Sep 2, 2008

I missed 90210 for this

After wasting my evening watching the exciting Republican National Convention Tuesday night, I realized I would have been more entertained and informed if I had watched the debut of the new “Beverly Hills 90210.”

Obviously, the excitement was not on the convention floor. Apparently, it was at the many parties sponsored by the lobbyists that run Grampy McSame’s campaign. It started with Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn. The good news is he will leave the comedy to Al Franken when Franken unsets him in November.

A series of unknown and uninspiring speakers led up to the Bush/McCain satellite speech. The one exception was batty Michele Bachmann, but her speech was not very noteworthy.

Laura Bush good some good applause, and she did a good job of spinning Bush’s record. The line that got the biggest applause was “he kept America safe.” She apparently forgot about the attack on Americans soil on his watch on Sept. 11, 2001. His response was to pull the wool over the eyes of Americans so he could invade a sovereign country that had nothing to do with the attack.

Bush’s prepared speech was the same old stuff, and we don’t need eight more years of that.

“The angry left?” I know this, I’m angry that he has sullied this country’s honor just to line the pockets of his cronies. Bush/McCain claims Grampy McSame will tell you when he disagrees. I would like to hear something that Grampy disagrees with Bush/McCain on. He has flip-flopped on that small 10 percent he didn’t vote with Bush on.

Somebody woke Fred Thompson up to give the keynote speech. He used some untrue things to props up the VP nominee, but that is to be expected. Apparently, being the mayor of a city smaller than Howell and able to field dress a moose qualifies her to lead the free world. Being the Washington lobbyist and Hollywood actor he is, Thompson sold the convention faithful a bill of goods.

It seems kind of ironic that Thompson can bring up the military service of McSame’s sons, but they go berserk when Palin’s daughter is brought up. Why is that? Most of the speech was on his POW experience. I still don’t see how that qualifies him to be president alone. Thompson describes the torture McCain endured in detail, so why is he endorsing the U.S. disgusting torture policy?

All in all, it wasn’t a bad speech, even if it was filled with outright lies and half-truths. It makes you wonder why we saw none of that from Thompson on the campaign trail. Perhaps he might have won more than just three delegates.

I skipped Lieberman’s speech. I couldn’t’ stomach the turncoat.


ka_Dargo_Hussein said...

OK, this is where you and I part ways, bub.

90210? For shame! Anything that promotes that skank Dougherty in any fashion must be banished! ;-)

ka_Dargo_Hussein said...

On a side note, Franken is gonna kick that dudes ass, IMHO.

I'm just dying to hear what brett "I've never met a conservative talking point I don't like" has to say.

Come on brett, give us some more talking points, give us some more lame ass rebuttals...My twin, I mean me, I mean that other guy are just dyin' to know.

Come us, I mean him, some luv!!!

Brett said...

I'm not surprised that you didn't understand the talk of McCain's POW years. The whole point behind that was to show McCain's character and Character is something that you'll never understand.

Too bad you missed Lieberman's speech, but I'm sure that won't stop you from making comments about it despite not knowing what he said.

It seems odd that someone that is constantly banging the drum about his own military experience, questions others military experience, yet doesn't understand the trials and tribulations of a man that suffered for his country as a POW.

It's also interesting that you didn't question the assertion of increased taxes under Barack Hussein Obama that was spoken of tonight.

But then, I didn't expect any substance from you You didn't disappoint.

Al Franken? That says alot about you right there.


Brett said...

If you don't understand the difference between honoring children that are sacrificing for their country and attacking a young girl in a time of personal challenge, then you're really not going to get it.

I see the police had to disperse the liberal rioters outside when they started threatening to go over the fence.

I don't remember the Republicans protesting to the point of tear gas being used. In fact, all of the Republican protests seemed to be respectful of the boundaries set up at the Democrat convention. Perhaps you could learn something from the Republican protestors.


ka_Dargo_Hussein said...

I see Brett is fapping over the stormtroopers again...he does like him a police state, doesn't he?

ka_Dargo_Hussein said...

