Driving liberals, dhimmis and illegal alien apologists absolutely insane since 2005...

Our Heroes Died For This?

By Greg L | 20 November 2008 | National Politics, Patriotism | 45 Comments

This is an interesting look at some Obama voters and their basis for making the decision they made on election day. I see the mainstream media did an excellent job of making sure voters could make an informed decision at the polls, as usual. Don’t take this to mean that everyone who voted for McCain was armed with rocket scientist level understanding either, as I’m pretty sure a lot of McCain voters were just as ignorant as these folks. Regardless of who they ended up supporting, there were a lot of voters out there who had no idea what they were doing on election day. The right that so many gave their lives to secure over the past two and a half centuries doesn’t seem to be held in very high regard by many citizens who exercise it, and the current state of the mainstream media isn’t doing much to help at all.

This makes me wonder whether folks would elect someone like Brad Pitt, as long as they didn’t know anything about what he stood for and the Colbert Report and Saturday Night Live were kind to him.  Is all that’s needed for someone to obtain the highest office in the United States simply a good delivery, a presidential appearance, some friends in the media, and an electorate that can be herded around like sheep?  It’s hard to maintain faith with the American electorate when we see stuff like this.



The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.

BVBL is not a charity and your support is not tax-deductible.

You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed. You can also pingback or trackback from your own site.

45 Comments

  1. AWCheney said on 20 Nov 2008 at 2:29 am:
    Flag comment

    Don’t you think that this says far more about how well the Democrats got their spin out to the voters…and the Republicans didn’t?

  2. Love the USA said on 20 Nov 2008 at 6:45 am:
    Flag comment

    Wow! Informed voters to be sure!

  3. Anonymous said on 20 Nov 2008 at 7:15 am:
    Flag comment

    It’s no longer a Presidential race, but a media contest. The President is suppose to be elected by the people not the media. What amazed me is that even the negative Obama quotes that were all over the media on both sides didn’t seem to be absorbed by these voters. They chose to tune it out as though it had nothing to do with Obama when it was he who made the statements while being video taped. Impossible to deny yet easier to ignore, and ignore they did!

  4. Pat.Herve said on 20 Nov 2008 at 8:18 am:
    Flag comment

    The American Public is not very smart or in tune to many things - just look around.

    They would get the same answers asking on the state level, or even the local level - and they voted for all the candidates. It is not just a Democrat or Obama thing. We soon forget - they do this after each election.

    What did McCain have to draw anyone towards him? Nothing! Bush smeared him in 2000, some of us remember that. He was acting erratically. We need a new outward appearance, and McCain was not going to deliver.

  5. Anonymous said on 20 Nov 2008 at 8:19 am:
    Flag comment

    This same lack of knowledge also applies to juries. To think that a bunch of uneducated or low intellect people may be making decisions in a court room that will affect a person for the rest of their lives just doesn’t make sense. The jury system made sense back when towns were small and isolated, and the jury was made up of people who were familiar with the accused, but that is no longer the case. Just look at the OJ trial and how the evidence of DNA findings was so easily dismissed due to the lack of scientific understanding by the jury. The same thing is happening in the political debates. Very little truth is spoken, and the general public isn’t informed enough to see through it, or is informed only by those promoting their candidate. I know it’s the fairest system in existence, but it’s still a little scary. If you’ve ever been sold a POS by a slick used car salesman, then you know what I’m talking about.

  6. BothPartiesDoColludeAgainstYouAndMarketToYourFears said on 20 Nov 2008 at 8:45 am:
    Flag comment

    It was evident before this election that voters were shallow and ill-informed. Why else would they have voted Bush in twice?

    Bush’s experience consisted of lifelong failure and his main qualification for the job was that he thought God wanted him to run because he is a “good judge of character”. You couldn’t ask for a bigger tool to be handed a job that he couldn’t possibly do well. And in fact he floundered and failed, and covered it up with bs about being a “wartime President”. History as documented (again I recommend Woodward’s “State of Denial”) puts the lie to that and Bush’s failures have weakened our military even while leaving our border wide open.

    But he presented a nice picture of a good likeable family man. So he was not only elected, but allowed by the press and opposition party to run wild, and to break the public trust in fundamental ways.

    NOTHING we will endure will be worse or more dangerous that what we just lived through.

  7. Anonymous said on 20 Nov 2008 at 8:59 am:
    Flag comment

    …and yet we somehow remain the greatest Country on the planet and the place everyone aspires to be.

