interesting read for dr Brat and others

I have forwarded this to my DH.. C

Me,too....to MY DH

Gill

As an example of vicious, lying, political trash, I hope. That's just about what I would expect, considering who posted the link.

If I were to go through that article and repudiate it point by point, it would take me all day. So let me just point out one of the many outright lies: "Barak Obama has never sought bipartisanship." That is a complete misrepresentation of his record in the state and federal legislatures.

The idea that Jimmy Carter is a bitter and angry man is pretty laughable, too. A failure as a president, sure, but a bitter and angry man today? Please.

Mirjam, post whatever you want, but please leave my name off of it. I have no interest in your twisted political views of my country or its politics.

Elizabeth

Why would you share something so vicious and so obviously factually incorrect?

And why is it that people are spending so much time focussed on what is purportedly wrong with Barack Obama instead of talking about what is right with Hillary Clinton or John McCain? Why is that?

Here's a link for both of you. Will you share it with your husbands and discuss what's wrong or right about it?

Number 1 problem: This isn't marked OFF TOPIC. It should at least be marked OT

Number 2 problem: What does this have to do with Needlework?

I wonder how many will actually take the time to listen to and also read it in its entirety.

Dianne

Dr. Brat wrote:

*smooch*

Elizabeth

Probably not that many people. It takes time to read the whole thing and it's much faster to read op ed pieces like the one that started this thread. People often don't have patience beyond short sound bites.

I kind of liked this one:

Actually, I'm looking at what is right and wrong about all of them.

C

I think he'll like and dislike the same things I do.

BUT His association - a 20 plus year one - with a church that is so vehemently anti-white really bothers me

Last speech I heard sure sounded bitter. His work with Habitat for Humanity is wonderful. I freely and happily support it. Some of the other things that come out of his mouth bother the heck out of me.

That's incorrect. Her answer, which was short and to the point was "Of Course Not."

Here's another article to read that shows how she gave her answer in less than 1 second and really didn't skirt around the issue, but apparently they wanted more.

goes to prove that just because something is in writing, doesn't always make it true.

Lucille

Dr. Brat wrote:

Sure, it bothers me, too - if it really is as it has been represented. BUT that's not really what the article was about. And I gotta say, my father's attitude on certain things really bothers me, but I don't disavow him, because he's my father. AND there are a whole lot of women out there who continue to be faithful members of a church that relegates them to second class citizenry. Most issues are many-sided - what do you know about his church other than what the media are telling you? We can always find something to pick on without going to the extremes displayed in the article under discussion.

Elizabeth

I didn't read about it or see about it anywhere except "60 Minutes". I watched the entire interview. She waffled, tried to skirt the issue. Plain and simple. She finally, after some coaxing, answered, ". . . of course not . . ." But her actions prior to that were uncalled for, and certainly unbecoming.

Dianne

Lucille wrote:

Did you read the article, or more to the point--Did you watch the clip from U-Tube?

Elizabeth

The best I could find was an actual transcript of the incident from the 60 minutes show. You will see it on page 4.

don't think it matters whether a person is a Clinton supporter or an Obama supporter, or (gasp) a Republican, but for heavens sake, get it right!!!!. Lucille

> I don't think it matters whether a person is a Clinton supporter or an Obama > supporter, or (gasp) a Republican, but for heavens sake, get it right!!!!. Thank you for that link. Elizabeth

In order to make myself clear, I read the article and watched the YouTube video. I stand by what I initially said. I watched the interview on "60 Minutes." I was appalled and taken aback at how she responded. Too many qualifiers.

I'm responding to this comment from my own reaction having seen the show, not from some YouTube video or some parsing on a news article. I'm not anti Hillary, and it surprised me greatly the way she handled the question. There was more to it than what the YouTube video showed. At least the way I remember it.

Dianne