Notice how he switched to "how great McCain is", after he discovered Palin is a fucking moron?

Red Or Dead said...

It's funny the biased MSM sat on the Edwards baby story for 8 months and are all over Bristol.

If you can't rationalize the difference of talking about McCains sons and Palins daughter it does not surprise me.

Suddenly the Left cares about competence in a woman. Hillary never needed it. Eight years as First Lady qualified her to be Senator from New York. Obama never needed to show foreign policy experience; Remember he lived 4 years over seas as a child.

Can anyone remember what Barry's speech was about?

Recently, failed liberal talk radio host Al Franken paid a $25,000 penalty to the state of New York for failing to pay workers compensation insurance for a three year period. Franken claimed to be unaware of the three-year-old penalty. Yet facts uncovered by various sources seem to refute such claims and paint Franken as a liar.

Barrys voting record vs Bush

First, he opposed the war in Iraq while in the Illinois state legislature.
He was quoted in the July 27, 2004 Chicago Tribune as saying, “There’s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who’s in a position to execute.”

Since taking office in January 2005 he has voted to approve every war appropriation the Republicans have put forward, totaling over $300 billion. He also voted to confirm Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State

Obama voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act in July 2005

In March 2006, Obama went out of his way to travel to Connecticut to campaign for Senator Joseph Lieberman who faced a tough challenge by anti-war candidate Ned Lamont. At a Democratic Party dinner attended by Lamont, Obama called Lieberman “his mentor” and urged those in attendance to vote and give financial contributions to him

At a September 2007 debate before the New Hampshire primary, moderated by Tim Russert, Obama refused to commit to getting our troops out of Iraq by January 2013 and, on the campaign trail, he has repeatedly stated his desire to add 100,000 combat troops to the military.

In 2005, Obama joined Republicans in passing a law dubiously called the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) By contrast, Senators Clinton, Edwards and Kerry joined 23 others to vote against CAFA

Obama aligns himself with Republican Party interests aren’t new. While in the Illinois Senate, Obama voted to limit the recovery that victims of medical malpractice could obtain through the courts.

September 29, 2006, Obama joined Republicans in voting to build 700 miles of double fencing on the Mexican border (The Secure Fence Act of 2006), abandoning 19 of his colleagues who had the courage to oppose it.

Obama aggressively opposed initiating impeachment proceedings against the president (“Obama: Impeachment is not acceptable,” USA Today, June 28, 2007) and he wouldn’t even support Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold’s effort to censure the Bush administration for illegally wiretapping American citizens in violation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

The Democratic Party has devolved into a club for the illegitimately aggrieved, the self-absorbed, the self-hating and the perpetually pissed-off.

Communications guru said...

What I don't understand about the POW stuff is, how it qualifies him to be president. Oh, character is something I will never understand because I don't agree with your rightwing views? Please.

What is Lieberman going to say that is important, and why does he have any credibility? This is a man who lost the Senate Democratic primary, so in order to keep the power he has, he leaves the party because voters didn't choose him. There's some loyalty and character for you.

First, I am not "constantly banging the drum about his own military experience." I'm proud of it, and I spent most of my working life in the military. I will not let someone like you not make me proud of it or for being a liberal. But my military experience does not make me qualified to be the President of the United States.

The assertion of increased taxes under Sen. Obama are simply false. Don't you remember when you posted that false email about his alleged tax increase and I debunked it? I'll refresh your memory:

You are correct, my support of Al Franken does say a lot about me. He's a well-educated, family man, and this honorable man is doing what he loves.

Communications guru said...

That's ridiculous. It's OK to put your children out there for political gain, but not if it reflects badly on you. Great. More hypocrisy from the right.

Good for the alleged liberal rioters. There were protestors at Denver too, and the police in Minnesota have been a lot more heavy handed. You just need to see the arrest of journalists for proof of that. Plus, if they were anti-war protesters, it just makes sense that they are protesting where the people responsible for the unnecessary invasion and the deaths of thousands of innocent people are.

