Razenkn
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
Tomorrow is President Ronald Reagan's birthday, February 6th, 1911. This is his philosophy on Freedom. No truer words were spoken.
Ronald Reagan On FREEDOM
"Freedom is not something to be secured in any one moment of time. We must struggle to preserve it every day. And freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction."
"The West will not contain communism; it will transcend communism. We will not bother to denounce it. We'll dismiss it as a sad, bizarre chapter in human history whose last pages are even now being written."
"We will always remember, we will always be proud. We will always be prepared, so we may always be FREE."
Ronald Wilson Reagan
|
Razenkn
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
If You Can Find a Better Deal, Take It!
by Ann Coulter
01/06/2010
Someone mentioned Christianity on television recently and liberals reacted with their usual howls of rage and blinking incomprehension.
On a Fox News panel discussing Tiger Woods, Brit Hume said, perfectly accurately:
"The extent to which he can recover, it seems to me, depends on his faith. He is said to be a Buddhist. I don't think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith. So, my message to Tiger would be, 'Tiger, turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world."
Hume's words, being 100 percent factually correct, sent liberals into a tizzy of sputtering rage, once again illustrating liberals' copious ignorance of Christianity. (Also illustrating the words of the Bible: "How is it you do not understand me when I speak? It is because you cannot bear to listen to my words." John 8:43.)
In The Washington Post, Tom Shales demanded that Hume apologize, saying he had "dissed about half a billion Buddhists on the planet."
Is Buddhism about forgiveness? Because, if so, Buddhists had better start demanding corrections from every book, magazine article and blog posting ever written on the subject, which claims Buddhists don't believe in God, but try to become their own gods.
I can't imagine that anyone thinks Tiger's problem was that he didn't sufficiently think of himself as a god, especially after that final putt in the Arnold Palmer Invitational last year.
In light of Shales' warning Hume about "what people are saying" about him, I hope Hume's a Christian, but that's not apparent from his inarguable description of Christianity. Of course, given the reaction to his remarks, apparently one has to be a regular New Testament scholar to have so much as a passing familiarity with the basic concept of Christianity.
On MSNBC, David Shuster invoked the "separation of church and television" (a phrase that also doesn't appear in the Constitution), bitterly complaining that Hume had brought up Christianity "out-of-the-blue" on "a political talk show."
Why on earth would Hume mention religion while discussing a public figure who had fallen from grace and was in need of redemption and forgiveness? Boy, talk about coming out of left field!
What religion -- what topic -- induces this sort of babbling idiocy? (If liberals really want to keep people from hearing about God, they should give Him his own show on MSNBC.)
Most perplexing was columnist Dan Savage's indignant accusation that Hume was claiming that Christianity "offers the best deal -- it gives you the get-out-of-adultery-free card that other religions just can't."
In fact, that's exactly what Christianity does. It's the best deal in the universe. (I know it seems strange that a self-described atheist and "radical sex advice columnist f*****" like Savage would miss the central point of Christianity, but there it is.)
God sent his only son to get the crap beaten out of him, die for our sins and rise from the dead. If you believe that, you're in. Your sins are washed away from you -- sins even worse than adultery! -- because of the cross.
"He canceled the record of the charges against us and took it away by nailing it to the cross." Colossians 2:14.
Surely you remember the cross, liberals -- the symbol banned by ACLU lawsuits from public property throughout the land?
Christianity is simultaneously the easiest religion in the world and the hardest religion in the world.
In the no-frills, economy-class version, you don't need a church, a teacher, candles, incense, special food or clothing; you don't need to pass a test or prove yourself in any way. All you'll need is a Bible (in order to grasp the amazing deal you're getting) and probably a water baptism, though even that's disputed.
You can be washing the dishes or walking your dog or just sitting there minding your business hating Susan Sarandon and accept that God sent his only son to die for your sins and rise from the dead ... and you're in!
"Because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." Romans 10:9.
If you do that, every rotten, sinful thing you've ever done is gone from you. You're every bit as much a Christian as the pope or Billy Graham.
No fine print, no "your mileage may vary," no blackout dates. God ought to do a TV spot: "I'm God Almighty, and if you can find a better deal than the one I'm offering, take it."
The Gospel makes this point approximately 1,000 times. Here are a few examples at random:
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." John 3:16.
"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God." Ephesians 2:8.
"For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." Romans 6:23.
In a boiling rage, liberals constantly accuse Christians of being "judgmental." No, we're relieved.
Christianity is also the hardest religion in the world because, if you believe Christ died for your sins and rose from the dead, you have no choice but to give your life entirely over to Him. No more sexual promiscuity, no lying, no cheating, no stealing, no killing inconvenient old people or unborn babies -- no doing what all the other kids do.
And no more caring what the world thinks of you -- because, as Jesus warned in a prophecy constantly fulfilled by liberals: The world will hate you.
With Christianity, your sins are forgiven, the slate is wiped clean and your eternal life is guaranteed through nothing you did yourself, even though you don't deserve it. It's the best deal in the universe.
|
Gemini
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
Razenkn wrote: BigSurprize wrote: callmelou wrote: Trophywife wrote: Razenkn wrote:
We will house him,give him top of the line mediclal care for free, feed him 3 squares of his native food, accommodate his prayers, keep him safe in jail, give him a fair trial and pay for an attorney to defend him.
It's called treating him like a human! We do that in this country by law. But all you Republicans seem to think is "Wanted, dead or alive" (preferably dead). That whole thing kind of backfired on old man Bush, didn't it? 
..and I'll add: would we want caputred Americans to be tortered? Aren't we better than that?
LOL ...BigSurprize hits the nail on the head once more!
Rosie's asked a really stupid question or maybe she just asked a question "Stupidly" but the answer to the question "would we want American's to be tortured" is YES. If American's were flying airplanes into buildings to kill as many innocent people as possible because they don't agree with their way of life or their freedom of religion, then of course they should be tortured if the Country they attacked needed the information to protect the rest of their population. If they ony got waterboarded, they should consider themselves well treated.
If you are implying that if we "don't waterboard" (not torture) then Al-Qaeda won't cut off any of our servicemen's heads, uhhhhh, again, sorry to say this Rosie's, but that is just pure wishful liberal lalaland thinking. We could put the captured enemy combatants up in the Waldorf and guess what??? They will still cut off heads of hostages and they will continue to attack to kill as many of American's as they can.
Why are you libs so dense about this anyway?? What makes you "pretend" as the Prez does that we aren't at war as VP Cheney suggested? THEY declared war on us, remember??
Oh, and by the way, if any of you rabid libs out there were hoping Rush was going to go away by way of heart attack, nah, he's fine. He looks great, feels great and ready to get back in the saddle. I know, I just ruined your New Year's Day didn't I??? LOL  HAPPY NEW YEAR!!! Listen to him yourself....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oglQ3RP2PkA
It's great that he will still be around for a few more decades. Our prayers were answered!
|
Razenkn
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
BigSurprize wrote: callmelou wrote: Trophywife wrote: Razenkn wrote:
We will house him,give him top of the line mediclal care for free, feed him 3 squares of his native food, accommodate his prayers, keep him safe in jail, give him a fair trial and pay for an attorney to defend him.
It's called treating him like a human! We do that in this country by law. But all you Republicans seem to think is "Wanted, dead or alive" (preferably dead). That whole thing kind of backfired on old man Bush, didn't it?
..and I'll add: would we want caputred Americans to be tortered? Aren't we better than that?
LOL...BigSurprize hits the nail on the head once more!
Rosie's asked a really stupid question or maybe she just asked a question "Stupidly" but the answer to the question "would we want American's to be tortured" is YES. If American's were flying airplanes into buildings to kill as many innocent people as possible because they don't agree with their way of life or their freedom of religion, then of course they should be tortured if the Country they attacked needed the information to protect the rest of their population. If they ony got waterboarded, they should consider themselves well treated.
If you are implying that if we "don't waterboard" (not torture) then Al-Qaeda won't cut off any of our servicemen's heads, uhhhhh, again, sorry to say this Rosie's, but that is just pure wishful liberal lalaland thinking. We could put the captured enemy combatants up in the Waldorf and guess what??? They will still cut off heads of hostages and they will continue to attack to kill as many of American's as they can.
