Alaska -- she reformed the state tax and revenue system, it's not a windfall profits tax.

9. AFGHANISTAN / GEN. MCKIERNAN COMMENTS: Biden said that top military commander in Iraq said the principles of the surge could not be applied to Afghanistan, but the commander of NATO's International Security Assistance Force Gen. David D. McKiernan said that there were principles of the surge strategy, including working with tribes, that could be applied in Afghanistan.

10. REGULATION: Biden falsely said McCain weakened regulation -- he actually called for more regulation on Fannie and Freddie.

11. IRAQ: When Joe Biden lied when he said that John McCain was “dead wrong on Iraq”, because Joe Biden shared the same vote to authorize the war and differed on the surge strategy where they John McCain has been proven right.

12. TAX INCREASES: Biden said Americans earning less than $250,000 wouldn’t see higher taxes, but the Obama-Biden tax plan would raise taxes on individuals making $200,000 or more.

13. BAILOUT: Biden said the economic rescue legislation matches the four principles that Obama laid out, but in reality it doesn’t meet two of the four principles that Obama outlined on Sept. 19, which were that it include an emergency economic stimulus package, and that it be part of “part of a globally coordinated effort with our partners in the G-20.”

14. REAGAN TAX RATES: Biden is wrong in saying that under Obama, Americans won't pay any more in taxes then they did under Reagan.

58
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: October 05, 2008, 01:55:00 PM »
Patently false because you say so, jeff?  Sorry, your opinion on the situation in Iraq isn't really one America is clamoring for.    

Also, Harry Reid is a lot better source than, say, Michelle Malkin  ::)  

There was no reason for either McCain or Obama to rush back to Washington and everyone but you and Joe Lieberman seem to realize that.  Interesting you'd accuse Obama of abandoning his constituents by continuing his campaign when McCain has literally abandoned the idea of discussing the economy in favor of attacking Obama personally (and doing a pretty poor job of it, considering the weak garbage Palin was spewing yesterday).

I don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse or if you're just completely misinformed/amazingly easy to impress.  Either way, you come off as a completely partisan hack.      


Yeah, I'm the partisan hack.

You think Michelle Malkin has no merit because what - she isn't elected and doesn't agree with you and the rest of the dailykossacks?

The piece I referenced from Malkin was perfectly legitimate.  Harry Reid, on the other hand, is not.

It is patently false because Harry Reid's opinion on the war isn't rooted in reality, it is rooted in his hatred for George Bush and his desire to change this country into an isolationist nation that doesn't get involved in world affairs.

Harry Reid has no integrity.  His opinions don't reflect his own constituency. 

I once read a columnist who said this truth:
"When Reid says the war is lost, the troops hear it too.  They understand that they are still risking their lives every day for a war the Democrats are content and excited to lose.  There can be no more destructive assault on their morale."

So I asked a friend who is an active member of our military about his thoughts on the matter.  He has served multiple tours in Iraq and I can tell you that our military hears people like Pelosi, Reid and Murtha talk about how they are losing, that they are murderers, that they can't win the war and they are absolutely blown away at how anti-military those statements are.

Unlike you, I don't take my opinion on the war from anti-war pundits and dirty, corrupt politicians.  I read up on the war using multiple sources so that I get a big picture view of what is really going on.

You may be right - people in YOUR America don't want us to win the war.  People in YOUR America want America to lose the war so that the Democrats can take over and we can go back to pre-911 America - a vulnerable target with boundaries between intelligence agencies and law enforcement.  Your America may be clamoring for a loss in Iraq.  Thankfully, most of America disagrees.  Most of America knows that our military is doing an outstanding job.  Most of America understands that we shouldn't be like Reid and Pelosi and root for a loss.  Your side tells our citizens that we shouldn't be proud of our country, only in what our country MIGHT become.

Here's more on your favorite ethical Senator:

Reid's son Key and Barringer have represented almost every industry in Nevada, all of them seek Reid's help on federal matters. Reid initially defended his son's lobbying as perfectly legal and clean, noting that they had to file biannual reports. He later banned family members from lobbying anyone in his office.

Between 2003 and 2005, Reid accepted free ringside seats at three Nevada boxing matches. The passes were provided by the Nevada Athletic Commission, the official Nevada State Agency that "regulates all contests or exhibitions of boxing, including the licensure and supervision of promoters, boxers, mixed martial artists, karate boxers, seconds, ring officials, managers, and matchmakers." (Source: boxing.nv.gov). Reid accepted the tickets at a time that he was pushing legislation that would diminish the power of the commission. The bill passed the Senate, but stalled in the house.

According to a February 9, 2006, Associated Press story by John Solomon, Reid wrote letters and had "routine contacts" with lobbying partners and clients of disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff. [14] Reid's actions aided the interests of Abramoff's Native American clients. Reid has acknowledged receiving $61,000 from clients or collegues of Abramoff, much of which was given to Reid by indian tribes after Abramoff was hired. [15] Reid collected donations around the time of each action he took to help Abromoff's clients. Ethics rules require senators to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest in legislative matters regarding campaign donors. While some politicans have returned contributions they received from Abramoff or his clients, Harry Reid has steadfastly refused claiming the Abramoff matter "is a Republican scandal."