Communications guru said...

Wow, here's a hatemonger I have not heard from in a while. I see Commie or Dead crawled out from under his rock to put out a few hateful lies. You got a whole bunch of rightwing talking points here.

I agree with you about the biased MSM. It sure is conservative. Still, the MSM does not report rumors like the Inquirer.

Like I told the other rightwing tool, It's OK to put your children out there for political gain, but not if it reflects badly on you. Great. More hypocrisy from the right.

Democrats have always been about competence in a woman. As for Sen. Clinton, many people have moved on to become a Senator with a heck of a lot less experience than Sen. Clinton. I think her eight years as First Lady made her very qualified to be a Senator, as well as her experience working as a staffer on Capitol Hill and as a private attorney. Now, I don't believe her eight years as First Lady makes her more qualified than Barack Obama to be president. But the fact remains they are both well more experienced to be president than Palin.

Obama by he way, didn't you get the memo? You're always supposed to use his middle name when referring to him. Obama is a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

How about one of these "various sources" you claim about Franken? He paid the fine, even though he disputes it. Here is a reference:

And how is Franken a "failed liberal talk show host?"

You make a lot of false claims –m or somebody made them for you, but I notice you do not provide a single source to back it up. Let me know when that happens. Ask them if they will provide them for you. Now, crawl back under your rock.

ka_Dargo_Hussein said...

They do like their half-truths, don't they?

Brett said...

With so much stock being put into fact check on this site, I decided to do a little checking on fact check. I'm still looking at it, but here's an interesting little "fact".
FactCheck has direct ties to the Annenberg Foundations, who, funded a similiar group that Sen. Obama was Chairman of the Board in Chicago. This same foundation is at the head of the controversy regarding Sen. Obama’s associations with William Ayers, an admitted TERRORIST who bombed multiple government buildings in the 60’s and 70’s. The same unrepentant William Ayers who has said “I wish I had done more” when questioned as to why he did what he did.
I guess we can't trust fact check that much either. They seem to have an agenda.

Communications guru said...

Wow. Is there any source you will believe? This is just sad. They have been very hard on Obama, too. Are you denying that? Why don't you tell me a source you will accept. Unless they agree with you, I don't think there is one. There isn't one.

The facts do have a liberal bias.

By the way, what was Mr. Ayers convicted of again?

Brett said...

OJ was innocent too.

The difference between OJ and Ayers?

Ayers admitted he did it and stated that he's sorry he didn't do more.

OJ claims to be looking for the real killer.


Communications guru said...

So every person acquitted is really guilty? Again, why don't you tell me a source you will accept.

Brett said...

That's quite a leap. Because OJ was found not guilty and any reasonable person knows that he killed his wife and the other guy, you think that means everyone that has been acquitted is guilty.

I have homework for you. Look up and try to understand the meaning of "common sense".


Communications guru said...

I have homework for you, answer the question I asked you twice already. What I know about common sense is you have none.

Brett said...

Off to bed with no dinner for you. You skipped your homework with nothing more than a flippant remark that doesn't come close to "common sense".

At this rate, I see juvenile hall in your future.


ka_Dargo_Hussein said...

Once again, when confronted with a question wankerlifestyle doesn't like, he changes the subject.

Communications guru said...

This isn't brain surgery I'm asking you to perform, just a simple question. Is there any source you will accept when they say something you don't agree with?

Brett said...

Isn't it just awful? You mock common sense and try to turn it around to sites that I will accept. I don't accept any one site. If you give me a source, I check it, then I try to verify it with other sites including a google search.

If it's FACTcheck, don't you think that opinions should be left out of it and only the facts given? Yet, I show you there is an agenda and rather than point out where I might be wrong (which you obviously can't do) you instead try to turn things around.

If your sources can't stand the scrutiny, perhaps you ought to either find a site that does give facts, or realize that these places with an agenda are not telling you the entire truth. After all, you refuse to accept anything published by what you call a "right wing site".


Communications guru said...