Why are you libs so dense about this anyway?? What makes you "pretend" as the Prez does that we aren't at war as VP Cheney suggested? THEY declared war on us, remember??
Oh, and by the way, if any of you rabid libs out there were hoping Rush was going to go away by way of heart attack, nah, he's fine. He looks great, feels great and ready to get back in the saddle. I know, I just ruined your New Year's Day didn't I??? LOL HAPPY NEW YEAR!!! Listen to him yourself....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oglQ3RP2PkA
Last edited on Fri Jan 1st, 2010 11:17 pm by
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 30th, 2009 03:06 am |
|
56th Post |
BigSurprize
Member
back to top
|
callmelou wrote: Trophywife wrote: Razenkn wrote:
We will house him,give him top of the line mediclal care for free, feed him 3 squares of his native food, accommodate his prayers, keep him safe in jail, give him a fair trial and pay for an attorney to defend him.
It's called treating him like a human! We do that in this country by law. But all you Republicans seem to think is "Wanted, dead or alive" (preferably dead). That whole thing kind of backfired on old man Bush, didn't it?
..and I'll add: would we want caputred Americans to be tortered? Aren't we better than that?
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 29th, 2009 04:42 am |
|
57th Post |
callmelou
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 28th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1294 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
Trophywife wrote: Razenkn wrote:
We will house him,give him top of the line mediclal care for free, feed him 3 squares of his native food, accommodate his prayers, keep him safe in jail, give him a fair trial and pay for an attorney to defend him.
It's called treating him like a human! We do that in this country by law. But all you Republicans seem to think is "Wanted, dead or alive" (preferably dead). That whole thing kind of backfired on old man Bush, didn't it?
..and I'll add: would we want caputred Americans to be tortered? Aren't we better than that?
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 29th, 2009 01:50 am |
|
58th Post |
Razenkn
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
Trophywife wrote: Razenkn wrote:
We will house him,give him top of the line mediclal care for free, feed him 3 squares of his native food, accommodate his prayers, keep him safe in jail, give him a fair trial and pay for an attorney to defend him.
It's called treating him like a human! We do that in this country by law. But all you Republicans seem to think is "Wanted, dead or alive" (preferably dead). That whole thing kind of backfired on old man Bush, didn't it?
Better the TERRORISTS than American's I say. I don't think anything backfired on either President's Bush. They both were smart enough to recognize a serious threat to America and took action. Wow, what a weird concept that is in the liberal universe...LOL We should not run water over his face even though he has informaton that might save thousands of American's??? Whose side are you on anyway??
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 28th, 2009 11:43 pm |
|
59th Post |
Trophywife
Member
| Joined: | Mon Nov 30th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 672 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
Razenkn wrote:
We will house him,give him top of the line mediclal care for free, feed him 3 squares of his native food, accommodate his prayers, keep him safe in jail, give him a fair trial and pay for an attorney to defend him.
It's called treating him like a human! We do that in this country by law. But all you Republicans seem to think is "Wanted, dead or alive" (preferably dead). That whole thing kind of backfired on old man Bush, didn't it?
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 28th, 2009 11:28 pm |
|
60th Post |
Razenkn
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
HEADLINES....
"Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula has claimed responsibility for the attempted attack on a U.S. Airliner on Christmas Day, saying it was retaliation".
Al-Qaeda is thumbing their nose at President Appeaser already because they know....he's President Appeaser. What is he going to do? Is he going to allow "enhanced interrogation" of the prisoner to determine if there are more attacks in the works?? Uhh, no. Running water over his face would be "torture". Ok, then are they going to play loud music in his cell, keep the lights on, keep him awake a few days, question him hours on end??? Uhhhh, no. That would be considered "torture". Oh, then how are they going to get the information from him to keep American's safe?? Uhhhh, they aren't.
He has lawyered up and he doesn't have to say SQUAT even though he's not a U.S. citizen. He's already refusing to give interrogators his DNA. He is being afforded all of our Constitutional rights and Al-Qaeda members are killing themselves laughing. The prisoner is not the least bit worried....about anything, nor should he be. He's not in any danger.
We have never looked so woefully weak in our history other than the Jimmy Carter days and the times could not be more dangerous. Even Clinton semi-faked strength but this guy, forget it. He's already laid all of his cards on the table for the World to see and read. We will house him,give him top of the line mediclal care for free, feed him 3 squares of his native food, accommodate his prayers, keep him safe in jail, give him a fair trial and pay for an attorney to defend him. Well, that ought to make Al-Qaeda like us better huh??
Last edited on Mon Dec 28th, 2009 11:30 pm by
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 21st, 2009 03:41 pm |
|
61st Post |
Razenkn
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
I think J.D. is one of the good guys. He is sincere and his core principles are rock solid. He is a fiscal conservative and that is what we need. He's also a strong National Security guy and would be able to point out the tremendous flaws in our Homeland Security Chief wannabe Janet, there is no love lost between those two. He called her on her failings and she didn't like it. I agree, it will be interesting.
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 21st, 2009 03:31 pm |
|
62nd Post |
ItsAllAConspiracy
Member
| Joined: | Thu Aug 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 697 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
Razenkn wrote:
I would like to see nancyfancypants be shown the door and barred from ever showing her face on TV again.
What do you think about J.D. Hayworth running against McCain? He has McCain's team worried so they are already trying to go after him. Too bad they weren't that aggressive during the 2008 election campaign.
I heard J.D. talk about this on his show and I must admit, I find his candidacy to be intriguing. At least as compared to the alternative Republicans wanting to take him on in the Primaries.
I just hope that he doesn't hold the same intrigue as say, Arnold did when California held a recall vote. I suspect conservatives voted Arnold in just to vote Davis out.
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 20th, 2009 11:33 pm |
|
63rd Post |
Razenkn
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
Voters Prefer Tea Party to Republican & Demoratic Parties....
More Americans would vote for a congressional candidate from a hypothetical Tea Party than for a Republican, a Rasmussen Reports national poll reveals.
Respondents to the poll were asked: “Suppose the tea party movement organized itself as a political party. When thinking about the next election for Congress, would you vote for the Republican candidate from your district, the Democratic candidate from your district, or the Tea Party candidate from your district?”
The result of the three-way generic ballot: The Democrats attracted 36 percent of the vote, the Tea Party candidates 23 percent, and the Republicans 18 percent, with the rest undecided.
Among respondents not affiliated with either the Democratic or Republican Party, the Tea Party candidates came out on top with 33 percent of the vote, while 25 percent chose the Democrats and just 12 percent preferred the GOP, with 30 percent undecided.
Even among Republican respondents, the vote was close, with GOP candidates getting 39 percent of the vote to the Tea Party’s 33 percent.
Overall, Tea Party candidates beat the Republicans among both men and women, and in all age groups except those over 65, Rasmussen Reports disclosed, but pointed out: “In practical terms, it is unlikely that a true third-party option would perform as well as the polling data indicate.”
The tea party movement arose out of opposition to big government, increased federal spending, the economic stimulus plan and tax increases, and rose to prominence when it organized protest gatherings across the country earlier this year.
The Rasmussen survey also found that 41 percent of voters believe Republicans and Democrats are so much alike that a new party is needed to represent the American people.
Also, polling shows that 73 percent of Republican voters think their leaders in Washington are out of touch with the party base.
Last edited on Sun Dec 20th, 2009 11:34 pm by
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 16th, 2009 11:19 pm |
|
64th Post |
Gemini
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
Say Bye-Bye McCain. He's not a true conservative.
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 16th, 2009 10:49 pm |
|
65th Post |
Razenkn
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
I would like to see nancyfancypants be shown the door and barred from ever showing her face on TV again.
What do you think about J.D. Hayworth running against McCain? He has McCain's team worried so they are already trying to go after him. Too bad they weren't that aggressive during the 2008 election campaign.
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 16th, 2009 09:02 pm |
|
66th Post |
ItsAllAConspiracy
Member
| Joined: | Thu Aug 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 697 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
Razenkn wrote: Can we say buh bye bye Harry?? Oh yeah, and GOOD RIDANCE??
