ComeOnNow_10101

1) Dodd on AIG bonus addendum in bailout bill: First clearly stated he did not add the lang which allowed for it, he even went as far as stating when it happened and who was behind those closed doors. A few hours later he came back and said yeah I did it, Since then he has had his face in just about ever vid clip of pos action being taken. Oh by the way, the ones he first pointed at adding the lang were O, Pelosi and the crew.

2) Pelosi was hammered on her knowledge of EIT's now a day before it is to resurface and poss end her career a letter turns up from who else, Dem Politicians basically threatening Panetta to change his story.

I mean a 1040 through FOIA, a bill of laiding, anything at all that shows W's or Cheney's financial windfall from taking oil out of Iraq?

I know that no one has this info, cause it doesn't exist; yet shortly someone will ask a question and a leftie will scream about the world is a mess cause Bush and Cheney wanted Iraqi oil...

The Gov has had control of another Insurance option for decades, Social Security Insurance..... How have they done with running it? If they (gov) have failed miserably running SSI what makes anyone think the Dems can formulate and run a Health Care Insurance?

Hear me out, I hate soapbox lectures but.... They are profiteering off of citizens health. They have allowed cig sales only because of the money involved and then turn around and use cigs to fill their coffers whenever money is needed. There should be no special purpose tax on top of special purpose tax on top of tax after tax after tax on smokes. It is just plain GREED by Gov. They tought its health concerns, ban it here and there, then they look at their budgets and say oh yeah good thing we have cigs still around let's raise taxes.

For the record I am an ex-smoker, it just still gets me the unjust way they treat people whom they allowed to get addicted by non-action.

A) By Years End

B) 1-2yrs

C) 2-3yrs

D) 3-4yrs

E) Never, cause everything under the sun is the fault of Bush

F) Never, because then people may focus on Obama himself being a fraud instead of the messiah they had hoped for....

That's what still happens, even after the election. If you are of a race other than black and you disagree with Obama policies, there are many many people waiting to call you a racist; even if you clearly point out your reasons for objecting to his policies.

This has probably been asked before, but it continues to happen.

their ability to recruit, and/or make radical Islam love us? If not it seems like the weakest of arguments to close the prison.

I know she isn't a princess, but acts like one. How can you get "in the game" of politics and think people should cater to what you want to talk about? She has tossed herself in the ring so to speak by feverishly campaigning for mommy.

http://www.comcast.net/news/articles/politics/2008...

Shouldn't she be showing some strength instead of what she has been, after all "All's fair in love and war, and politics as well"

"Growing teen violence in America"

Recent current events include:

8 teens brutally attacking one in Fla.

4 teens kill a man in Philadelphia

It is not just the fact of violence growing but the types of violence is getting worse. States have failed the victims of teen violence time and time again by slapping the criminals on the wrist. Should the Fed step in and start forcing stricter sentances on youth offenders? Someone needs to do something before school shooting become as regular a a California car chase.

impeached and removed from office?

Leftist Liberals who scream for freedom of speech have overrun YA deleting any Question that does not shed a favorable light on either Hillary or Obama. Meanwhile McCain bashing questions remain up.

It goes to show the hypocrisy of liberals, especially NObama supporters. Has YA gone the way of MSNBC and become a biased NObama supporter?

Go to cafepress . com and get your anti-Obama pin "The Audacity of Hypocrisy"; mines in the mail.

Hurry and answer, this question will be deleted in 5,4,3,2,1.............

NObama supporters keep posting that it is like "beating a dead horse", but doesn't everything a candadite has done in their past continually come into play until the election is over?

If we are to abide by what NObama supporters say then we would only vote on a candidate based on what they have done or said during the evening of the night prior to the election.

The other day he stated that he would definately have Gore involved as an advisor ,possibly a cabinet position, to help address global warming.

At a town-hall meeting, Obama was asked if he would tap the former vice president for his Cabinet to handle global warming.

"I would," Obama said. "Not only will I, but I will make a commitment that Al Gore will be at the table and play a central part in us figuring out how we solve this problem

Obama supporters keep stating that Hillary might "steal" the election with super-delegates and that isn't fair. They say the will of the people won't be represented. In Texas though, Hillary took the popular vote but the caucuses went to Obama. The cacuses like the super delegates should represent fairly what the constituants want.

For the record I am not a supporter of either of these two candidates, nor am I a full blown McCain supporter. I am just curious.

It seems that in the elections section Obama supporters abuse the report process to delete any question that is not favorable to their candidate. I understand that some of the questions are blatent attacks, that use language which is in violation. But is a question that asks if the candidate in question should clarify a statement, a violation.

YA says you can challenge the removal, but when you do they do not respond.

neighbor down the street?

Do they understand that these other people aren't running for President?

This question is aimed at all who think that BHO is so true in "his" speeches. There was one time he wasn't fully prepped by his writers, that was the night he interviewd on Fox the evening after the wright scandal broke. During that interview he paused and stuttered quite a few times. Yes McCain and Clinton have writers as well, but their followers aren't drooling when they talk about how the speech given by their chosen candidate was good.

We hear the term "white guilt" thrown around when one feels they have to justify not liking obama. Now more and more blacks are saying they strongly support him, but their choice is not "racially motivated."

I mean he threw white granny under the bus, while in August of '06 he walked through his native land embracing black granny.

Source:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,142...

"I was there but I strongly disagreed"? or do you feel they are both lies?

I know this issue has been brought up, but I don't recall a question as direct as this.