I'm not mocking anything but you. You continue to duck the question. So what you're telling me is that you will never accept any proof I give you, and what you will do is search for a source that agrees with your narrow position and that's the source you trust? Sad.

I don't see where fact check uses opinions. You have not "shown me there is an agenda." What you have shown me is how bankrupt you are, and you will only accept facts if they reflect your narrow views. I continue to prove you wrong, but instead of accepting you are wrong, you attack the source. I have a suggestion, provide a source of your own that proves I'm wrong. I'm still waiting for that to happen.

I have found a source that stands up to scrutiny. You continue to attack it with zero proof or reason why it's wrong. Yes, I refuse to accept opinions from the rightwing sites on the rare occasions when you actually provide a source to try and prove your position.

Please tell me what agenda fact check has?

Brett said...

Apparently, you need repitition. Here it goes again. Then it's up to you to prove it wrong. As for me, I'm still doing more research on the people behind "factcheck".

FactCheck has direct ties to the Annenberg Foundations, who, funded a similiar group that Sen. Obama was Chairman of the Board in Chicago. This same foundation is at the head of the controversy regarding Sen. Obama’s associations with William Ayers, an admitted TERRORIST who bombed multiple government buildings in the 60’s and 70’s. The same unrepentant William Ayers who has said “I wish I had done more” when questioned as to why he did what he did.

Interesting that all you can do is claim you've proven me wrong, yet you never prove me wrong. Saying it loud doesn't make it so. It just makes you a loud mouth. Saying it often doesn't make it true, it only points out that you need to repeat yourself to convince yourself.

I'm not surprised that you don't see where factcheck uses opinions. When they quote a bandleader giving his opinion, it's an opinion. Not a fact.

It is interesting that you tell me I'm ducking the question, but then you didn't like my answer to the question so you ask another question and before I even answer, before you even send it, you make your assumption of my answer.

Each time you liberals speak, you make yourselves look more and more like the back end of your Donkey.


Democrats are scumbags said...

Read below:

The Democrats are just plain scumbags:

BREAKING: Democrats Release Sarah Palin's Social Security Number

The Politico has received an opposition research file from the Alaska Democrats. You can read it in PDF here.

In the file, the Democrats have released Sarah Palin's social security number minus the last four digits. Also tied to the information are her various home addresses.

Back in 2005, Democrats used Michael Steele's social security number to get his credit record.

It is atrocious that the Democrats would not only seek out Sarah Palin's social security number, but release it in opposition research to the press.

We need to know who did this. We also need to know what happened. We also need to know if it was used to bolster the Democrats' opposition research.

When it happened to Michael Steele, it turns out the Democrats knew about it and did nothing.

They cannot not take action now.

Communications guru said...

I have proved you wrong, and when I do, I provide a reference. You don't. What you do is attack the source with no proof of why the source is incorrect or anything to back up your position.

Factcheck is funded by the Annenberg Foundation. No one is disputing that. It doesn't take any research to find that out.

What board are you talking about? Any proof? Of course not. William Ayers sat on a board with Obama, nothing else. Ayers is also a respected college professor.

I have proven you wrong so many times it's not funny, like that debunked email you tried to float trying say Obama would tax the profit from a home sale. Remember that lie? I'll refresh your memory

I know this will surprise you, but not everything is black and white. They do their best to answer a question posed to them, and at times they analyze the information they have. What they can prove with facts, they prove, what they can't they tell you that. If you think Factcheck is using opinion, I challenge you to show me that.

"A bandleader giving his opinion?" What you have is the person who played in Germany who was there saying what happened. How is that an opinion? How else do you find answers unless you go to the source? The person who was hired to play, tells you what he was hired to do and what happed, and you don't believe it. You will not let facts shake your false opinion, will you?

Who did the 80,000 people in Mile High Stadium come to see? Who did the massive crowd in Hart Plaza come to see?