Election 2010: Nevada Senate Race
2010 Nevada Senate: Reid Trails Amidst Strong Opposition to Health Plan
Friday, December 11, 2009
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid continues to lag behind all potential Republican challengers in next year’s U.S. Senate race in Nevada, according to new Rasmussen Reports telephone polling in the state.
For now at least, his championing of the president’s health care plan appears to raise further red flags for the Democratic incumbent. Fifty-four percent (54%) of Nevada voters oppose the plan, while 44% favor it.
More significantly, however, those numbers include 49% who strongly oppose the plan while only 23% strongly favor it.
This represents stronger and more passionate opposition to the health care plan than Rasmussen Reports has found nationally.
The numbers in this month’s survey suggest that the race at this point is a referendum on Reid, who earns 43% of the vote against each of three GOP candidates. Incumbents who get less than 50% of the vote at this stage of the game are viewed as vulnerable. Reid, who is seeking a fifth term, received 61% of the final vote in 2004.
(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.
Sharon Lowden, chairman of the Nevada Republican Party and a former state senator, and businessman Danny Tarkanian both pick up 49% of the vote against Reid in the latest survey. Former Assemblywoman Sharron Angle gets 47% of the vote in her match-up with the four-term senator.
In every case, the number who favor some other candidate or are undecided are virtually identical and in single digits.
In September, Lowden led Reid by 10 percentage points, 50% to 40%, while Tarkanian bested him 50% to 43%.
Men strongly favor any of the Republicans over Reid, while the incumbent has the edge among women. Voters not affiliated with either political party support any of the Republicans over Reid by 10 or more points.
Forty-nine percent (49%) of Nevada voters have a very unfavorable opinion of Reid. Just 21% offer a very favorable opinion of the senator.
The Republicans remain largely unknown, further confirming the notion that the numbers reflect a referendum on the incumbent rather than a choice between competing candidates. Ten percent (10%) have a very favorable view of Lowden, while 15% regard her very unfavorably. Tarkanian is seen very favorably by 19% and very unfavorably by 15%. For Angle, very favorables total eight percent (8%) while very unfavorables are 19%.
At this point in a campaign, Rasmussen Reports considers the number of people with a strong opinion more significant than the total favorable/unfavorable numbers.
Sixty-six percent (66%) of Nevada voters say the health care plan proposed by the president and congressional Democrats will raise the deficit. Seventy-five percent (75%) believe passage of the plan will prompt a middle-class tax increase to pay for it, with 59% who say a tax hike is very likely.
Voters in the state are evenly divided over the creation of a government-sponsored non-profit health insurance option. But if such an option might cause employers to drop coverage and push their workers onto the government-run plan, support drops to 21%.
Thirty-four percent (34%) favor the president’s new strategy for the war in Afghanistan, while 44% oppose it. That’s stronger opposition than nationally.
Fifty-seven percent (57%) support the president’s plan to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, but Nevada voters are narrowly divided over his establishment of a timetable to begin pulling troops out in 18 months. Thirty-five percent (35%) say Obama’s handling of Afghanistan is god or excellent. Thirty-six percent (36%) rate it poor.
Obama beat John McCain 55% to 43% in Nevada in November 2008. But now 55% disapprove of the president’s performance in office, while 46% approve. These numbers include 44% who strongly disapprove of the job he is doing and 29% who strongly approve, slightly stronger disapproval than seen overall nationally in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll.
Possible bright spots for Reid are the continuing scandal about an extramarital affair his fellow senator, Republican John Ensign, engaged in and the unpopularity of Nevada’s GOP governor. Just 35% approve of Governor Jim Gibbons’ performance, while 61% disapprove.
What could add to the joy of showing Reid the door?
How about a formidable opponent to run against McCain in the primaries? Eh? Eh?
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 16th, 2009 08:28 pm |
|
67th Post |
Razenkn
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
Glenn talks with Andy Williams
December 16, 2009 - 14:09 ET
 Moon River and Me
by Andy Williams
GLENN: You have a book out.
WILLIAMS: Book called Moon River and Me. The story of my life. My son Bobby said to me one day, "Pop, if you're going to write this book you better get going."
GLENN: What is the story of your life?
WILLIAMS: Starting with my brothers singing on the radio when I was seven. And then traveling -- my father's desire, his passion, was to have his four boys become radio stars. And so he got us on the radio in Des Moines, Iowa, on WHO.
GLENN: Wow.
WILLIAMS: Then moved on to Chicago and then Cincinnati and out to California. And then got us in the movies. He was the driving force behind the Williams Brothers.
GLENN: If you had to look back at your life, what would you say, first of all, what was the thing that stood out in your early career where you said, "Wow, I can't believe I did or I met this person or that event or," what was the thing early on.
WILLIAMS: One was making a record with Bing Crosby. I was four years old. My brothers and I were asked to sing this song called, what was the song? Swinging on a Star. And it became a big hit for Bing. Then the big thrill for me was about 20 years later on my own television show sitting on a stool next to Bing Crosby singing to us, it was really something.
GLENN: Do you know who Michale Buble is?
WILLIAMS: Yes.
GLENN: Have you ever met him.
WILLIAMS: No I've never met him. Very good singer.
GLENN: Very nice man. I just did an hour with him that's going to air next week on television. And we were talking. And he was talking about Christmas music. This is back stage before we started. And he said, you know, everybody wants him to make a Christmas album. He said if it's not Bing Crosby or Andy Williams, I can't do it. He was influenced by you and he said to me that it was the white Christmases of the world that first got him into singing.
WILLIAMS: Is that right?
GLENN: Yes.
WILLIAMS: He's a very good singer. I'm glad there's somebody coming along, some young cat that can carry a tune.
PAT: There aren't that many, are there?
WILLIAMS: There really aren't a lot. When the singer/songwriter came about, 20, 30 years ago, when the Beatles did their things and Elvis did his thing, it became something else. It was no longer Frank Sinatra and Tony Bennett and Andy Williams. It was a singer/songwriter. And so the musicality of the singing sort of left. And now Buble is coming back and is doing the same kind of things that Sinatra and I did, Bennett and Johnny Mathis, of just singing.
GLENN: I'm just looking -- I'm just reading this here about Moon River and Me, and I mean, the story of your ex-wife is in here. Bobby Kennedy. Ronald Reagan. Judy Garland. John Houston. Jack Lemmon, Howard Hughes. What was Howard Hughes like?
WILLIAMS: Howard Hughes, shall I say, reclusive.
GLENN: You think? (Laughing)
WILLIAMS: I never met him. I got messages from him but I never met him. I was getting the messages from him from a guy named Bob Mahew, supposed to be the guy who was really his right-hand man. It turned out that Bob Mahew never met him either. He just got all the messages under the door.
GLENN: What were the years you were getting messages from him?
WILLIAMS: That was early in the '60s. But that was -- he wanted me to come and work at one of his hotels. And I was signed to stay, work at Caesars Palace.
GLENN: What was Elvis like?
WILLIAMS: He was wonderful. I didn't know him terribly well. I met him three or four times. He came back stage to see me at Caesars Palace. It was really funny because all my musicians wanted to meet him. So they were in the dressing room with me. He came in. He had about seven people with him, and we would sit around and talk and his guys would laugh when he said something that was kind of funny, my guys would say something when I would say something kind of funny. It was really funny. So finally he said let's go over to my place. This was about two, three in the morning. I didn't do my second show until about 12:30, got off at 1:30. We went over to his place at the Hilton. And he just said there are about 200 kids in his suite when he came in all dancing and having fun. And he said let's go on in here. We went into another room, into a library. And he played some music. He loved gospel music. We sang gospel music together for about two hours. And then finally I said I've got to go to bed. Can't stay up all night.
GLENN: He had to be, "What? Bed. Alone?" I hesitate to even ask this, but were you ever -- like Frank Sinatra. We know Frank Sinatra was Frank Sinatra.
WILLIAMS: He was a dual personality, I think.
GLENN: Did you ever back in the days when that was the way people lived, did you lead that lifestyle?
WILLIAMS: No, I didn't. I was married. I had children. I was reasonable. No, I didn't get into all of the trouble that a lot of people did.
GLENN: Craziness.