  8. Anonguy said on 20 Nov 2008 at 10:08 am:
    Flag comment

    I always liked Robert Hienlin’s idea that before you could gain citizenship and the right to vote, you must first serve your country. 2 years in service was the price. Everyone else still held their basic rights under the law, but the right to vote was reserved for citizens, and citizenship earned, not granted. When something is given without sacrifice, it is seldom valued.

    There were people who voted for Obama for a pack of smokes.

  9. Concerned said on 20 Nov 2008 at 11:31 am:
    Flag comment

    Pandering to ignorance is increasingly endemic in our society and will ultimately be our downfall. As an example from another area, higher education, professors and instructors are promoted, hired, added to adjunct faculty, etc. based primarily on how well students rate them. The colleges and universities are so focused on building revenue that their only concern is that students continue enrolling for classes so the institution can collect the tuition and government support funds. Peer evaluation is rarely done anymore. If faculty don’t please the crowds, they hit the roads. The implication is that in return for the hard-earned money we’ve saved for our kids’ education they receive fluff and PC crap that won’t help them in their careers. This problem does not exist in just the smaller or for-profit institutions but in some major, big-name schools.

    The media helped elect Obama by distorting facts and creating the images of the all of the candidates that supported his campaign, i.e., McCain as a doddering, senile old man, Palin as a ditzy imbecile, Obama as our savior and the next Abraham Lincoln, and Biden as a genius who will provide the expertise needed to support Obama.

    The citizenry is being educated by public schools that promote a PC agenda and philosophy that no student should excel and all remain equal, instead of providing education for them to succeed in their careers. Our universities and colleges only want crowd-pleasers as faculty to teach who can keep the money rolling in. The media have most people trained to inform themselves through sound-bites and John Stewart. We now have a President-elected who won on feelings and emotion, rather objective abilities and qualifications.

    It’s no wonder we are so far behind other developed countries on all measures of education and accomplishment of our young people. The situation is only going to get worse.

  10. Jack said on 20 Nov 2008 at 11:34 am:
    Flag comment

    The founding fathers had no confidence in the intellect of the common man. Our country uses an electoral college to decide the result of the president, “based” on a popular vote rather than popular vote — this video is evidence of why the system was created that way.

    Unfortunately, when so many people are so ignorant, we all suffer.

    The girl with the Obama shirt thinks Nancy Pelosi is cool but has no idea who she is. If she knew who Pelosi was, she would know who Reid was since they work in tandem on so many issues.

    Lastly, it’s ironic that people with such liberal leanings condescend Palin for having a pregnant teenage daughter. Isn’t it liberals that are always trying to “protect” pregnant teenagers from the “burdon” through abortion, without their parents finding out? Amazing.

    Let me tell you, I “debated” with much more intelligent people than those in the video and found a similar lack of knowledge of details of the issues.

    Frankly, McCain was almost as bad a choice as Obama. The reason the options were bad is also partly due to media propaganda. However, the GOP should take notice of what happens when you allow winner take all in the primaries. You get good candidates splitting votes and McCain ends up winning. Hopefully lesson learned but not likely.

  11. Slick said on 20 Nov 2008 at 1:51 pm:
    Flag comment

    I worked the polls all day at my precinct and I can tell you that these people they interviewed were FAR better informed than the average obomanation voter…very sad.

  12. Jay said on 20 Nov 2008 at 3:41 pm:
    Flag comment

    Pretty funny.
    But it’s just as funny as the missing videos of Dubya-philes and Palin freaks who don’t believe in evolution!

  13. Jack Slimp said on 20 Nov 2008 at 4:21 pm:
    Flag comment

    Evolution has absolutely no scientific evidence to support its claim that life has originated by random chance. It is a philosophical theory, not a scientific one, and adherents must embrace it by concocted suppositions and sheer faith.

    Here are merely 9 points out of thousands that are scientifically contrary to evolution. Why aren’t these points being taught in our public classrooms today?

    1. What is meant by spontaneous generation and has it been proven to be true or false?

    Spontaneous generation is the idea that non-living matter can spontaneously form into living matter (cell). It was scientifically proven false in the mid 1800’s and never been proven otherwise.

    2. What was the goal of the Miller experiment?

    The goal of the Miller experiment was to form (spontaneously generate) amino acids necessary for life.