I had to ask the question three times, and you still did not give me a source you will accept. If that's not ducking the question I don't know what is. Your answer makes no sense. You're telling me you will search for a source that will support your position. Apparently, if that source supports your position on Monday its reliable, but if not on Tuesday, it's suspect.

Well, compared to you, this liberal sounds like a genius.

ka_Dargo_Hussein said...

You hit the nail right on the head.

Red state...didn't you post this earlier? Did those mean old 101st Fighting Keyboarders take you off their distribution list. Poor guy.

Communications guru said...

Hey scumbag, I'll give you the same answer I did when you pasted this trash on another thread yesterday.

The only place I can find this “story” is on rightwing blogs. I can’t find it on The Politico site. If they did something illegal, prosecute, if not shut up.

Where’s the PDF file you referenced?

democrats are scumbags said...


Go to the site I gave you and read the pdf. Are you stupid or what?

Democrats are now showing their true colors, those colors being sexist scumbags.

The Democrat party is the party of scumbags and trail park trash.

You should really be ashamed of the party.

ka_Dargo_Hussein said...

redstate, you must be deficient in some manner. You have a sentence that says "you can read it pdf here", yet no link.

Then, down at the bottom, you have a link to redstate, which is incomplete.

Climb back down into your hole and let the grownups fix what your party has done to our country.

Communications guru said...

Hey, republican Scumbag, I went to the site, no PDF. The only scumbag is you, and a lying one at that. You need to do a whole lot better that a rightwing blog to prove you lie.

ka_Dargo_Hussein said...

Even the Republican talking heads are turning on Palin.

Communications guru said...

It’s more of a case they know it was a pandering pick to please the rightwing tools that run the party.

I like the line about “political bullshit.”

Brett said...

I never said that I was searching for a source that would back up the source. Now you're expanding on your lies. I said I was researching the people affiliated with factcheck to get more information for myself. Not to check the source for sources. Good Lord. Do you always make things up as you go? Stupid question. Of course you do.


Brett said...

Truer words haven't been spoken:

To deal with these challenges the Democrats present a history-making nominee for president.
History-making in that he is the most liberal, most inexperienced nominee to ever run for president. Apparently they believe that he would match up well with the history-making, Democrat-controlled Congress. History-making because it's the least accomplished and most unpopular Congress in our nation's history.

and this one....

Now our opponents tell you not to worry about their tax increases. They tell you they are not going to tax your family.
No, they're just going to tax "businesses"! So unless you buy something from a "business," like groceries or clothes or gasoline ... or unless you get a paycheck from a big or a small "business," don't worry ... it's not going to affect you.
They say they are not going to take any water out of your side of the bucket, just the "other" side of the bucket! That's their idea of tax reform.

Brett said...

John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska, as his running mate finally gave Republicans a reason to vote for him -- a reason, that is, other than B. Hussein Obama.

The media are hopping mad about McCain's vice presidential selection, but they're really furious over at MSNBC. After drawing "Keith + Obama" hearts on their denim notebooks, Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews stayed up all night last Thursday, writing jokes about Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, the presumed vice presidential pick. Now they can't use any of them.

So the media are taking it out on our brave Sarah and her 17-year-old daughter.

They claimed Palin was chosen only because she's a woman. In fact, Palin was chosen because she's pro-life, pro-gun, pro-drilling and pro-tax cuts. She's fought both Republicans and Democrats on public corruption and does not have hair plugs like some other vice presidential candidate I could mention. In other words, she's a "Republican."

As a right-winger, Palin will appeal to the narrow 59 percent of Americans who voted for another former small-market sportscaster: Ronald Reagan. Our motto: Sarah Palin is only a heartbeat away!

If you're going to say Palin was chosen because she's a woman, you're going to have to demonstrate that the runners-up were more qualified. Gov. Tim Pawlenty seems like a terrific fellow and fine governor, but he is not obviously more qualified than Palin.

As for former governor of Pennsylvania Tom Ridge and Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman, the other also-rans, I can think of at least 40 million unborn reasons she's better than either of them.

