There are so many issues neither candidate for the presidency has even addresses, I'm afraid I couldn't vote with confidence at this point in the campaign. Defense, Debt, Jobs, Housing, Pipeline, Banks, Tax Sytem, Education, Immigration, Super PACs, Social Security, Foreign Policy, Drones, Drugs, Gangs, Terrorism, Borders, Crime, Infrastructure.... the plate shuld be full of ideas and proposed solutions, but sitting in front of us on the table is a plate with nothing but a sprig of parsley. Where's the beef?!
sort by best latest
Well, my gosh, a reasonable man! I appreciate your measured approach and enjoyed what you had to say. I pick on Romney a lot, but I do respect him, really. I just fear total party control again, which hurt Obama's first two years in office.
I couldn't vote today, but today is not November 6, 2012. I am still open minded and I want to hear some real debates on the core issues America's president will have to face over the next four years. A nagging concern is current stalemate.
Cassie Ann, you're embarrassingly wrong. The Obamas still have their law licenses, but they are inactive, cause they're not using them currently, they don't want to pay all of the high annual fees associated with the upkeep. They can be reactivated.
Whatever, Chris. Check out:http://jdlong.wordpress.com/2009/05/15/pres-barack...
Oh right. They can't afford annual fees but can afford to take $500,000 vacations on taxpayer money.
Cassie Ann, yes, they can afford them, but not wasting money you don't have to is what allows you to take 500,000 dollar vacations. They still have the licenses: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/lawlicenses.a... . STOP SPREADING LIES.
Not spreading lies. Truth hurts. These are not chain emails. This is the link to check for yourself:https://www.iardc.org/index.html-Attorney Reg.&Displinary Commission. More-http://shutking.blogspot.com/2010/01/who-is-michel... Google
A blog post of regurgitated chain mail claims is not an improvement, and if you did the follow up research on IARDC where's the specific link? One common fake cite is to direct readers to a home page of authority, without an actual link for citation.
Can I just add that people are nuts? Obama's everything is out there and can be looked up. Why do people insist that he's hiding something? Can we all just grow a brain stem and stop believing everything we read in chain e-mails? Use the links!
Yeah-don't start with the name calling cause my views aren't your views. I research everything and all people, including you, should do the same. Chris, let's just say we agree to disagree. I stick to facts. If I find it's wrong, I change my opinion.
You can't just point to an article that someone wrote and say you did research.
Last comment to you - I don't just check one article - I have read and researched many. This site is the Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois. https://www.iardc.org/index.html
If you did the research, then you have the link to the exact case. Show it to me. Otherwise, citing authority by vaguely referencing a homepage is a weak obfuscation for either laziness or deception.
These are the links from 2011. No longer work but I don't have to prove anything to you. Time to take the Harley out. I'm done. Great day to you!
That's so funny. My link works. Here it is again. http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/lawlicenses.a... . But it looks like the accountability train has left the station.
Sounds like you swallow everything you read from snopes - just what you claim I do even though you don't know me. Not surprised. Some people's motto: If you can't attack the message, attack the messenger - btw none of which I have done to you!
Cassie Ann, the number of poisonous lies against the president have undermined our ability to have rational policy debate. I defended Sarah Palin from liberal conspiracies like book banning. This type of smear you are perpetuating is reprehensible.
Time to let it go. I am not smearing anyone as I believe it to be the truth. On the other hand, I do not believe everything said about the Obama's to be the truth. We just differ according to what we have read. Sorry but snopes is not proof to me.
There is reality and fantasy. There are legitimate sources. Snopes is one that I use for convenience. But it's like I'm using an image of the Earth from a NASA website while you point to Flat Earth Society blogs. Selectivity is part of reason.
Your analogy is hilarious. Snopes is a known lefty org. & I don't use them just as I don't use any extreme right wing org.So the Atty. Reg.& Disciplinary Comm/Supreme Court of IL is fantasy but snopes is not?? This is why we cant have rationa
How is snopes a lefty org? All of the links you sent me were right wing blogs! The IARDC is legitimate, which is why you don't have any active links. I'm guessing you were fed them from a blog? I'm still waiting. I was able to prove my claims.
Truly research snopes. You didn't prove a thing. Have many links-can't post them all. IARDC links expire from spring 2011.Hijacked this thread enough-agreed??My guess is people like u have 2 have the last word. Have at it. Gr8 talking 2 u Chris
Cassie Ann, I love to spar! Of course I enjoyed. I have researched snopes: they have legit attribution but your sites did not. I was able to follow through and validate conclusions. I encourage you to continue being a skeptic, but rely on facts. Ciao