Amazing, isn’t it? How many people on this site ask questions and you answer, then you ask one… and no answers are to be found? :-/

On June 29th, 2008 at 4:46 pm, 24Klady said:
TheOtherSide#75 – actually I have. But, then I’m one of those that read anything I can get my hands on – especially cereal boxes and milkcartons. Please tell me your thoughts on this bill and why you think it is good for taxpayers? Have you read it and do you support it?

Yes I support this bill! The question is why don’t you? Please show me where in the bill, we the taxpayers will have to pony up $845 billion as your AmericanThinker article claims? Where in the bill is there “a clear assault to place the United Nations in a position to tax and control portions of the earnings of U.S. citizens.” as you claim?

If she disappears from their front page, here’s the list

It’s a story about “Micro-celebrities”, not self-haters…

“Today, an administration figure was frog marched out of the White House for calling the NY Times with classified material. The figure was purple from head to toe from what an FBI spokesperson said was an IED cellphone. The cellphone was rigged to spew purple dye when any NY Times number was dialed…”

SOURCES: BUSH ANGER AT COMING NEW YORK TIMES STORY DETAILING HUNT FOR BIN LADEN… The newspaper planning to expose internal debate surrounding ‘highly classified Pentagon order’; Special Operations forces hunt al-Qaida leader in mountains of Pakistan… DEVELOPING….

On June 29th, 2008 at 11:39 pm, DarkKnight said:

So my question is this, do fellow commenters on this website agree with Mrs. McCain that the families of the candidates should be off-limits?

Me? Of course not. That would give them carte blanche, a license to say whatever they’d like without fear of any criticism. Michelle O. was criticized for much of what she said, because she said so much nonsense, such that America is “just downright mean”. If they don’t want what they say criticized, then they shouldn’t speak.

CNN) —
“I do not think that spouses and family members … are fair game,” she told CNN’s John King.

“There has to be some decorum left in politics and in American journalism as well. Our husbands are the candidates,” she said.

Well I was looking for something about this interview on MichelleMalkin.com and… well… let’s just say there was zero discussion on the quotes.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/19/cindy.mccain/

In the article, even Mrs. Bush comes to Mrs. Obama’s defense on the statement that was critized on this site over and over and over and over again…

Laura Bush told ABC last week that the remarks must have been misinterpreted.

“I think she probably meant ‘I’m more proud,’ ” said the first lady, adding that “you have to be very careful in what you say” when you’re campaigning.

“That’s one of the things you learn, and that’s one of the really difficult parts both of running for president and for being the spouse of the president, and that is everything you say is looked [at] and, in many cases, misconstrued.”

So my question is this, do fellow commenters on this website agree with Mrs. McCain that the families of the candidates should be off-limits?

If you do agree, do you think that the “off limit family” policy should apply to official presidential campaigns only and not to other media such as news organizations or blogs? Or should it apply to everyone?

If you do not, then what is or isn’t allowable? Is there a limit or a line not to be crossed?

I’m very interested in people’s opinion’s to this article.

The 2006 election was inevitable because of the sloth and corruption of a number of Republicans who went away from what brought them to power in the first place. More to the point the illegal alien fiasco was definitely THE thing that would split Republicans from those favoring amnesty against those who don’t. So now the Republicans are in a process of rebuilding and going in a new direction, albeit slowly

The thing I’m noticing now is that the anti-amnesty section of the party is getting steam over those who favor amnesty (Chavetz comes to my mind)-the trend is in our direction if we are shrewed about our actions…but it will take time.

On June 29th, 2008 at 8:25 pm, DesertLover said:
ArizonaNeanderthal

Bob was not completely correct in what he quoted …

Sorry if I was incorrect on what I posted. I heard information from various sources and what I remember most was the 100 days for comprehensive immigration reform part. Maybe McAmnesty is actually going to secure the border before he grants amnesty, don’t know why I would doubt that……right….?

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CarlHorowitz/2008/06/28/there_will_be_corruption_how_oil,_labor,_and_government_mix_in_mexico

The adage : history unknown is history repeated is true!!!!!!

We have two parties here –the far left -socialist Democrat Party and the slippery left- sliding Republican Party.

I agree with you _NO MORE>>>>

No AMNESTY for illegals… no… not ever…