Within the first few hours after Palin's name was announced, McCain raised $4 million in campaign donations online, reaching $10 million within the next two days. Which shortlist vice presidential pick could have beaten that?

The media hysterically denounced Palin as "inexperienced." But then people started to notice that she has more executive experience than B. Hussein Obama -- the guy at the top of the Democrats' ticket.

They tried to create a "Troopergate" for Palin, indignantly demanding to know why she wanted to get her ex-brother-in-law removed as a state trooper. Again, public corruption is not a good issue for someone like Obama, Chicago pol and noted friend of Syrian National/convicted felon Antonin Rezko.

For the cherry on top, then we found out Palin's ex-brother-in-law had Tasered his own 10-year-old stepson. Defend that, Democrats.

The bien-pensant criticized Palin, saying it's irresponsible for a woman with five children to run for vice president. Liberals' new talking point: Sarah Palin: Only five abortions away from the presidency.

They claimed her newborn wasn't her child, but the child of her 17-year-old daughter. That turned out to be a lie.

Then they attacked her daughter, who actually is pregnant now, for being unmarried. When liberals start acting like they're opposed to pre-marital sex and mothers having careers, you know McCain's vice presidential choice has knocked them back on their heels.

But at least liberal reporters had finally found someone their own size to pick on: a 17-year-old girl.

Speaking of Democrats with newborn children, the media weren't particularly concerned about John Edwards running for president despite his having a mistress with a newborn child.

While the difficult circumstances of Palin's pregnant daughter are being covered like a terrorist attack on the nation, with leering accounts of the 18-year-old father, the media remain resolutely uninterested in the parentage of Edwards' mistress's love child. Except, that is, the hardworking reporters at the National Enquirer, who say Edwards is the father.

As this goes to press, the latest media-invented scandal about Palin is that McCain didn't know her well before choosing her as his running mate. He knew her well enough, though admittedly, not as well as Obama knows William Ayers.

John F. Kennedy, who was -- from what the media tell me -- America's most beloved president, detested his vice president, Lyndon Johnson.

Until Clinton interviewed Al Gore one time before choosing him as his vice presidential candidate, he had met Gore only one other time: when Gore was running for president in 1988 and flew to Little Rock seeking Clinton's endorsement. Clinton turned him down.

To this day, there's no proof that Bill Clinton ever met one-on-one with his CIA director, James Woolsey, other than a brief chat after midnight the night before Woolsey's nomination was announced.

Barring some all-new, trivial and probably false story about Palin -- her former hairdresser got a parking ticket in 1978! -- the media apparently intend to keep being hysterical about McCain's alleged failure to "vet" Palin properly. The problem with this argument is that it presupposes that everyone is asking: "HOW DID THIS HAPPEN?"

No one's saying that.

Attacks on McCain's "vetting" process require the media to keep claiming that Palin has a lot of problems. But she doesn't have any problems. Remember? Those were all blind alleys.

Unfortunately, for the ordinary TV viewer hearing nonstop hysteria about nonspecific "problems," it takes a lot of effort to figure out that every attack liberals have launched against Palin turned out to be a lie.

It's as if a basketball player made the winning shot in the last three seconds of the game and liberals demand that we have a week-long discussion about whether the player should have taken that shot. WHAT IF HE MISSED?

With Palin, McCain didn't miss

Now let's see how long it takes for your complaints.

Brett said...

Just two hours until the next Vice President of the United States gives her speech.


ka_Dargo_Hussein said... have diarrhea of the word processor...and some strange fantasies.

Brett said...

Sarah Palin's Social Security Number Is . . .
The Politico has posted online the Alaska Democratic Party's opposition research file on Sarah Palin. Included in the document is Governor Palin's social security number, minus the last four digits, but with her address and birth date.

This is similar to the Democrats in 2005. At that time, Democrats used Lt. Gov. Michael Steele's (R-MD) social security number to obtain his credit report.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee eventually admitted it knew for months the social security number had been used.

There is no word yet on whether the Democrats used Governor Palin's social security number, but they have now released it for others to use. Releasing the first five digits along with her home address and birth date makes it much easier for someone to track down the other four.

Gee, it looks like Senator Schumer is up to his old tricks....AGAIN.


Anonymous said...

ka_dargo is retarted, we should all just leave him alone

Brett said...

Oh yeah, you want sources. Here's the first page of google's links to this story. If you want more, just google "sarah palin's social security number stolen by democrats".

News results for palins social security number
Sydney Morning Herald Why Democrats needn't rush to trash Sarah Palin. - Aug 29, 2008

If national security experience is the measure of a potential Commander-in-Chief, Palin has an extraordinarily high burden to prove. ...

Slate - 1433 related articles »
Evangelicals Say Palin's Daughter Won't Be an Issue - U.S. News & World Report - 398 related articles »

Breaking: Democrats Release Sarah Palin's Social Security Number ... In the file, the Democrats have released Sarah Palin's social security number minus the last four digits. Also tied to the information are her various home ... - 136k - 23 hours ago - Cached - Similar pages
Breaking: Democrats Release Sarah Palin's Social Security Number ... Sep 2, 2008 ... Alaska Democrats have released Sarah Palin's social security number to the Politico as part of opposition research information. ... - 140k - Cached - Similar pages » Democrats Release Sarah Palin’s Social Security ... Sep 2, 2008 ... Apparently Palin’s Social Security number is no longer private, posts Erickson of RedState. Democrats release 60 pages of talking points and ... - 30k - Cached - Similar pages
Sarah Palin's Social Security Number Is . . . - HUMAN EVENTS Sep 2, 2008 ... The Politico has posted online the Alaska Democratic Party's opposition research file on Sarah Palin, including her social security number . - 44k - Cached - Similar pages
Ben Smith's Blog: Breaking: Phone book reveals Palin phone number ... Sep 2, 2008 ... It is atrocious that the Democrats would not only seek out Sarah Palin's Social Security number, but release it in opposition research to ... - 181k - Cached - Similar pages
Sarah Palin's Social Security Number Posted on the Internet ... Sep 3, 2008 ... Sarah Palin's social security number has been plastered on the internet for all to see. - 31k - 7 hours ago - Cached - Similar pages Tuesday, September 02, 2008. Why Does The Obama Campaign Have Gov. Palin's Social Security Number? Posted by: Jonathan Garthwaite at 5:49 PM ... - 143k - Cached - Similar pages
Sarah Palin's Social Security Number Released (Stolen ... This page provides information about 'Sarah Palin's Social Security Number Released (Stolen?)' on Broken Controllers. - 37k - 7 hours ago - Cached - Similar pages
Breaking; Gov. Palin's Social Security Number Released. Just heard ... Palin's Social Security Number Released. Just heard on Fox News (Vanity) self | 9/3/2008 | self. Posted on 09/03/2008 7:23:45 AM PDT by tobyhill ... - 46k - 9 hours ago - Cached - Similar pages
Neocon Express: BREAKING: Democrats Release Sarah Palin's Social ... Sep 2, 2008 ... BREAKING: Democrats Release Sarah Palin's Social Security Number. Dem SLIM IN MOTION: The Politico has received an opposition research file ... - 97k - 22 hours ago - Cached - Similar pages

Communications guru said...

You have posted so much BS you have no idea what you have even said in the past. I asked you for a source that you will not question, at least three times, in fact. Your answer was “If you give me a source, I check it, then I try to verify it with other sites including a google search.”

What you’re saying is you look for a source to disprove what I said. In other words, you only want sources that agree with your narrow view.

Communications guru said...

Fred Thompson was a K Street lobbyist and an actor for a reason, and you sure bought his BS. President Obama is a history making nominee to be sure, but he is not inexperienced. He has more experience that Abraham Lincoln had, and certainly than your hero Bush. He is also not the most liberal nominee. I wish he was more liberal because it has been liberal ideals that have made this country great.

It will take more than two years to clean up the mess Bush left, and Republicans in the Senate can and have blocked what they don’t like.