    3. Miller left oxygen out of his experiment. Why did he do this and what does the scientific evidence support?

    Miller left oxygen out of his experiment because he knew oxygen causes molecular bonds to come apart, such as in amino acid bonds.

    Furthermore, contrary to the no-oxygen setting of Miller’s experiment, the scientific evidence supports the earth has always had oxygen in the atmosphere.

    4. Miller did get amino acids from his experiment. How did the amino acids he got compare to amino acids found in life?

    Miller got a mix of 50% left-handed amino acids and 50% right-handed amino acids. Life requires 100% left-handed amino acids. This means the Miller experiment failed to produce the correct amino acids necessary for life.

    5. What can be concluded about all attempts to build proteins necessary for life (biological proteins) from amino acids by natural processes?

    Every attempt to produce amino acids by natural processes has ended up with a mixture of left-handed and right-handed amino acids. Even when the experiment started with all left-handed amino acids, the amino acids naturally reverted back to a mixture of left-handed and right-handed amino acids.

    6. Some textbooks and other evolutionary materials suggest that life started in the ocean. Is it possible for life to start in water?

    Life cannot start in water. Water contains an oxygen molecule which will insert itself into amino acid bonds. The result is that if the amino acids did bond together, they would very soon be pulled apart.

    7. Why do the following three things prohibit life from arising by natural processes (evolution).

    a. Oxygen: Oxygen pulls molecule bonds apart. Amino acids necessary for life will not form or bond together in the presence of oxygen.
    b. No oxygen: Without oxygen in the atmosphere there would be no ozone to protect molecules or any life.
    c. Handedness of amino acids: All amino acids in proteins of life are left-handed. The natural tendency is always to a mix of left-handed and right-handed amino acids.

    8. The probability of a biological protein being formed by natural processes, even given very generous assumptions, is 10 to the 191st power. The probability of a single cell being formed by natural processes is 10 to the 40,000th power. What about the argument: “Given enough time it will happen?”

    Even given enough time (20 billion years), and very generous presuppositions, there is not enough time for even a single protein to form by random chance. Plus, mathematicians agree that any probability of 10 to the 50th power or greater means that it will not happen.

    9. All living forms live, grow, and exist using very complex governing codes (DNA). What are the four necessary conditions for something to gain in information and complexity?

    • An open system
    • A source of energy
    • A mechanism to capture and store the raw energy
    • A mechanism to convert the raw energy into usable energy for doing work and then putting the energy to use

    Evolution offers neither a mechanism to capture and store the raw energy nor a mechanism to convert the raw energy into usable energy for doing work and then putting the energy to use.

    Conclusion: Evolution has absolutely no scientific evidence to support its claim that life has originated by random chance. It is a philosophical theory, not a scientific one, and adherents must embrace it by concocted suppositions and sheer faith. This fact and the scientific evidence contrary to evolution is being vehemently suppressed to further a blind faith of a religious dogma that cloaks itself as science.

  14. BothPartiesDoColludeAgainstYouAndMarketToYourFears said on 20 Nov 2008 at 4:44 pm:
    Flag comment

    We really need to detach the concept of “evolution” which is continuous and important to understand, from “spontaneous generation” which is just an arguement.

  15. anonymous said on 20 Nov 2008 at 5:21 pm:
    Flag comment

    “Spontaneous generation is the idea that non-living matter can spontaneously form into living matter (cell). It was scientifically proven false in the mid 1800’s and never been proven otherwise.”

    How do you scientifically prove something false? If someone, in the future, manages to prove that spontaneous generation IS true, that means that it wasn’t proven false.

  16. Jack Slimp said on 20 Nov 2008 at 5:23 pm:
    Flag comment

    What is needed is an understanding of the difference between macro evolution and micro evolution. Change that is evident is always micro evolution, and does not require additional information to be added to the DNA. Macro evolution, theory, requires info to be added, but there is no mechanism for that to happen, much less for it to be observed.

    In other words:
    Why is it not possible for one creature to evolve into a new creature, such as a reptile evolving into a bird?
    Because there is no known mechanism that would allow for one creature to evolve into another creature. Additionally, major consideration would be that as the creature is evolving, the external features must change as well as many of the internal organs. In addition, as a creature is half evolved, reptile to bird, it can no longer do its previous functions, such as escape its predators, but it cannot yet do its new functions. At this point it will perish.

    Macro evolution is bogus.

  17. anonymous said on 20 Nov 2008 at 5:23 pm:
    Flag comment

    The general attitude of the interviewed people seems to be:

    Don’t know nuttin’.