WILLIAMS: I just worked hard. I screwed up my marriage by working too hard and not spending time with my, taking care of the family and my kids and stuff, which I regret a lot. But, no, I was fairly a normal person. I grew up with my brothers. And I was brought up in the church, Presbyterian church. I had certain values that were instilled in me by my parents. So I lived a fairly normal life. I wasn't as wild as the Rat Pack.
GLENN: I don't know if anybody was.
WILLIAMS: I spent some time with them. And I knew Sinatra and I had dinner with him several times. I saw him one time being very cruel, and I couldn't get over the idea of this man who could sing in such a tender wonderful loving kind way and such a -- was such a wonderful personality, could be so mean. He just had two sides. But with me he was always fine.
GLENN: My father is your age. And my father said to me, he said, "With what I see coming, I'm glad I'm my age because I wouldn't want to be your age right now." When you look at the state of our world, of our country and everything, what are you feeling?
WILLIAMS: I watch your show a lot. I feel pretty much like you do. I feel we're in a terrible situation. I hope that things are going to get better. But I don't have much faith in our president.
GLENN: I have tremendous faith and it is growing. I have tremendous faith in the Lord, and I just -- I think this is his country. And I see people waking up. I have tremendous faith and it's growing every day in people. The American people are very resilient. And if they're told the truth, they will face anything and will conquer anything.
WILLIAMS: I believe that, too.
GLENN: Andy Williams, it is a pleasure, sir. And I know --
WILLIAMS: Pleasure for me to talk to you. I admire what you're doing, and I really like you a lot.
GLENN: Could I send you my old Andy Williams record album and have you sign it? I swear to you, this is just the coolest thing ever to talk to you, it really is. I mean, I've been a fan -- I don't mean to make you feel like Father Time here but I've been a fan since I was a little kid. And you've been always but nothing a good memory. And that's very rare.
WILLIAMS: That's very nice to hear. I couldn't have anything better said about my life, I guess, that I was a good person.
GLENN: Well, thank you so much, sir. And it's a real privilege to talk to you. Thank you very much.
WILLIAMS: I've enjoyed it very much. Thanks very much, Glenn.
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 12th, 2009 04:05 pm |
|
68th Post |
Razenkn
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
Can we say buh bye bye Harry?? Oh yeah, and GOOD RIDANCE??
Election 2010: Nevada Senate Race
2010 Nevada Senate: Reid Trails Amidst Strong Opposition to Health Plan
Friday, December 11, 2009
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid continues to lag behind all potential Republican challengers in next year’s U.S. Senate race in Nevada, according to new Rasmussen Reports telephone polling in the state.
For now at least, his championing of the president’s health care plan appears to raise further red flags for the Democratic incumbent. Fifty-four percent (54%) of Nevada voters oppose the plan, while 44% favor it.
More significantly, however, those numbers include 49% who strongly oppose the plan while only 23% strongly favor it.
This represents stronger and more passionate opposition to the health care plan than Rasmussen Reports has found nationally.
The numbers in this month’s survey suggest that the race at this point is a referendum on Reid, who earns 43% of the vote against each of three GOP candidates. Incumbents who get less than 50% of the vote at this stage of the game are viewed as vulnerable. Reid, who is seeking a fifth term, received 61% of the final vote in 2004.
(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.
Sharon Lowden, chairman of the Nevada Republican Party and a former state senator, and businessman Danny Tarkanian both pick up 49% of the vote against Reid in the latest survey. Former Assemblywoman Sharron Angle gets 47% of the vote in her match-up with the four-term senator.
In every case, the number who favor some other candidate or are undecided are virtually identical and in single digits.
In September, Lowden led Reid by 10 percentage points, 50% to 40%, while Tarkanian bested him 50% to 43%.
Men strongly favor any of the Republicans over Reid, while the incumbent has the edge among women. Voters not affiliated with either political party support any of the Republicans over Reid by 10 or more points.
Forty-nine percent (49%) of Nevada voters have a very unfavorable opinion of Reid. Just 21% offer a very favorable opinion of the senator.
The Republicans remain largely unknown, further confirming the notion that the numbers reflect a referendum on the incumbent rather than a choice between competing candidates. Ten percent (10%) have a very favorable view of Lowden, while 15% regard her very unfavorably. Tarkanian is seen very favorably by 19% and very unfavorably by 15%. For Angle, very favorables total eight percent (8%) while very unfavorables are 19%.
At this point in a campaign, Rasmussen Reports considers the number of people with a strong opinion more significant than the total favorable/unfavorable numbers.
Sixty-six percent (66%) of Nevada voters say the health care plan proposed by the president and congressional Democrats will raise the deficit. Seventy-five percent (75%) believe passage of the plan will prompt a middle-class tax increase to pay for it, with 59% who say a tax hike is very likely.
Voters in the state are evenly divided over the creation of a government-sponsored non-profit health insurance option. But if such an option might cause employers to drop coverage and push their workers onto the government-run plan, support drops to 21%.
Thirty-four percent (34%) favor the president’s new strategy for the war in Afghanistan, while 44% oppose it. That’s stronger opposition than nationally.
Fifty-seven percent (57%) support the president’s plan to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, but Nevada voters are narrowly divided over his establishment of a timetable to begin pulling troops out in 18 months. Thirty-five percent (35%) say Obama’s handling of Afghanistan is god or excellent. Thirty-six percent (36%) rate it poor.
Obama beat John McCain 55% to 43% in Nevada in November 2008. But now 55% disapprove of the president’s performance in office, while 46% approve. These numbers include 44% who strongly disapprove of the job he is doing and 29% who strongly approve, slightly stronger disapproval than seen overall nationally in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll.
Possible bright spots for Reid are the continuing scandal about an extramarital affair his fellow senator, Republican John Ensign, engaged in and the unpopularity of Nevada’s GOP governor. Just 35% approve of Governor Jim Gibbons’ performance, while 61% disapprove.
|
Razenkn
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
President OBAMA: "Government is the Answer"....
President REAGAN: "Government IS the problem"....
President Appeaser had a sudden lightbulb moment. He's going to take 200 BILLION dollars from the unused or paid back TARP funding and use it for another STIMULESS Bill. He wants to use it for......ready for this?? To give it to the States and large Cities for INFRASTRUCTURE projects that are....ready for this.....SHOVEL READY!! WOW, the Lightbulb is blinking.
You have got to be kidding!! Wasn't that what the FIRST STIMULESS bill of $787 BILLION dollars was supposed to be for?? You know, the EMERGENCY/CRISIS bill that nobody was allowed to read but HAD to be passed in 24 hours so Nancy fancypants could hop on her jet and go to Europe on vacation?? That was supposed to get people back to work remember but they have only spent a small fraction of it. Most of the legislation in it that NOBODY read is for paybacks to supporters, Special Interest groups, a virtual Christmas Wish List for Liberals having nothing to do with creating jobs and some of it won't even be spent until 2019, but we HAD to pass it in 24 hours or the unemployment rate would go above 8%.
Uhhh, wait a minute. The UNEMPLOYMENT Rate is at 10% and we did pass it and they aren't using it for STIMULUS, they are using the money to expand government and restrictions upon American's. And he has tripled the deficit. The TARP money is supposed to go back to paying down the debt. It was set up to be a loan only not a slush fund.
Now that people are getting really ticked off about being lied to, now he suddenly has this lightbulb moment...I'm not going to bail out Wallstreet ANYMORE, I'm using the funds for the little people and small business to get you back to work. From Wallstreet to Mainstreet....look what a great guy I am!! And I'm doing it illegally because it is against the LAW to use the TARP funds for anything other than what it was structured for which was to stop the banks from collapsing, remember those "CRISIS" days? The BLACK Caucus is really angry at him because they thought, they would have swore, he promised them he would help them in particular and they haven't gotten squat from him except empty promises and more welfare. So now he has had a sudden epiphany. WOW. It must be the Christmas Season. He's going to work on unemployment.
FALALALALALA!!
Last edited on Tue Dec 8th, 2009 11:36 pm by
|
Razenkn
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
callmelou wrote: Brian Lameira wrote: BigSurprize wrote: callmelou wrote: Biggerthanabreadbox wrote: callmelou wrote: Brian Lameira wrote: Just an hateful person. You never have anything nice to say. Try it, you may turn yourself in the "right" direction....
Just a patriotic, red blooded American trying to keep the wacko righties from getting back in power.
