Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Wow, it's my policy to immediately discount anything said by a person who introduces himself or herself by spouting credentials.
Especially when the credentials seem so questionable. I'm sure that your students in "developmental English" at the community college, and the 16 devoted readers of your blog, are really impressed with you.
I know I am.
the site you gave me is Obama's page. I am not talking about the tax record or the actual records of the Illinois house I am talking about his records that he said "I didn't keep" "I didn't have enough storage for all of those records" He also said that his memory of Rezko was 5 hours of legal work he did for a non-profit who was working with Rezko. now he says that he took Rezko to look at the house he owns in chicago suburb, before he bought it, and the seller only agreed to sell it to him if they closed on the house and the lot next to it"the one Rezko bought" at the same time. Why would an intelligent person ask a person that he had no personal contact with to advise him on the purchase of a house, expecially when that person was under investigation. In the state of Illinois we have Realtors that represent sellers and those that represent buyers and a buyers rep could have given him very good advice as to the value of the property he was interested in without asking for anything but a commission in return.
Admit it. You don't really want this information. I posted the link to Barack's site, which contains LINKS AND CITATIONS TO NEWSPAPER STORIES giving you the information you say you want.
But you don't want the truth. If you wanted this information, you would have gotten it. You choose to remain ignorant so you can hang out here like a booger hanging out of a nose, slinging your lies through your veil of intentional ignorance. You, missy, are a liar, a cheat, and a fraud.
The truth about Barack Obama's purchase of his home is also out there, easily accessible via Internet, from a variety of unbiased news sources. But why the hell should I post a link? You'll just ignore it anyway.
Usually I pity people like you, but I hold YOU in contempt.
One of Hillary’s arguments has been “I’ll be ready on day one”. Her campaign however has been caught flat footed. They have been outsmarted, out positioned and out manoeuvred. Talk about undermining an argument. I think this is over… the huge win in Wisconsin 58-41 (notice how the disgustingly pro-Clinton Salon does not report that on the front page), and now Hawaii reporting 76-24 seems to be the knell of doom. The Fat Lady has sung, the bell has tolled, and her majesty is cooked. I would strongly suggest that all of the venom against the clear nominee begin to be focused where it belongs… on the Repubs!
What a bunch of gibberish. It's pretty rare when the letters section is this bad. I waded through the first three pages of this muck, then decided to check the editor's choice letters out, to see if anyone actually had any notable, salient points to make. Seventy one letters posted at the time, nothing worthy of recognition.
If anyone makes it this far, you must be truly hungry for some substance by now. For those I offer these vote totals (unofficial):
Barack Obama 645,554
Hillary Clinton 452,590
John McCain 224,122
Mike Huckabee 151,114
Discuss.
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=719365
stick a fork in her, she's done.
The following exit poll results are from "The Nation." None of it bodes well for Clinton, even in Ohio and Texas...
Exit polls had Obama winning liberals, moderates and conservatives.
Exit polls had Obama winning among white voters and African-American.
Exit polls had Obama winning 60-40 among Protestants and splitting the Catholic vote.
Exit polls had Obama winning urban, rural and suburban areas.
Exit polls had Obama winning union households and non-union households.
Bottom line: Obama won and won and won in a state where it should have been a close race.
Even among women, Clinton was ahead just 51 percent, to 48 percent for Obama.
Among men, it was 66-32 for Obama.
It just doesn't leave much of the electorate for Clinton to win, except for the >60-year-old women who've stuck by her (barely).
The momentum has just kept building for Obama, and meanwhile, if you caught any of McCain's insomnia-curing speech, you realize McCain's in serious trouble. He was doing GOP boilerplate talk that would have been as useful in 2004 and 2000 -- it shows a total lack of progress on the part of his candidacy. The GOP will be a very tough sell in 2008, and McCain is about the worst pitchman you could have for it. He can only be sure of the diehard Republican vote; he's going to lose nearly everybody else.
A great deal was made in recent days about a comment made by Mr. Obama, and it's effect of "alienating half the population".
Which got me wondering, if hearing sexual opression in every word uttered by someone might alienate the other half of the population who have found themselves on the other side of baseless conjection about thier motivations.
There is much talk about white men being the new soccer moms this election cycle (imagine white men being the deciding vote in an election, makes your heart swell up with pride)and if so, I can think of no group more sensative to baseless allegations of sexism (even when they are warranted).
This also puts Hillary in a tough joint; as to win white women she must show how she is being unfairly attacked to gain their sympathy, but to gain that sympathy she is also alienating white men (who perhaps harbor some subtle sexism themselves).
Perhaps, what some Hillary supporters have said is true, that she is getting short shrift because we are still a sexist nation. If that is true one wonders how our very sexist culture will react when Hillary is up against a white male war hero who makes her "35 years of experience" look like the light resume it is.
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"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