Thompson continues to mouth the lies about President Obama’s tax plan. The people who need the tax cuts are the middle class, and Bush has only given breaks to the richest 1 percent. The trickle down theory has never worked. President Obama is going to put money into the pockets of the people who spend the money.

ka_Dargo_Hussein said...

OK, dude, you are funny! This ridiculous post made me snort-laugh!

Perhaps, before you decide to call someone retarded, you should learn to spell it.


ka_Dargo_Hussein said...

brett, dude, learn to use html...blogger allows it, you know.

Usage of html would allow us to click the actual links you provided, instead of those half-assed things you chose to post.

ka_Dargo_Hussein said...

Brett, since you like to quote the Politico and just love to defend wumin-folk, I don't recall you mentioning this when Palin said Hillary was a whiner.

ka_Dargo_Hussein said...

Also, has anyone in the libruhl media called Sarah a bitch yet?

No. I didn't think so.

Communications guru said...

“B. Hussein Obama?” What you are getting are rebuttals of your lies, not complaints.

The media’s job is to delve into a candidate’s background. They certainly did it for Obama. Where was your outage then? That’s why the party does a background check on each possible candidate. Grampy McSame did not do his job, and that’s why you’re mad. That says a lot about his poor judgment.

I don’t think there was any doubt she was chosen because she was a woman, it certainly was not because of her experience. The fact is it wasn’t the only reason, but a major reason.

It was not the media that created what you are calling “trooper gate”. She did. For the cherry on top, prove Palin's ex-brother-in-law had Tasered his own 10-year-old stepson. Your entire post, as usual, is long on words and short on references and proof.

Here’s the thing about her daughter: when you claim to be the party of morality and family values, people will point out your hypocrisy.

The Edwards situation was reported on as soon as they had facts. The media may be conservative, but they don’t report rumors. This all out coverage you claim about her daughter is just not there. But when you use your kids as a prop like Palin is with the Downs Syndrome baby, you shouldn’t complain when they question that.

You keep talking about William Ayers, but why does serving on a board make them best buddies.

You need the media to tell you JFK was a great man that inspired people? Try the history books. O yea, I forgot, you only trust sources you agree with. Here’s the difference: LBJ and Al Gore were qualified to be president, Palin is not. The CIA Director is not the same as choosing a possible president.

As for vetting Palin, we have only scratched the surface. Look at the dirt you threw at Obama. Even though it has all been debunked, you still continue to shuck that shit hoping it will stick.

After Rudy’s disgusting, stand up routine, Palin’s speech has been pretty lame so far. She hasn’t answered anything about her past. Is she ever going to face some tough questions.

Communications guru said...

All those stories you posted prove the SS story is false. You should have read them.

ka_Dargo_Hussein said...

CG...are you picking on Brett again?

Shame on you!

Brett said...

Hmm, seems I struck a nerve. Someone is quite upset. Take a prozac, come back tomorrow and who knows, maybe Barack Hussein Obama will actually take a position and not change that position within ten minutes.

You liberals should bend over, and kiss your butts goodbye. You've got four years, possibly eight of President McCain and then 8 years of President Palin.

You may start crying now.


Communications guru said...

"Struck a nerve?" What the hell are you talking about? Perhaps you can define that? If you're talking about mayor 911, it bothers me that that he's attacking Obama with debunked lies. It bothers me that Democrats took the high road in Denver and only pointed Grampy McSame's and GWB's record, but this guy, as well as palin, is going after Obama personally. It says a lot that your hero is an adulterer.

Obama will "change position in 10 minutes? You have him confused with Grampy. Show me a position Grampy hasn't changed. He gave up on his core values just to get elected.

Obama will still win in November. But I do admit I am a little worried. There are gullible people like you out there that will swallow the lies the right puts out without checking.

But I see you're back to your old "debating" style and ignoring what you can't disprove, like the Social Security lie, for instance. I'll tell you what, when Obama wins in November I'll personally give you a phone call to congratulate you because the entire country will have won.