    Don’t needta know nuttin’.

    Don’t wanna know nuttin’.

  18. Jack Slimp said on 20 Nov 2008 at 5:45 pm:
    Flag comment

    “How do you scientifically prove something false?”

    1. There is an accepted “scientific method.”

    “If someone, in the future, manages to prove that spontaneous generation IS true, that means that it wasn’t proven false”

    2. But that hasn’t happpened regarding life.

    3. The smallest life form considered possible has so many different and complex parts, including inherent information guiding the activity of the cell, that scientists have mathemeatically determined it is impossible to happen by chance.

  19. anonymous said on 20 Nov 2008 at 6:05 pm:
    Flag comment

    The scientific method is an iterative process; it does not stop because the results of one experiment do not support the hypothesis. The hypothesis is modified and a new experiment is performed..and the process repeated.

    I agree with you that it’s impossible for life to happen by chance.

    I would not, however, cite scientific experiments conducted in the 1850s as proof of that. There are surely more recent experiments that could be cited instead, and these, being further down the chain of iterations of the scientific method, would have more validity.

  20. Benton said on 20 Nov 2008 at 6:33 pm:
    Flag comment

    Many Virginians also thought they’d repealed a tax and did not realize they’d elected a Governor when Gilmore was elected.

    Many in the US are confused about in which century the Civil War was fought - 1860-65 or 1914-1918.

    The majority of the media write at a sixth grade level.

    Many get their ‘news’ from Inside Edition and People.

    I recently had a woman ask me if North Carolina was west of Virginia or east.

    Sigh….. :)

  21. CONVA said on 20 Nov 2008 at 7:47 pm:
    Flag comment

    I wonder how many people know what the Trilateral Commission is? How many know anything about the Council of Foreign Relations? When someone says “lobbyists” I wonder if they know the strongest lobby is the trilateral Commission? How many have read the Federalists Papers? How many know anything about the Barbary Pirates and how that helped influenced the adoption of the Constitution and why? The American piblic is essentially ignorant of their government and how it is run and by whom. The Republic cannot stand for much longer if its only purpose is to confiscate money from one sector and give it to another.

  22. citizenofmanassas said on 20 Nov 2008 at 8:17 pm:
    Flag comment

    Both Parties,

    That is a pretty amazing statement you made at the end of your post. Can you see the future? Or, are you Obama posting under an assumed name?

    These people, sadly, are in the majority. They voted for Obama because of the brand, and nothing more.

  23. es_la_ley said on 20 Nov 2008 at 8:22 pm:
    Flag comment

    # citizenofmanassas said on 20 Nov 2008 at 8:17 pm:

    These people, sadly, are in the majority. They voted for Obama because of the brand, and nothing more.

    “Buyers Remorse” will set in eventually. Watch for it. :-)

  24. citizenofmanassas said on 20 Nov 2008 at 8:37 pm:
    Flag comment

    It already has.

  25. Harry said on 20 Nov 2008 at 9:35 pm:
    Flag comment

    Palin/Hukabee in 2012

  26. chicko said on 21 Nov 2008 at 6:04 am:
    Flag comment

    I think most people who voted for obama are oxygen thieves. Especially those “brains” who run the other board. the background music to that video is all too fitting. As one other posted mentioned, buyers remorse will soon set in and guess what folks, you cannot return this product within 30 days as you are stuck with him for 4 years (unless he gets impeached for being totally stoopid)

  27. BothPartiesDoColludeAgainstYouAndMarketToYourFears said on 21 Nov 2008 at 6:52 am:
    Flag comment

    I stand by my statement. It’s exceedingly rare that anyone as reckless and incapable as George W Bush would be handed the reigns of power, and given the freedom to :

    - Start wars under phony pretenses

    - Sink the economy, in part by undoing the policies that had previously enabled great prosperity

    And it’s pretty obvious why 52% of voters would vote for the other party’s candidate after such a performance. Regardless of their familiarity with what many of them would regard as minute details.

  28. Billy Bob said on 21 Nov 2008 at 8:24 am:
    Flag comment

    Let’s face it, folks….we will have our first president sworn into office,
    elected based on the color of his skin. I’ve said it before right here, and
    was called “racist”. That’s okay. Truth sometimes hurts, doesn’t it?
    A while back, I commented about a conversation I had had with a black
    lady where I asked her if she thought Obama had made the right decision
    in having Palin as his running mate. Her response to me was, “Oh, yes…
    he know what he doin’…” I failed to let the readers know that she is
    a retired teacher!!
    Somebody else has mentioned in the past that the election of Obama is
    the ultimate “Affirmative Action”….I completely agree with that statement;
    however, that poster was not called “racist” for his/her comment.

