If it isn't self-centered, then most of these people aren't gunna have a clue why we are doing it. Sometimes (sadly,) it's just that simple. Having a healthier, happier (hopefully less desperate or violent) tribe isn't gunna compute with them. Don't you think, if you had a retail store that only had to worry about workers stealing (not the customers,) then it would be a lot easier to cut down on theft? Who likes going to the doctor?

She was on Chris Matthews on MSNBC yesterday (you can see the link here http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/#39295721) - very well-spoken and yes, she said her concern was the future.

She also said she wanted to make it clear she fully supports the president and will vote for him again.

Those trying to make the midterm election about, "If you are angry or dissatisfied, you must vote GOP or Tea Party" are so, so wrong. There are plenty of angry and dissatisfied people about, but it hardly means they want to embrace obstruction, destruction or hate, and it sure doesn't mean they won't continue to vote again for exactly what they wanted in November 2008.

We need more flavors though. He is too concerned with pleasing non-Americans. I'm sick of that shyt. He has 2 years to change (or pretend to.) He's not gunna get Florida, Virginia, Colorado etc. by appearing to appease religious terrorists. Guy is just ass backwards on some stuff that people in these states care about. He better persuade that IMAM to move that Victory "Community Center." A piece of that plane hit there. They shouldn't build it there.

Not necessarily. I'm not the one, however, making decisions without thinking of all the consequences. It's like our leaders don't know how to read or maybe they just refuse to. All of the information their cold, corporate hearts desire is at their assistant's fingertips. All they have to do is ask.

Around $45,000.

I agree with you %100. It sure does seem that the man in DC could care less about his fellow Americans. Do you remember when Calderon was berating the state of Arizona about thier law regarding illegals? Seems like the man in DC was on Calderon's side. As far as him changing, im thinking he will pretend to change, just like on the campaign trail when he was pretending that he would make a good President. He didn't fool me, he's not going to fool me in November 2012.

As he should

Scuds post revolve around two things..Dodgers and Muslems

Just sayin'...Obama ain't the first to "suck up" to him

http://www.allamericanpatriots.com/p...-felipe-calder

Thanks for the info. Im sure he won't be the last one. That picture was taken way before Arizona started cracking down on illegals. Im sure relations with Mexico were a little better back then. Why is everyone in DC afraid of Calderon? Can someone answer this for me? Why should the man in DC be on Calderon's side. Wouldn't mean that the man in DC supports the illegals? Which would not be a big suprise. He would rather take care of foreigners than take care of his own people.

Do you like my new avatar?

If you have a small pic of one of your horses, send it my way and I will use it as mny avatar.

That's not true. Been writing about that Elizabeth Warren the last week. Just agreed with Riot etc. about healthcare. Just wrote about that bizarre situation at that Georgia Megachurch. Wrote about not liking cops stopping people for tinting their windows. Wrote about the Nightstalker last week. Wrote about not liking 180K being given out for beating 5 horses.....See, you've got various little clever manipulative tactics you use to get what you want, and misrepresenting people is one of your favorites. It doesn't cost much. It's cheap. You didn't complain about those other 6 topics I wrote about. You mentioned the 2 topics you don't like me talking about, and used "revolve around." It was an effort to make someone appear unbalanced. I don't appreciate it. I do notice it. I would appreciate it, if you would do the hard work, and represent your side of whatever issue your upset about. Your into making people appear out of the norm, unbalanced, unacceptable etc. Well, those are all tactics of who? The Tea Party (using it against a President you like?) Aren't you better than them? and please don't tell me you were kidding. When you misrepresent someone that badly, it's for a reason. You're very good at it. Again, I notice it. I try to stick to positions on here, but people would rather do this crap.

have to jump in and defend bob here.

i've posted on horses occasionally but no one thinks i'm the "horse guy".

he nailed it.

Who didn't know that?

Margaret Carlson I believe hits the nail on the head - Most times it is not what you say, rather how you say it and the manner in which the message is delivered.

Mr. Hope and Change can feel no one's pain - Margaret Carlson:
http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...t-carlson.html

It can't be defended. To be honest, you two use the same manipulative techniques to try to lower other people, and raise yourselves. It's never a fight on the issues. It's almost always about misrepresenting someone. It's what many Liberals do when people don't fall in line (lock step) with them. You can't just look at an issue, and the facts involved. You've made a decision (long ago,) and anyone who disagrees must have these other reasons for not seeing it your way. They must be a bigot, or a monster. Maybe you'll choose to call them poorly educated. When they show that they know the facts, then forget that one, and switch back to bigot. See, it's not about today, or 2 weeks from now. You guys are all about destroying people over time. Well, I notice. You two are very good at these techniques. Most people don't even notice your witch jobs. I notice. I'm gunna make you prove each one of your lil smears you so like to toss around. No more being lazy, and moving to something more interesting to talk about. Each time you make your lil sly claims, we are gunna be on that until you prove what you said. Next time you want to call someone a bigot, we are gunna be on that for weeks. So, if you want that, then keep doing what you do. I know exactly what you two do. You can't win on facts, and so you attack someone for bringing up a topic (that you can't win an argument on.) Whatever the topic is, you know how to misrepresent someone's reasons for bringing up the topic. I know all your tricks. I've been lazy about it, but no longer. I apologize to the others, but you two aren't gunna just get away with your crap anymore....I'm rested.

That woman should not be permitted to write anything about political history ever again. To wit:

"Empathy helped Clinton beat George H.W. Bush in 1992."

No, you idiot, Ms. Carlson. A recession and Ross Perot siphoning off some of the crazy vote helped Clinton beat GHW Bush in 1992. Clinton didn't get even 50 percent of the vote in 1992. Op-Ed fail.

But Scuds...all I commented on what was the majority of your posts are about. I'm not arguing who is right...how can you argue your Dodger and Muslim priorities?

Stop showing Suffy-poo's dead donkey as your avytar!


DISGUSTING!!


:mad: