How does it feel, StupidReader, to be the butt of everyone's jokes? Keep it up, laughter is good for the soul. And thanks again for your considerable efforts to defeat any Republican candidates. You should get an American Freedom Medal.

SilentReader wrote:
Patrick Fitzgerald Ties Obama to Rezko Indictments

By SusanUnPCcloseAuthor: SusanUnPC Name:
Email: This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Wow, RushReader, I am impressed. You post a political diatribe from a so called "journalist" who does not even use their real name. SusanUnPC. What's next, another blog article from someone named SallyUnLiberal? Has the neo-conservative rumor mill become that desperate?

What you imply on this Rezko-Obama thing is "guilt by association." Sorry, the American judicial system does not recognize it. If that was valid, Bush is guilty for knowing and having dealt with and having accepted contributions from Ken Lay. You remember him, don't you? The Enron guy. But that is "different", isn't it RushReader? You look the other way when a conservative is involved, don't you? That's what neo-con rumor mongers like you do.

Here's a little more info on the Rezko-Obama supposed "connection."

Having paid only casual attention to it in the past, I spent several hours yesterday morning reading every "Rezko" article I could find in an attempt to understand as much as possible about the allegations. The point isn't that there is no credible evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of Obama, although that's unquestionably true. It's far beyond that. There aren't even any theoretical allegations or suggestions as to what he might have done wrong at all. The person who is accused of wrongdoing is Tony Rezko, in matters inarguably having nothing to do with Obama. Nobody claims otherwise (although many try to imply otherwise).

The only substantive connections Obama and Rezko have is that the latter was a contributor to Obama's campaign and was a partner in a standard residential real-estate purchase which nobody suggests, at least in terms of Obama's conduct, was anything but above-board. But Rezko himself has a sinister-sounding, villain-like last name and is of Syrian origin, which, for multiple reasons, helps build the shallow media drama.

But Obama isn't even accused of -- let alone proven to have engaged in -- any wrongdoing at all. I spent many years litigating all sorts of civil cases involving financial transactions like these. Few things are easier than concocting some nefarious angle to innocuous real estate transactions, yet they can't even do that here. Despite that, the "Rezko" innuendo lurks and grows and clearly isn't going anywhere...

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/03/05/rezko/index.html

Better get back to the rumor mill RushReader. More rumors and innuendo await your undivided attention. It's what you do best. In fact, it's pretty much all you do.

That and be a "presidential adviser", of course.

It's all a load of B.S.anyway.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=viVAAy_qkx0

Wren wrote:
SilentReader wrote:
Wren wrote:
SilentReader wrote:

We are with McCain on the War and on being fiscally concervative. What we were not with him on was McCain-Feingold, immigration, not supporting the tax cuts, and the Gang of 14 (McCain has justifed that by saying he wanted to get things done).

Since he has gained the nomination McCain has stated that he will make permanent the Bush tax cuts, and he will secure the border. I believe him. Whatever McCain is, I think he is a man of his word. And we will hold him to it.

You are right, he is a man of his word. And his word is to purge neo-cons. Good bye, SR.

He has never said that.

Do you really think he would tell Pod and the others to their faces they are going to go once he gets elected? He has a use for them right now, but afterwards, they are gone. He will rely on the Powell and Rice network to staff State and Defense, then remove the military commanders who are still left who supported the woefully inadequate invasion of Iraq.

Yes, it will be good bye to you and your ilk.

Really? Where are they going?

truthhurts wrote:
Jaye wrote:
I've never thought too highly of men who would knowingly harass or belittle a woman for voicing her opinion.
A. You are assuming RushReader is a woman. Not a good assumption to make. I don't recall ever seeing that in the profile on the previous forum. Perhaps he or she can elaborate...don't count on it, though. Speaking of assuming, both you and RushReader assumed that the Trolley-Square murders were an act of Islamic jihad if my memory is correct. How did that work out, Jaye? Did the police and FBI, after all the evidence was in, come to that conclusion?

B. Even if RushReader is a woman, saying inflammatory things such as (from earlier in this thread):

"Hillary Clinton is an abomination and Obama is the apocalypse"

is partisan rhetoric that I or others are not going to leave alone, nor should we. I don't believe I've ever seen RushReader simply try and expound a conservative opinion. What his or her normal modus operandi is is not to put forth the conservative opinion, but to attack the liberal one.

Case in point. The post right above your last post. It's not a pro-McCain piece, it is an anti-Obama piece. He or she does not know any other way. No facts, just a heap of rumor and innuendo. The same with the post immediately above and below this one. One dimensional to the core.