    Both Parties, etc…..get over the Bush thing. Just remember, he had
    Barnie Frank, Pelosi and Reid helping him out in the sinking of our
    ecomony.

  29. freedom said on 21 Nov 2008 at 9:17 am:
    Flag comment

    Ahhh BPC, so I suppose that you believe that the Obama promise of doubling the capital gains tax, increasing the SSN tax threshold and increasing the tax on businesses and people otherwise successful is the way to increase consumer spending and stimulate the economy. Pshaaaaaw.

    The man was elected by those who want some of what I have worked for and thereby consider to be mine. I totally disagree with that.

  30. BothPartiesDoColludeAgainstYouAndMarketToYourFears said on 21 Nov 2008 at 10:09 am:
    Flag comment

    “The man was elected by those who want some of what I have worked for and thereby consider to be mine. ”

    As opposed to voting for McCain who wanted to bail out everyone who bought a home too expensive to pay for? He wanted to take from you/me/everyone and pay the difference for those who overextended themselves?

    Why spend your time berating Obama, who hasn’t yet done ANYTHING, as opposed to Bush who has just presided over a massive giveaway of your money? Or John “fundmantals are strong”/”we need this bailout right now, no questions asked” McCain?

    As to the basis of this thread, I think that Bush having been the proven dsaster it would be more instructive to figure out how Bush got elected. Probably some combination of charm, looks (I believe his handsomeness is a factor often overlooked - the guy’s like a male model, he rarely looks bad) (no I’m not gay), god, guns, fear, clinging, exploiting the abortion issue, fear-mongering and false advertising, etc.

  31. BothPartiesDoColludeAgainstYouAndMarketToYourFears said on 21 Nov 2008 at 10:12 am:
    Flag comment

    Is it your arguement maybe that McCain was going to give away the farm, but only to get elected, so that after THAT, after bailing out every irresponsible homeowner in America, after that he would safeguard your money from those that would covet it?

    “Yes, I stole $100 from your wallet. But I only did it because there are some unsavory characters around, and I thought that if I didn’t get there first they might steal $200 from you.”

    “Oh, OK Senator McCain. Here’s my vote”.

  32. BothPartiesDoColludeAgainstYouAndMarketToYourFears said on 21 Nov 2008 at 10:22 am:
    Flag comment

    A core arguement of mine, Billy Bob - instead of asking why black people voted for Obama, get past your own biases and display some curiosity as to why white males vote GOP every time even though they get screwed by it. And remember, the Bush disaster of a Presidency is on white people’s heads, not black people.

  33. BothPartiesDoColludeAgainstYouAndMarketToYourFears said on 21 Nov 2008 at 11:39 am:
    Flag comment

    I think you overstated your case

    I can think of some Democratic idiots

    Bill Richardson is a great example of someone who, like Condaleeze Rice, rose to the level of his incompetance

  34. freedom said on 21 Nov 2008 at 1:49 pm:
    Flag comment

    BPC, trust me, if you think the last eight years were a disaster, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet. I just heard a prediction this morning that by the end of Obama’s first term, we’ll be having food riots and gangs roaming the streets.

  35. BothPartiesDoColludeAgainstYouAndMarketToYourFears said on 21 Nov 2008 at 2:09 pm:
    Flag comment

    Or perhaps having a competant President will give us a reprise of the Clinton years, when a young Democratic President helped to get government back on track and America out of a fiscal hole.

  36. anonymous said on 21 Nov 2008 at 3:11 pm:
    Flag comment

    “when a young Democratic President helped to get government back on track and America out of a fiscal hole.”

    With a little help from a Republican congress…

  37. DPortM said on 21 Nov 2008 at 3:44 pm:
    Flag comment

    Rick, please stop touting Obama just because you suffer from BDS (”Bush Derangement Syndrome). I believe that you are too smart to fall for that promise of change. The people he is appointing to cabinet posts are all
    Clinton-ites. How does that promote change?

    The only thing Obama is going to change is our tax rate (UP) and give our hard-earned money to the poor who don’t pay taxes, thereby spreading socialism in America.

