BethFromVA

Wow, you really believe this crap you spew, don'tcha?

*squeal* I know!! Just six more pounds and I will go from severely obese to "just" obese. I'm paying attention to all these milestones. Once I get below 220, I will begin losing the most weight I've ever lost to date (prior weight loss was 70 pounds).

Regardless, I think there are tricks going on on both sides. We do NOT have an election process that keeps crap from happening.

Total scale victory: Buh-bye 230's, hello 229!

BJean, for every story you have that the election was stolen by the republicans, I probably have five that talk about the improprieties of the democrats -- dead people voting, people voting in multiple counties, etc. Whatever you accuse the right of doing was simply learned because those on the left have been doing it so long. They're just pissed that their tricks may have been used against them. Do I believe the election was "stolen"? No, I do not. I believe it was ATTEMPTED to be stolen by the left and they can't believe it didn't go down.

Hehehe, yeah, well a C is big enough. Not too big, not too small. I just hope when I'm done losing weight they won't be too loooong. :thumbup:

As is the "Bush stole the election" conspiracy theory.

So he's NOT forcing TARP money on banks and not taking over GM and firing CEOs? REALLY?

Yeah, that's lying. If asked, I will say what I think about something. Sometimes even when not asked. But she was asked a question, gave an honest answer, and no normal person can fault her for that. PCism is stupid, unneeded, and will be the death of us.

Actually her mother did before the left could do it. And I thought you lefties were all about kids having kids and doin' their thing. Unless it can be slung in somebody's face, that is.

Do you REALLY need links showing what he and his administration are doing to the private sector? How they are running many of our banks and not even allowing them to pay back the loans so they can retain control? Firing heads of companies? Have you really not seen this? If you don't consider that socialist, what do you call it? And please show me one place in our founding documents where it states that the government can take over corporations.

Hehehe. In all honesty, did he prove it in a way that was acceptable to me? No, not really. There were a lot of questions over the legitimacy of the documents that were scanned -- some with a seal, some without, some with different dates of birth showing that he wasn't really born here but his mother obtained documentation when he was a week or two old. Could it be simple conspiracy theorism? Sure, as much as the "did Bush steal the election" scenario was. The legitimacy of Obama's citizenry can be as serious or as silly as people choose to make the "Bush stealing the election" case.

And which one was it last year who had the whole "maps" fiasco?? Omg, it would be sad if it wasn't so dang funny!

Socialism is defined as: "A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor." This is most certainly happening with government (and citizens) deeming certain businesses as not worthy of "making too much money." It is also seen in the redistribution of wealth which, as we all know, did not start with Obama. However, he wants to expand this practice. A further description states: "An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity. There are many varieties of socialism. Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy; others insist on an abolition of private enterprise. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists." I bolded the above, and we are also seeing this happening as well. Fascism is defined as: "A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism." Again, the above bolded references are either beginning or being threatened under this administration, especially the censorship of opposition such as Rush Limbaugh and other right-wing talk hosts. I also see this being done via the whole thought policing that is going on, like what happened recently with the Miss USA pageant. Little by little people are being bullied into believing a certain way, and if they don't, they are ostracized for not being PC. I truly believe the time will come that such opposing views will be termed hate speech and treated as criminal. Granted, some of this is societal and can't be put on Obama; it will depend on what he does in these arenas while in office that will determine how involved he is in this. Certainly during the time before the election, he was using threats and bullying tactics in relation to things he didn't like that were being said about him. In a normal situation, it is understandable that people don't like being spoken about negatively, but in many instances the stuff that was coming out was true. AND it's unheard of for a politician -- especially one running for president -- to bully his opponents the way Obama did. Whether he ends up leaning totally towards fascism is anybody's guess. However, socialism IS getting a toe-hold in this country, and socialism simply does not survive because a country cannot thrive under socialist rule. So what often happens is it's a short hop over to outright communism, a path many once-socialist-then-communist countries have taken. And how many of them have survived? Look at the USSR as one of our most recent examples of a large country under communist rule. It always eventually implodes, because once the scales tip just enough, then there aren't enough worker bees to support the non-worker bees -- either because the economy completely tanks, or because some figure why stand in the "working" line when they can just switch lines to the "non-working/receiving handouts" line?

I never thought specifically that she lost because of her answer. I simply had an issue with the villianization of her for being honest. It lended credibility to the possibility that she could have lost it due to her answer, but I hadn't seen anything about her scoring or whether she would have lost anyway.

Wait, what?

It's possible, yes.

Thanks -- I think...

I'm certainly not trying to take away your fun. :crying: It's just that a question like that was going to piss off one side or the other. Maybe you're right -- ratings.

Wow. Is this indicative of what the left is really like?

I don't know why a loaded question like that would be okayed, but what I'm saying is she didn't know what she was going to be asked. She answered honestly (and for some unpopularly), and I would think that would be what people would want in their contestants.

But my understanding is they don't know the questions that will be asked. They are supposed to think on their feet and not have pre-rehearsed answers. Does anybody know different from this?

Is that really fair? She didn't choose to have this question lobbed at her by that "judge." :crying:

LOL! Okay, is she a great speaker? No. However, she was immediately hit with a very hard question by a very out-of-the-closet gay guy. Who would sound like a brainiac? And since then, the only things I've heard her speaking about had to do with the same issue and some emotional speaking about the villianization she was put through. The winner is Kristen Dalton from NC. Tell me she sounds better. They sound about the same to me.

I found the winner's question/answer session, and she doesn't sound any better: YouTube - MISS USA 2009 BELONGS TO MISS NORTH CAROLINA KRISTEN DALTON It's at 2:30.