Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
something stinks
Published Letters: 4091 Editor's Choice: 3
If anyone tasered one of your family members for no reason you would be upset. This was Sarah Palin's 10 - year old nephew who got tasered. A TEN YEAR OLD CHILD TASERED BY A STATE TROOPER who was his STEPFATHER!
You think she is unethical and vindictive.
You are on the side of an alcoholic State Trooper who tasered his 10 year old stepson.
You sir, are morally and ethically bankrupt.
You would make a monster cringe in disgust.
If it wasn't part of the game plan the individual would have been arrested.
The Secret Service are present at these events and anyone who steps over the line in this manner who is not "known" as a "plant" or "agent provovateur" by the authorities will be arrested and questioned.
Don't believe me - just try it.
They do not arrest their own people. They will arrest you.
The 700 Billion dollar payoff was not for Wall Street. It was to payoff China for the trillion dollar debt and the loss of the value of that debt due to the economic irresponsibility of the government, both parties and crooks on Wall Street.
Why?
The Chinese view economic crimes seriously and often punish them with a bullet in the brain.
That is why Bush was so worried and concerned when he was begging for the 700 Billion payoff.
President Cheney or lose 700 Billion dollars?
Congress made that choice for us.
http://media.adn.com/smedia/2008/07/21/16/Wooten_suspend_letter.source.prod_affiliate.7.pdf
You hypocrites will rant and rave about Palin shooting wolves and apologize for and defend a Trooper who tases a child and shoots a female moose.
Shooting wolves? BAD!
Shooting a moose and tasing a child? NO PROBLEM!
Sleazebags.
The fact that even you noticed it means that it is either mainstream common knowledge or you are some sort of conspiracy nut.
Not that there is any real difference.
Obama and McCain both voted for the 700 Billion dollar payoff. No conspiracy there, move along.
"The American people are poised to do something that could not be imagined 10 years ago -- elect the worst man president, regardless of his skin color."
Next time proofread your copy before posting.
You need to obtain stool samples and read them if you want to know the truth. If they are firm, robust and float, then they are presidential.
Reading entrails is far more accurate, but the candidates and the Secret Service may have a problem with that.
I look forward to your report with bated breath on the edge of my seat in rapt anticipation.
Idiocy is the answer.
Idiocy.
Paglia and Kaufman are the only exceptions.
The use of the descriptor "Crank-Pants" reveal you to be an erudite philosopher with formidable intellectual skills far in advance of mine so I defer to your opinion of the Worthy Producer of that Lake Woebegone literary masterwork and homage to small town America and I pray that you understand that after seeing the movie that my judgement of Mr. Keillor waned as does the moon each month and that perhaps when there is a full moon upon us once again that I may share your assessment of both candidates and Mr. Keillor.
Oh wait, there is a full moon tonight.
I guess not then. Both candidates and Mr. Keillor fail to meet my standards.
Perhaps you should raise yours, if you have any.
Judy, Judy, Judy . . . If I were a brewer or a bar owner I should be INCENSED!
Drink up ladies! Men like you better when you are plastered, easy and/or incapacitated.
Can I buy you a drink?
. . . do not join the Army or Marines. The Navy and the Air Force are far safer.
Ladies, after Obama is elected, do not forget to register with the Selective Service System for the draft. It is a great opportunity.
Please explain why he has about 45 percent to Obama's 48 to 50 percent?
My dear Joan Walsh, it would seem that 45 percent of those polled trust him well enough to say that they will vote for him. Are you referring to the 48 to 50 percent who are for Obama when you state that voters do not trust McCain or are you speaking for all of the voters or those polled?
Do you have some explanation for your statement or are you simply talking smack?
Do the 45 percent of those for McCain trust Obama? Do they trust Obama, not trust McCain and are going to vote for McCain anyway?
One gathers that you find "smearing" Obama to be a great offense and that "smearing" Palin is a right and proper thing. Is this how you think about his truly? Please explain why it is bad to do this to one person and not to the other.
I am curious as to how you have reached your conclusion and how many voters you have actually queried? Did you ask only those with Obama buttons? Did you ask any with McCain buttons?
Your process and your explanation of your process should make for a fascinating read.
I shall await your response with bated breath on the edge of my seat in rapt anticipation.
Unless you are just talking smack and will not offer an explanation because talking smack has no explanation
My dear Joan Walsh, it does have to be said.
"Never argue with someone who makes sense."
FTFY
not sure who said it though.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