    My father also suffers from BDS - so I know the symptoms very well…

  38. BothPartiesDoColludeAgainstYouAndMarketToYourFears said on 21 Nov 2008 at 4:35 pm:
    Flag comment

    true, anonymous, it probably was for the best that we had a GOP Congress.

  39. BothPartiesDoColludeAgainstYouAndMarketToYourFears said on 21 Nov 2008 at 4:38 pm:
    Flag comment

    “the idiot brigade currently in charge of the party”

    I don’t think anybody’s in charge of it.

    Certainly guys like Limbaugh and Hannity aren’t - the party flips them the bird on illelgal immigration and other issues at will

    I think it’s a rudderless ship

    McCain’s no leader of it, he got the nod because as Dick morris wrote about at length years ago, Republicans are keen on reaching back to the guy who came in #2 previously and nominating them.

    Palin’s certainly not. She’s off in Alaska (pretty much a socialist state) dealing with practically no issues that generalize.

    There’s nobody at the wheel of the boat.

  40. BothgPartiesColludeAgainstUsAndMarketToYourFears said on 21 Nov 2008 at 5:02 pm:
    Flag comment

    “the idiot brigade currently in charge of the party”

    I don’t think anyone is in charge

    Mouthpieces like Limbaugh and Hannity get frustrated at every turn, especially on illegal immigration

    The fact that a contrarian like McCain and Palin who governs Alaska - pretty much a socialist state - could get nominated proves my thesis

    There’s no one at the wheel of the ship and it’s drifting

    The GOP has become a collection of negative ads looking for a purpose

  41. Pat.Herve said on 21 Nov 2008 at 5:52 pm:
    Flag comment

    The problem is that most Americans do not really get the facts -

    It was posted that Obama wants to double the capital gains tax - I do not know where one gets that info, Hannity perhaps - http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/08/obama-clarifies.html

    Or that the Black vote is what got him elected - they are 13% of the population - Obama got more than 50% of every voter under 65.

    We currently have a Leadership Vacuum in Washington - Bush would love to leave office right now, it is painful to watch him. Bush with a Republican congress for 6 years was not able to get much done - he was too concerned with invading Iraq from day one.

    You can criticize Obams for reaching into the Clinton administration, but bush also took from the Bush 1, Ford, Reagan and Nixon adminstrations.

    What was McCain offering - talk about redistributing wealth! - he wanted to fix all the bad mortgages - if I listen to this blog, that is most Illegal Immitgrants, he wanted to introduce a new tax - the Health Care tax, he was acting his usual self, shooting from the hip. And then he picked Palin! - how desperate was he - yes, she invigorated the campaign, but the more we got to know here, the less tolerable she became. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeMypXCUWMw

    And here is your bush voter - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQVP2BV9LP0

    Unfortunately, we listen to a few pundits on the radio or tv, and take their spin as fact - even O’Reilly spins his story.

  42. freedom said on 21 Nov 2008 at 7:23 pm:
    Flag comment

    Ahha, Anonymous…they said the same thing when Jimmy C took office and look at what THAT brought us. …but wait, the “peanut man” didn’t have Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayres, that freakin’ Farrakhan, and the wonderful “dim bulb” Al Sharpton, backing him up, I forgot.

    So sad, taking someone else’s money is the most important thing to some of you….:(

  43. CONVA said on 21 Nov 2008 at 8:41 pm:
    Flag comment

    The socialists now have their chance to bring Nirvana. We will be watching and cataloging every move.

  44. Anonymous said on 21 Nov 2008 at 11:48 pm:
    Flag comment

    News reports speculate that Jane Napolitano (governor of Louisiana during hurricane Katrina will be named to head HOMELAND SECURITY.) Does that mean Ray Nagin (mayor of new orleans now, and during hurrican Katrina will be named to head FEMA?) WHAT A COUNTRY!

  45. Anonymous said on 21 Nov 2008 at 11:52 pm:
    Flag comment

    Anonymous said on 21 Nov 2008 at 11:48 pm: Flag comment
    News reports speculate that Jane Napolitano (governor of Louisiana during hurricane Katrina will be named to head HOMELAND SECURITY.) Does that mean Ray Nagin (mayor of new orleans now, and during hurrican Katrina will be named to head FEMA?) WHAT A COUNTRY!

    The above was mainly addressed to Anonymous’ comment on 21 Nov 2008 at 11:07 am

Comments are closed.


Views: 1818