Reid made headlines in May 2005 when he said of George W. Bush, "The man's father is a wonderful human being. I think this guy is a loser." Reid later apologized for these comments. Reid also called Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas an "embarrassment" and referred to Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan as a "partisan hack."

n 1999, Reid received a $3,000 donation from a Texas friend, Ben Barnes, for his legal defense fund during a recount process which followed his 1998 Senate campaign against his present-day colleague, Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.). Congressional ethics rules, however, prohibit lawmakers from accepting legal defense fund donations from registered lobbyists, which Barnes was at the time. The donation went unnoticed until the Center for Public Integrity released a report in August 2005 about a handful of lawmakers, Reid among them, who'd accepted improper lobbyist donations into their legal defense funds.

Reid is a longtime friend of Harvey Whittemore, a multimillionaire lobbyist and land developer from Nevada. From 2002 to 2006, Reid often used his influence in the Senate to help Whittemore attain government land for the purposes of building a massive development in the barren Coyote Springs Valley in Nevada. Reid even pushed for Whittemore to be granted the rights for free; ultimately, he paid the government $10 million.
As the project advanced, Reid received tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from Whittemore. The contributions went both to Reid's Senate campaigns and his leadership fund, which helps fund the campaigns of other Senate Democrats.
The relationship between the two goes even deeper. Reid's son, Leif Reid, is Whittemore's personal lawyer and has represented the developer throughout the Coyote Springs project and his negotiations with federal officials.

In 1998, Reid bought two parcels of land on the outskirts of Las Vegas. He bought one parcel himself, and another jointly with his partner and longtime friend Jay Brown. In 2001, Reid sold the land to a limited liability company created by Brown for an equivalent share of the company. He did not disclose the sale to Congress, however, and continued to list the land as a personal asset. When the land sold for over $1 million dollars in 2004, Reid received $1.1 million and listed the transaction as a personal land sale. Reid's name was not formally attached to Brown's company in any way. Reid claimed that this was because the two men had known each other for 35 years and trusted each other completely.

From 2002-2005, Reid used money that had been donated to his political campaign fund to contribute to the holiday bonus fund for the staffers of his Ritz-Carlton condominium. Federal law forbids the use of campaign funds for personal matters.

In November 2006, the Los Angeles Times reported that Reid had earmarked to a bridge building project near where he held 160 acres of land. The bridge is intended to span the Colorado River between Laughlin, Nevada and Bullhead City, Arizona. Reid's land is several miles from the proposed site of the bridge in Arizona.

In January 2007, Reid's 2002 acquisition of the property came under scrutiny as he only paid a mere $166 an acre for the 160 acre parcel.
Reid's interest in the barren parcel dates back to the period of 1979 through 1982, when he and Clair Haycock bought the 160 acres. Haycock bought a three-eighths interest, equivalent to 60 acres, for $90,000 — $1,500 an acre. Reid, then a Nevada lawyer and political figure, bought the other five-eighths, the equivalent of 100 acres. They did not divide the parcel.



59
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: October 05, 2008, 01:26:08 PM »
you mean just like the media is refusing to investigate the crazy overthrow-the-government religious cult that palin belongs to?

She's a liberal too??

 ;)



yeah, like heaven's gate or jim jones or the unibomber is liberal  :D


More intellectual dishonesty.

Heaven's gate was a secularist group that believed the Hale-Boppe comet was going to pick them up and transport them to a better universe.  It was led by a man named Marshall Applewhite.  There is no record that I could find that links him or the group to either democratic or republican views.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones

"Jones was a voracious reader as a child, studying Joseph Stalin, Karl Marx, Mahatma Gandhi and Adolf Hitler."

Jim Jones was a communist.

Theodore Kaczynski was an anarchist.

None of this has any bearing on the argument at hand and is merely an example of an extreme liberal trying to tie bad people and horrible events to republicans, when the truth is that virtually all of the people and groups mentioned or involved share far more with modern liberalism than conservatism....

60
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: October 05, 2008, 12:55:39 PM »

Saxby, I simply cannot believe that you could honestly believe the sort of nonsense you spew....




pot=kettle


you mean just like the media is refusing to investigate the crazy overthrow-the-government religious cult that palin belongs to?

Partisan hypocritical Tasha.  Nice to see you bothered to know of what you speak.

There is no evidence whatsoever of any "crazy overthrow-the-government religious cult".  You have no idea what you are talking about, which I find funny because you are so willing to put that lack of knowledge out there.

You must be referring to the "Alaskan Independence Party", which is not a religious entity at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaskan_Independence_Party

"Sarah Palin was never a member of the Alaska Independence Party according to a statement released by AIP chairman Lynnette Clark on September 3, 2008[7]. Clark had the day earlier stated that Sarah Palin was a member, and attended the 1994 AIP Convention, but retracted her statement the following day, affirming that she was mistaken."

That's why the media backed off of the story - it wasn't true.

She is not a member of a cult-lie church either.

But hey, keep on spreading lies about someone because you disagree with them.  It seems to be working, as you also like to pretend that Obama has no ties to terrorists, plenty of executive experience, and has a record of working across the aisle (even though his political career was launched by said unrepentant terrorist, has zero executive experience, and is the most liberal senator in the senate who has signed on to republican initiatives, but sponsored zero bi-partisan bills).

Lying is a good quality, Tasha.  You should be proud of your ability to do so.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 52