OMG, Lou! That's so funny! That's what we conservatives say about people like you!
Dear...how shall I break this you in a manner in which you can handle it...hmmmmm....screw it, I'll just break it ungently....F..we are in power..we got the house, we got the senate, we got the WH....sorry I had to be the one to bring you to speed, but I thought you should know.
 The key word here would be seem...cuz the waves go up and the waves go down. This too shall pass...and then we'll remind you.  The Libs may have the WH, Senate and House but they haven't gotten a darn thing done but cause misery to the American people. What accomplishments have they gotten done since they been in office? Name one that has made any sizable difference besides their constant fighting and not allowing a partisan bill to come out of either houses? Close door sessions while litterly locking out the Republicans while they craft their 1000+ page of B.S.
As I recall Pelosi said she was going to run the most ethical house ever. Yea right!!! The things she says about the Tea parties (everyday Americans), President Bush and the Republicans is absolutely sickening. She is the apedimy of Liberalism at it's worst!
Remember this. The Republicans will take both houses in 2010 and the Liberals will look like fools when they are ousted in disgust! It takes both Republicans and Democrats (Partisanship) to make things work. I have nothing against Democrats what so ever, it's Liberals I'm not to crazy about. I vote for either party but never for a Liberal. They're doing a great job at making the the U.S. look inept in every way.
We need to make sure America looks and is strong in every sense of the word and right now it isn't happening!!!!!
Sorry we made ya so miserable, Bri..let's see..since Obama was elected President, you got a job, didn't you? ....stem cell research is moving foward and recent clinical trials ware very encouraging....unemployment coverage for those out of work due to the bush years has been extended....economists all agree the recession is over...those are a few "darn things" accomplished....healthcare reform is gonna happen....check the President's web page for more...he's done more good in 11 months than bush did in 8 yrs.
If you call tripling the deficit in a short 11 months good, then I don't want to be on your Christmas list. If you call wanting to rip out $500 BILLLION dollars of services and benefits from Medicare targeting our Seniors good, then please just give me a chunk of coal. If you call proposing a punitive energy bill punishing employers and all American's by "skyrocketing" (Prez's words) a good thing especially now that the gig is up and we all know it has been a hoax, hey, I have some waterfront property right here in Surprise for you. Or a health care bill that will skyrocket taxes and increase unemployment, destroy the best health care system in the World and raise insurance premiums, just ducky.
If you call bringing enemy combatant mass murderers during wartime to the States to enjoy our Constitutional rights to make a mockery of our Country a good thing, then perhaps you should go speak to some of the kids who were left without parents and see what their thoughts are on that. How does 10% unemployment speak to success when Bush left office it was 6% and it was your luvbug who voted right along the last two years of Bush's policies and we have had a liberal Congress who control the purse strings for the past three years so now tell us again who is to blame?
Pray tell how taking over the auto industry and banks and cash for clunkers and continuing the insane housing credit helping anyone other than the banks and the UNIONS? (Smacks of that S word doesn't it???)
Whew, I could keep going on for hours but I think you get the picture, heh?? Probably not. You not only "drink the juice" (Prez's words) but I think you swim in it. Get up to date and take those blinders off. We are in a world of hurt madam and President Bush isn't in office.
|
Biggerthanabreadbox
Member
| Joined: | Sat Oct 10th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 437 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
clarz007 wrote: Aren't we over this "socialized medicine" misconception?? The words "socialized medicine" is a headline-grabbing term meant to suggest that the government would take over health care, or that the plan being considered in Congress is a "single-payer" system. That's not what's being proposed. The plan is to have people with private insurance through their employer (and that accounts for most people) keep that coverage. For those who do not, the government would oversee a health care exchange, in which private companies would offer plans.
Then riddle me this...why is the government planning to tax employers for offering their employees top-of-the-line insurance benefits? What's the use of that? If the idea is to assure that everyone has coverage, why penalize employers for taking good care of their employees? Also, if the government has an option, what's the motivation for providing coverage as an employer?
Here's the most controversial part: The exchange would include a government-run health plan, which is often known as the public option. In other words, that government plan — which may or may not end up in the final bill — is a part of a part. And the government would subsidize those who cannot afford insurance. That's far short of a fully government-run plan.
It's fair game to state an opinion that you think this is where the system is heading. It's reasonable, for example, to say "I'm worried that a public option could lead to socialized medicine." But it is not accurate to describe the Democrats' plan as socialized medicine.
That's also true with the claims about alleged shortcomings in the public health systems in Canada and Britain. The underlying assumption is that that is what is being proposed here. It is not.
|
clarz007
Member
| Joined: | Fri Mar 6th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 332 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
Aren't we over this "socialized medicine" misconception?? The words "socialized medicine" is a headline-grabbing term meant to suggest that the government would take over health care, or that the plan being considered in Congress is a "single-payer" system. That's not what's being proposed. The plan is to have people with private insurance through their employer (and that accounts for most people) keep that coverage. For those who do not, the government would oversee a health care exchange, in which private companies would offer plans.
Here's the most controversial part: The exchange would include a government-run health plan, which is often known as the public option. In other words, that government plan — which may or may not end up in the final bill — is a part of a part. And the government would subsidize those who cannot afford insurance. That's far short of a fully government-run plan.
It's fair game to state an opinion that you think this is where the system is heading. It's reasonable, for example, to say "I'm worried that a public option could lead to socialized medicine." But it is not accurate to describe the Democrats' plan as socialized medicine.
That's also true with the claims about alleged shortcomings in the public health systems in Canada and Britain. The underlying assumption is that that is what is being proposed here. It is not.
|
callmelou
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 28th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1294 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
Brian Lameira wrote: BigSurprize wrote: callmelou wrote: Biggerthanabreadbox wrote: callmelou wrote: Brian Lameira wrote: Just an hateful person. You never have anything nice to say. Try it, you may turn yourself in the "right" direction....
Just a patriotic, red blooded American trying to keep the wacko righties from getting back in power.
OMG, Lou! That's so funny! That's what we conservatives say about people like you!
Dear...how shall I break this you in a manner in which you can handle it...hmmmmm....screw it, I'll just break it ungently....F..we are in power..we got the house, we got the senate, we got the WH....sorry I had to be the one to bring you to speed, but I thought you should know.
The key word here would be seem...cuz the waves go up and the waves go down. This too shall pass...and then we'll remind you. The Libs may have the WH, Senate and House but they haven't gotten a darn thing done but cause misery to the American people. What accomplishments have they gotten done since they been in office? Name one that has made any sizable difference besides their constant fighting and not allowing a partisan bill to come out of either houses? Close door sessions while litterly locking out the Republicans while they craft their 1000+ page of B.S.
As I recall Pelosi said she was going to run the most ethical house ever. Yea right!!! The things she says about the Tea parties (everyday Americans), President Bush and the Republicans is absolutely sickening. She is the apedimy of Liberalism at it's worst!
Remember this. The Republicans will take both houses in 2010 and the Liberals will look like fools when they are ousted in disgust! It takes both Republicans and Democrats (Partisanship) to make things work. I have nothing against Democrats what so ever, it's Liberals I'm not to crazy about. I vote for either party but never for a Liberal. They're doing a great job at making the the U.S. look inept in every way.
We need to make sure America looks and is strong in every sense of the word and right now it isn't happening!!!!!
Sorry we made ya so miserable, Bri..let's see..since Obama was elected President, you got a job, didn't you? ....stem cell research is moving foward and recent clinical trials ware very encouraging....unemployment coverage for those out of work due to the bush years has been extended....economists all agree the recession is over...those are a few "darn things" accomplished....healthcare reform is gonna happen....check the President's web page for more...he's done more good in 11 months than bush did in 8 yrs.
|
Brian Lameira
Member
back to top
|
BigSurprize wrote: callmelou wrote: Biggerthanabreadbox wrote: callmelou wrote: Brian Lameira wrote: Just an hateful person. You never have anything nice to say. Try it, you may turn yourself in the "right" direction....
Just a patriotic, red blooded American trying to keep the wacko righties from getting back in power.
OMG, Lou! That's so funny! That's what we conservatives say about people like you!