RushReader is a political hack, whatever it's sex.

A. I am 'assuming'?

Point of fact...I have conversed with Silent Reader via personal messages a number of times. She does claim to be female.

I realize that there is no way of knowing whether an anonymous participant is male or female unless you have met them face to face.

As this is not likely to happen, I am content to take her word for it that she is female.

B. Regardless of whether a participant is male or female...we all have the right to our own personal opinions and beliefs. And we all have the right to state these opinions on this forum.

As I said...it would be nice if we could all attempt to discuss things courteously, always remembering that people are always going to disagree on various issues...and particularly, as it appears, religious and political issues.

The thing I find strange in reviewing comments on threads of a religious nature...is how mean people tend to get. How they are absolutely convinced that their own religious beliefs are unerringly correct...and those with differing beliefs were incorrect.

Dubss was a prime example of how mean a person can get in his absolute conviction that he has it right and nobody else does.

Another example of this is the endless debating and bickering over whether Mormons are Christians or not.

I will freely admit that Mormons are not Christians insofar as the 'mainstream or traditional' arena of Christian beliefs and traditions are concerned.

And I understand that mainstream Christians do not believe that the Mormons worship the same Christ that they do...and why they believe this.

But here is the fly in the ointment. If you take every last individual who believes in Jesus Christ, you are not going to find two who's beliefs are identical.

You find denominations of Christians who have a core doctrinal belief in common. But each individual differs from the other in the level of belief, and of interpretation of that belief.

I believe that it might come to a shock to the more hard-core main-streamers to learn how many different ideas people have about God, Christ, and the nature of the God-head.

Now the Mormons believe that they worship the same Christ of the Holy Bible that the mainstream Christians do. However...their understanding of Him and His nature differs from the 'mainstreamer's view.

It remains to be seen whether this will matter to the One it should matter the most to...Jesus Christ.

As for politics...people tend toward getting pretty passionate about trying to convince other people to vote for the candidate that THEY think is superior.

They tout their own candidate, and make mean comments about other candidates. Hell...I've seen some pretty mean-spirited things said about every President that has been in power since I've been alive.

I've seen it all along in all the years I've been voting, and through all the Presidential campaigns I've witnessed.

I've witnessed friendships lost over political differences. I've even witnessed familial divisions over politics.

Very sad...and pretty sick in my estimation.

In the long run...it all amounts to so much B.S. And it amounts to these candidates saying whatever they think people want to hear...and making promises that they either cannot keep...or have no intention of keeping.

It's all about power. Don't be fooled into thinking that ANY of these candidates actually give a flying fahooty about you, or your family, or anyone else but themselves.

You have a good memory...or are you another list-maker? Since you are going to stoop to bringing up old debates...as far as the Trolley Square massacre was concerned...the boy was of Muslim heritage.

He endured a childhood of horror and violence. And he had attended mosque. It is possible that in his deranged mind, he thought he could serve Allah, or at least find some pittance of fame and notice through the infamous act of murdering multiple strangers in a mall.

At any rate...only two know for certain what his motives were. God...and him...and neither one is talking to the press.

truthhurts wrote:
Jaye wrote:
I've never thought too highly of men who would knowingly harass or belittle a woman for voicing her opinion.
A. You are assuming RushReader is a woman. Not a good assumption to make. I don't recall ever seeing that in the profile on the previous forum. Perhaps he or she can elaborate...don't count on it, though. Speaking of assuming, both you and RushReader assumed that the Trolley-Square murders were an act of Islamic jihad if my memory is correct. How did that work out, Jaye? Did the police and FBI, after all the evidence was in, come to that conclusion?

B. Even if RushReader is a woman, saying inflammatory things such as (from earlier in this thread):

"Hillary Clinton is an abomination and Obama is the apocalypse"

is partisan rhetoric that I or others are not going to leave alone, nor should we. I don't believe I've ever seen RushReader simply try and expound a conservative opinion. What his or her normal modus operandi is is not to put forth the conservative opinion, but to attack the liberal one.

Case in point. The post right above your last post. It's not a pro-McCain piece, it is an anti-Obama piece. He or she does not know any other way. No facts, just a heap of rumor and innuendo. The same with the post immediately above and below this one. One dimensional to the core.

RushReader is a political hack, whatever it's sex.

And furthermore...as far as what conclusion the police or the F.B.I. have come to regarding the Talovic case...do you readily believe everything they say?

The government knows a lot more then they reveal to the American public...this has always been true.