Dear...how shall I break this you in a manner in which you can handle it...hmmmmm....screw it, I'll just break it ungently....F..we are in power..we got the house, we got the senate, we got the WH....sorry I had to be the one to bring you to speed, but I thought you should know.
The key word here would be seem...cuz the waves go up and the waves go down. This too shall pass...and then we'll remind you. The Libs may have the WH, Senate and House but they haven't gotten a darn thing done but cause misery to the American people. What accomplishments have they gotten done since they been in office? Name one that has made any sizable difference besides their constant fighting and not allowing a partisan bill to come out of either houses? Close door sessions while litterly locking out the Republicans while they craft their 1000+ page of B.S.
As I recall Pelosi said she was going to run the most ethical house ever. Yea right!!! The things she says about the Tea parties (everyday Americans), President Bush and the Republicans is absolutely sickening. She is the apedimy of Liberalism at it's worst!
Remember this. The Republicans will take both houses in 2010 and the Liberals will look like fools when they are ousted in disgust! It takes both Republicans and Democrats (Partisanship) to make things work. I have nothing against Democrats what so ever, it's Liberals I'm not to crazy about. I vote for either party but never for a Liberal. They're doing a great job at making the the U.S. look inept in every way.
We need to make sure America looks and is strong in every sense of the word and right now it isn't happening!!!!!
|
BigSurprize
Member
back to top
|
Mamazoyd wrote: designman124 wrote: Ponder these!
If a conservative doesn’t like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.
If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.
If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy.
A liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.
If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.
If a black man or Hispanic are conservative, they see themselves as independently successful.
Their liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of government protection.
If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.
If a conservative doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals demand that those they don’t like be shut down.
If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church.
A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced. (Unless it’s a foreign religion, of course!)
If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.
If a conservative slips and falls in a store, he gets up, laughs and is embarrassed.
If a liberal slips and falls, he grabs his neck, moans like he's in labor and then sues.
If a conservative reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.
A liberal will delete it because he's "offended".
And what would you consider one who would like to debate some of the points -- both sides?
I'd say then quit talk'n the talk...and start walk'n the walk. You talk about how you're a moderate...but we don't know what that means for you. Other than an "Amen" after someone elses post or a slam at Walmart, Raz, d-man, and/or me...you don't post anything that says what you believe in! Last edited on Thu Dec 3rd, 2009 09:46 pm by BigSurprize
|
Mamazoyd
Member
| Joined: | Sun Jul 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2471 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
designman124 wrote: Ponder these!
If a conservative doesn’t like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.
If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.
If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy.
A liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.
If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.
If a black man or Hispanic are conservative, they see themselves as independently successful.
Their liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of government protection.
If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.
If a conservative doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals demand that those they don’t like be shut down.
If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church.
A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced. (Unless it’s a foreign religion, of course!)
If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.
If a conservative slips and falls in a store, he gets up, laughs and is embarrassed.
If a liberal slips and falls, he grabs his neck, moans like he's in labor and then sues.
If a conservative reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.
A liberal will delete it because he's "offended".
And what would you consider one who would like to debate some of the points -- both sides?
|
designman124
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5390 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
Ponder these!
If a conservative doesn’t like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.
If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.
If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy.
A liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.
If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.
If a black man or Hispanic are conservative, they see themselves as independently successful.
Their liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of government protection.
If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.
If a conservative doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals demand that those they don’t like be shut down.
If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church.
A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced. (Unless it’s a foreign religion, of course!)
If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.
If a conservative slips and falls in a store, he gets up, laughs and is embarrassed.
If a liberal slips and falls, he grabs his neck, moans like he's in labor and then sues.
If a conservative reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.
A liberal will delete it because he's "offended".
|
callmelou
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 28th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1294 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
Biggerthanabreadbox wrote: callmelou wrote: Brian Lameira wrote: Just an hateful person. You never have anything nice to say. Try it, you may turn yourself in the "right" direction....
Just a patriotic, red blooded American trying to keep the wacko righties from getting back in power.
OMG, Lou! That's so funny! That's what we conservatives say about people like you!
Dear...how shall I break this you in a manner in which you can handle it...hmmmmm....screw it, I'll just break it ungently....F..we are in power..we got the house, we got the senate, we got the WH....sorry I had to be the one to bring you to speed, but I thought you should know.
|
Biggerthanabreadbox
Member
| Joined: | Sat Oct 10th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 437 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
callmelou wrote: Brian Lameira wrote: Just an hateful person. You never have anything nice to say. Try it, you may turn yourself in the "right" direction....
Just a patriotic, red blooded American trying to keep the wacko righties from getting back in power.
OMG, Lou! That's so funny! That's what we conservatives say about people like you!
|
callmelou
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 28th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1294 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
Brian Lameira wrote: Just an hateful person. You never have anything nice to say. Try it, you may turn yourself in the "right" direction....
Just a patriotic, red blooded American trying to keep the wacko righties from getting back in power.Last edited on Thu Dec 3rd, 2009 04:58 am by callmelou
|
Brian Lameira
Member
back to top
|
Just an hateful person. You never have anything nice to say. Try it, you may turn yourself in the "right" direction....
|
Razenkn
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
Razenkn wrote: BigSurprize wrote: This children's book would make a great Christmas gift for our libbie-lou..."Teach A Donkey To Fish".
http://www.breitbart.tv/teach-a-donkey-to-fish-new-children%e2%80%99s-book-teaches-conservatism/
This is the best thing I've seen in a long time. It's so smart. I'm going on Amazon and order it for some family members right now...(Kids AND adults) ..LOL
Give me, gimme, own me. The liberal mantra. Had the slaves not been beaten and abused physically, the libs on here wouldn't probably see anything wrong with having them because they were clothed, fed, and housed by the Boss (Gov't) although they did have to work for it, so probably not. Now they only have to Vote correctly to get some of the "Obamamoney Stash". Yeah, our kids definitely need to be taught better, teach them how to fish.
|
Razenkn
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
BigSurprize wrote: This children's book would make a great Christmas gift for our libbie-lou..."Teach A Donkey To Fish".
http://www.breitbart.tv/teach-a-donkey-to-fish-new-children%e2%80%99s-book-teaches-conservatism/
This is the best thing I've seen in a long time. It's so smart. I'm going on Amazon and order it for some family members right now...(Kids AND adults) ..LOL
Give me, gimme, own me. The liberal mantra. Had the slaves not been beaten and abused physically, the libs on here wouldn't probably see anything wrong with having them because they were clothed, fed, and housed by the Boss (Gov't) although they did have to work for it, so probably not. Now they only have to Vote correctly to get some of the "Obamamoney Stash". Yeah, our kids definitely need to be taught better.
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 29th, 2009 02:06 pm |
|
88th Post |
Razenkn
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
Brewer brings Christmas, Hanukkah back to Capitol
Elizabeth Shell - Nov. 28, 2009 09:41 PM Cronkite News Service
Gov. Jan Brewer said she isn't going to play "word games" with holiday decorations in the state Capitol's Executive Tower lobby.
"I believe in calling something what it is, and it is a Christmas tree, just as a menorah is a menorah," the governor said in a statement last week.
Those symbols had generic names - holiday tree and candle holder - under ex-Gov. Janet Napolitano, who wanted to avoid singling out certain religions.
Deborah Sheasby, legal counsel for the conservative interest group Center for Arizona Policy, said the governor made a good decision.
"The government does not have to shy away from acknowledging what it is," she said of the holiday display.
Steve Rosenberg, executive director of the Valley of the Sun Jewish Community Center, said the display's use of symbols from multiple religious backgrounds is appropriate.
"Anything that recognizes the commonality of our diversity is good," he said. "It might be easier for the Governor's Office to have a ubiquitous display, but I like the individuality. I'm surprised that we haven't gotten anybody yet to challenge the right of the government to do that."
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 28th, 2009 04:22 pm |
|
89th Post |
Razenkn
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
THE FINAL INSPECTION
The soldier stood and faced God,
Which must always come to pass.
He hoped his shoes were shining,
Just as brightly as his brass.
'Step forward now, you soldier,
How shall I deal with you ?
Have you always turned the other cheek ?
To My Church have you been true?'
The soldier squared his shoulders and said,
'No, Lord, I guess I ain't.
Because those of us who carry guns,
Can't always be a saint.
I've had to work most Sundays,
And at times my talk was tough.
And sometimes I've been violent,
Because the world is awfully rough.
But, I never took a penny,
That wasn't mine to keep...
Though I worked a lot of overtime,
When the bills got just too steep.
And I never passed a cry for help,
Though at times I shook with fear.
And sometimes, God, forgive me,
I've wept unmanly tears.
I know I don't deserve a place,
Among the people here.
They never wanted me around,
Except to calm their fears.
If you've a place for me here, Lord,
It needn't be so grand.
I never expected or had too much,
But if you don't, I'll understand.
There was a silence all around the throne,
Where the saints had often trod.
As the soldier waited quietly,
For the judgment of his God.
'Step forward now, you soldier,
You've borne your burdens well.
Walk peacefully on Heaven's streets,
You've done your time in Hell.'
<Author Unknown>
It's the Military, not the reporter who has given us the freedom of the press. It's the Military, not the poet, who has given us the freedom of speech. It's the Military, not the politicians that ensures our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It's the Military who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag.
If you care to offer the smallest token of recognition and appreciation for the military, please pass this on and pray for our men and women who have served and are currently serving our country and pray for those who have given the ultimate sacrifice for freedom.
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 26th, 2009 04:56 pm |
|
90th Post |
Razenkn
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
Here is another Left Wing Nut ObamaCzar's that believes they should CONTROL the airwaves. Who would be in charge of determining if they are "rumors" or based on facts or opinion?? Notice they only used a Conservative as an example....I'm sure they would play fair and square...LOL It's called re-writing that pesky old document called the Constituion, you know, President Procrastinator hates that thing, it's always getting in his way. Nah, nothing SOCIALIST/Marxist here.
CZAR WARS
Cass Sunstein: Censor Hannity, right-wing rumors
Cites websites for 'absurd' reports of Obama's ties to Ayers
Posted: November 23, 2009
3:23 pm Eastern
By Aaron Klein
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Cass Sunstein
TEL AVIV – Websites should be obliged to remove "false rumors" while libel laws should be altered to make it easier to sue for spreading such "rumors," argued Cass Sunstein, Obama's regulatory czar.
In his recently released book, "On Rumors," Sunstein specifically cited as a primary example of "absurd" and "hateful" remarks, reports by "right-wing websites" alleging an association between President Obama and Weatherman terrorist Bill Ayers.
He also singled out radio talker Sean Hannity for "attacking" Obama regarding the president's "alleged associations."
Ayers became a name in last year's presidential campaign when it was disclosed the radical worked closely with Obama for years. Obama also was said to have launched his political career at a 1995 fundraiser in Ayers' apartment.
As WND reported, Obama and Ayers sat together on the board of a Chicago nonprofit, the Woods Fund. Ayers also was a founder of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, where Obama was appointed as its first chairman in 1995.
Ayers reportedly was involved in hiring Obama for the CAC – a job the future president later touted as qualifying him to run for public office.
WND columnist Jack Cashill has produced a series of persuasive arguments that it was Ayers who ghostwrote Obama's award-winning autobiography "Dreams from My Father."
However, such reports were characterized by Sunstein as "absurd" charges for which corrective measures can be taken.
Sunstein's book – reviewed by WND – was released in September, after he was already installed as the administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
"In the era of the Internet, it has become easy to spread false or misleading rumors about almost anyone," Sunstein writes.
"Some right-wing websites liked to make absurd and hateful remarks about the alleged relationship between Barack Obama and the former radical Bill Ayers; one of the websites' goals was undoubtedly to attract more viewers," he writes.
Sunstein continues: "On the Internet as well as on talk radio, altruistic propagators are easy to find; they play an especially large role in the political domain. When Sean Hannity, the television talk show host, attacked Barack Obama because of his alleged associations, one of his goals might have been to promote values and causes that he cherishes."
Sunstein presents multiple new measures he argues can be used to stop the spread of "rumors."
He contends "freedom usually works, but in some contexts, it is an incomplete corrective."
Sunstein proposes the imposition of a "chilling effect" on "damaging rumors" – or the use of strong "corrective" measures to deter future rumormongers.
For websites, Sunstein suggests a "right to notice and take down" in which "those who run websites would be obliged to take down falsehoods upon notice."
Sunstein also argues for the "right to demand a retraction after a clear demonstration that a statement is both false and damaging." But he does not explain which agency would determine whether any statement is false and damaging.
Sunstein further pushes for "deterrence" through making libel lawsuits easier to bring.
Sunstein drafted 'New Deal Fairness Doctrine'
Sunstein's proposals outlined in his book "On Rumors" were not the first of his writings to recommend regulating talk radio or the news media.
WND previously reported Sunstein drew up a "First Amendment New Deal" – a new "Fairness Doctrine" that would include the establishment of a panel of "nonpartisan experts" to ensure "diversity of view" on the airwaves.
Sunstein compared the need for the government to regulate broadcasting to the moral obligation of the U.S. to impose new rules that outlawed segregation.
Sunstein's radical proposal, set forth in his 1993 book "The Partial Constitution," received no news media attention and scant scrutiny until the WND report.
In the book, Sunstein outwardly favors and promotes the "Fairness Doctrine," the abolished FCC policy that required holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance in a manner the government deemed "equitable and balanced."
Sunstein introduces what he terms his "First Amendment New Deal" to regulate broadcasting in the U.S.
His proposal, which focuses largely on television, includes a government requirement that "purely commercial stations provide financial subsidies to public television or to commercial stations that agree to provide less profitable but high-quality programming."
Sunstein wrote it is "worthwhile to consider more dramatic approaches as well."
He proposes "compulsory public-affairs programming, right of reply, content review by nonpartisan experts or guidelines to encourage attention to public issues and diversity of view."
The Obama czar argues his regulation proposals for broadcasting are actually presented within the spirit of the Constitution.
"It seems quite possible that a law that contained regulatory remedies would promote rather than undermine the 'freedom of speech,'" he writes.
Sunstein compares the need for the government to regulate broadcasting to the moral obligation of the government stepping in to end segregation.
Writes Sunstein: "The idea that government should be neutral among all forms of speech seems right in the abstract, but as frequently applied it is no more plausible than the idea that it should be neutral between the associational interests of blacks and those of whites under conditions of segregation."
Sunstein contends the landmark case that brought about the Fairness Doctrine, Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission, "stresses not the autonomy of broadcasters (made possible only by current ownership rights), but instead the need to promote democratic self-government by ensuring that people are presented with a broad range of views about public issues."
He continues: "In a market system, this goal may be compromised. It is hardly clear that 'the freedom of speech' is promoted by a regime in which people are permitted to speak only if other people are willing to pay enough to allow them to be heard."
In his book, Sunstein slams the U.S. courts' unwillingness to "require something like a Fairness Doctrine" to be a result of "the judiciary's lack of democratic pedigree, lack of fact-finding powers and limited remedial authority."
He clarifies he is not arguing the government should be free to regulate broadcasting however it chooses.
"Regulation designed to eliminate a particular viewpoint would of course be out of bounds. All viewpoint discrimination would be banned," Sunstein writes.
But, he says, "at the very least, regulative 'fairness doctrines' would raise no real doubts" constitutionally.
Last edited on Thu Nov 26th, 2009 05:06 pm by
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 16th, 2009 10:59 pm |
|
91st Post |
Razenkn
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
PAINTING A BULL'S EYE ON NEW YORK CITY
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
November 14, 2009
President Obama's decision to put Khalid Sheikh Mohammed on trial in New York City along with four others accused of helping destroy the World Trade Center and attack the Pentagon on 9-11 paints a bulls-eye for terrorists right on New York City, their favorite target. Now Obama has identified where the terrorists should focus their energies - on New York City.
His decision to bow to political correctness and not to try Mohammed at a secure military base and to try him in a civilian court, according him all the rights of an American citizen, raises important questions:
Most importantly, is the admissible evidence against Mohammed d**ning enough to secure a conviction? The evidentiary requirements protecting an American citizen on trial are far stricter than those which would apply to an enemy combatant before a military tribunal. We already watched how the twentieth hijacker, Zacarias Moussaoui escaped the death penalty because the evidence the government could use against him in a civilian criminal court was limited by his civil liberties. As a result, the data from his computer, which had not been seized pursuant to the Fourth Amendment, could not be entered into evidence against him. Failing such evidence, the feds had to settle for a life sentence.
Since much of the evidence against Mohammed was gathered through interrogations before which he may not have been read his Miranda rights and during which he may have been water-boarded, one wonders how much of his statement that he was the mastermind of 9-11 is going to be admissible. It could be that he will use the very constitution of the very government he seeks to destroy to protect himself from the death penalty or even life in prison.
The decision to try him in a civilian court also confronts the Department of Justice with a difficult decision on how much of the evidence against Mohammed should be aired publicly. Our anti-terror investigations depend on secrecy and the FBI and Homeland Security agents may not relish having their methods publicized in open court. There is even the possibility that there will be a global backlash in favor of Mohammed as his defense lawyer - paid for by the American taxpayer - will make him appear to be the victim of over-zealous investigators and prosecutors rather than the perpetrator of one of the greatest mass murders in history.
In any event, President Obama is affording the terrorists exactly what they wanted in the first place - a global stage right near New York's theater district. The very goal of terrorism is to attract world-wide attention and, by trying Mohammed in a civilian court in the middle of New York City, President Obama is giving them the stage they want on which to articulate their perceived grievances.
Finally, there is the disturbing question of what will happen if Mohammed and/or his some of his confreres are found to be not guilty. Where will they be released? Will they walk out of the courtroom free to prowl the streets of New York, their transportation having been paid courtesy of the taxpayers? Will they be flown to Afghanistan to resume their plots against our government and our people, again at taxpayer expense?
What Obama should have done was to try Mohammed before a military tribunal, without the full rights of an American citizen (which, of course, he is not) and, after a guilty verdict, executed him. But this president bows before political correctness above all else and he may just have done Mohammed and al Qaeda a big, big favor.
|
Razenkn
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means -- I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it".....Benjamin Franklin
This administration is doing everything in its power to drive people into poverty and to keep them there. In doing so, it manifests Gov't control over its people. We cannot sit idly by and allow that to destroy America and to destroy our children's future.
Last edited on Fri Nov 6th, 2009 03:41 pm by
|
Schoolmarm
Member
| Joined: | Wed May 13th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 301 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
Razenkn wrote: If the people speaking out, spending their own money to travel, taking time off of their jobs, time away from their families to be heard by our politicians in Washington doesn't do it, then what will? We phone, they don't answer. We email, they don't answer. We attend tea parties, they dismiss us. We attend townhalls, they call us names. We march onto the steps and into the halls of Congress and they act like they have cotton in their ears.
This is a sign of how desperate the libs in Congress and this radical WH are to be in total power of the United States. If you think because you voted for them you are going to be treated better, think again. You are part of WE THE PEOPLE and you are willingly turning that right over to a handful of greedy, power hungry and deceitful politicans that will squash you like a bug if you disagree with them just like they are trying to do to us.
You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children's children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.
Ronald Reagan
In the last 12 months, I have yet to see one demonstration SUPPORTING the Healthcare issue.
|
Razenkn
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
If the people speaking out, spending their own money to travel, taking time off of their jobs, time away from their families to be heard by our politicians in Washington doesn't do it, then what will? We phone, they don't answer. We email, they don't answer. We attend tea parties, they dismiss us. We attend townhalls, they call us names. We march onto the steps and into the halls of Congress and they act like they have cotton in their ears.
This is a sign of how desperate the libs in Congress and this radical WH are to be in total power of the United States. If you think because you voted for them you are going to be treated better, think again. You are part of WE THE PEOPLE and you are willingly turning that right over to a handful of greedy, power hungry and deceitful politicans that will squash you like a bug if you disagree with them just like they are trying to do to us.
You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children's children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.
Ronald Reagan
Last edited on Fri Nov 6th, 2009 03:09 am by
|
Razenkn
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
Protesters of Health Care Reform Chant ‘Kill the Bill’
David M. Herszenhorn
 Alex Brandon/Associated Press Rep. Louis Gohmert of Texas talked with the crowd in front of the Capitol on Thursday.
Thousands of opponents of the Democrats’ health care legislation are gathered outside the Capitol, for a noon news conference and rally led by Representative Michele Bachmann, Republican of Minnesota, and the chants are already underway, echoing across the Mall.
“Kill the bill!” they are shouting. “Kill the bill!”
A series of spot interviews suggests that the protesters have come to Washington from all across the county – Texas, Ohio, Oregon and the greater Washington area. It’s a generally older crowd, many in their 50s and 60s, predominantly, white, and many self-identified as Christians. They are fiercely conservative and deeply skeptical of the government, many of them deeply opposed to abortion rights.
“The government couldn’t even get the shots out,” said Karen Ambrose of Sunbury, Ohio, ridiculing the government’s efforts to vaccinate people for the H1N1 flu as an example of what government-run health care would look like. “Let’s just get the government out of all this.”
The crowd is waving signs, some predictable, others inventive. “No Socialistic Health Care.” “Sweeping Away Socialism One Democrat at a Time.” “Politicians Lie, Patients Die” “You lie!”
“All lies”
Jerry Hershberger, a market representative for an automotive company for Flower Mountain, Texas, said he flew up just to protest the health care bill. “A little expense now compared to a lot of expense later,” he said, explaining why the cost of the trip was worth it to him.
Mr. Hershberger, like many of the demonstrators, repeated some of the most common conservative and Republican talking points heard repeatedly on Fox News. “It’s not bipartisan,” he said, standing outside the Capitol wearing a Texas Longhorns baseball cap. “They are doing it behind closed doors.” He added: “It’s going to drive us into a super-deficit.”
Mr. Hershberger, who has health insurance through his employer, said that he believed some changes were needed to the health care system, but that Democrats were going about the process all wrong. “Scrap all this, start from the beginning, bring in the conservatives, the Republicans and the Democrats and see what we need to do to care for the 12 to 14 million people who really need insurance.”
|
Razenkn
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
BigSurprize wrote: 
Yeah, me too. But now the libs think we should be apologizing for that....sure we will. They try to make conservatism out to be some kind of wacko lunatics that hold women and children in a hut and dare law enforcement to come after them....LOL... True Conservativsm is America. It is TRUE AMERICA. It is what our Country was founded upon. Small government, low taxes, respect for all life, the right to bear arms, the true definition of marriage - between a man and a woman, the right to worship any religion, In GOD WE TRUST. Nothing crazy or wacky tobaccy about that is there??
So they can attack us, call us names, try to create some huge fight between us but at the end of the day, either we are Conservative or we aren't.
No different than how the Dems and the Libs fight....the LIBS want to own America, tell everyone when they should fart and what they should eat...the DEMS say that makes me queasy, let's let up a little on the control issue and the spending, and the taxes, and the reducing freedom of Americans or I'm not going to get re-elected, I have to pretend to be conservative.
So whose fight is bigger??? I think it's the DEMS/LIBS fight that is front and center and dangerous. My money is on the "blue dogs" who really know they are running as a conservative in a Conservative State, but if they vote too often liberal then they are toast. My question is ....why don't they run as who they really are?? We have the same issue in our party, the libs trying to take over our party. GO AWAY...PLEASE. We like who we are. AND more importantly, we know who we are and what we believe in. If that's not you then stay with your liberal friends. There, problem solved.
|
Razenkn
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
BigSurprize wrote: We the people...let your voices be heard!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CT7xfoSiH5Q&feature=player_embedded#
Outstanding. He's going to be a front runner in the coming years and will be a strong contender for the Republican party.
It is absolutely stunning to me to think that for two seconds anyone would agree to this massive take over from our Gov't. Why?? It's ok to be loyal to your party but if they are steering you into a ditch you need to speak out against where they are going. This is a permanent take over of our freedom, one that will not easily if even possible to rectify in the future. Once the gov't has destroyed private enterprise, who will be left to pull us out from under the heavy handed control of the Federal Gov't, from the IRS, from flaky politicians who are in it for greed and perks and worst of all, control of WE THE PEOPLE?? Who will be left, who do we turn to in time of duress, from the oppression, from the economic crash?? Who? Can anyone answer that??
|
| Current time is 03:10 pm | Page:   1 2 3   |
|
