Comments Posted By carol
Displaying 1 To 8 Of 8 Comments


here's another one for you Why not focus on all the charities he supported, how he felt compelled to help so many people that were worse off. How anyone can focus on the negative when Michael went out of his way to share his wealth is surprising to me.

You all should celebrating the memories of the good that he did

Comment Posted By carol On 5.07.2009 @ 12:41

This is why there's a song called Leave me Alone

What if both boys had materialistic parents that would do anything for money? Would that be the first time a celebrity was exploited? NO of course not.

Get over yourselves It's all about the money. If MJ wanted little boys he could have gone anywhere in the world and never been found out.

Work on it Kids it'll come to you

Comment Posted By carol On 5.07.2009 @ 12:06


I certainly don't agree with Glenn on all things, however, on this FEMA camp thing. It started because he angrily hung up on a caller who brought them up because he thought it was looney-toon talk. His sidekick, Stu, called him out for being "rude", and he started one of his notorious rants on how he was so tired of all this FEMA camp talk, and how getting info from the Internet was not "research." By the end of the rant, he committed to a thorough investigation and would report back.

Comment Posted By Carol On 8.04.2009 @ 11:03


These vile and hostile attacks toward political figures have overtaken any sense of propriety or respect for the people and the process. It is seated in the prolonged and repeated personal attacks (not necessarily true) on George Bush trying to make him out to be evil incarnate and responsible for every known problem to man. It is fostered on the internet and then picked up by the irresponsible main stream press who find it easier to sensationalize and now voice their own opinions as some form of valid truth than report unbiased investigated facts. Why has reporting facts and associations been allowed to be portrayed as "dirty politics" or "negative attacks" or "raciast"? If there is mischaracterization or untrue information, lets hear it. One candidate consistently changes the details of his life and associations and policies, one does not. One candidate readily talks about his past, career, and mistakes, one candidate will not.

Comment Posted By Carol On 12.10.2008 @ 13:37


The Brooks piece in interesting. Thanks for posting the link to it, funny man.

Comment Posted By Carol On 10.10.2008 @ 14:36

Sorry for the many typos in my post. No time to proof read ---

Comment Posted By Carol On 10.10.2008 @ 13:40

Great piece. I'm not a super conservative person, but this year I am voting for McCain because there is absolutely no choice and no way I can vote for Obama for all the reasons all of us who have actually done the work of vetting him (no thanks to the msm) know. The msm has had a double standard due to their blatant bias all year. They certain seem unphased when Obama calls anyone who doesn't support his a racist, nor did the media flinch when Obama directed his adoring followers to "argue" and "get in their faces". In all elections, passions run high and we all see things through our own biased lens. This year, however, Obama has fueled hate and division in keeping with his mentor, Jeremiah Wright. Obama just does it in a way that is silver-tongued and apparently flies below the radar of many who have yet to awaken to the horror that his Presidency would be.

BTW, I'm not bitter, nor is this about sour grapes, I'm not a racist, and I'm not a hillbilly. I'm a highly educated, well informed member of the electorate, a life long Democrat (until this year) and a relatively liberal person compared to most who likely visit this site.

But, political party aside, social values aside, it's all irrelevant if we elect this neophyte with questionable sympathies to office. As far as I'm concerned, Obama has neither the experience nor the credibility to be President of the School Board.

Glad folks are waking up and expressing their concerns. Those on the Obama side have been doing so all year, and not just with some angry words. It's scarey out there!

Comment Posted By Carol On 10.10.2008 @ 13:28



As opposed to Bill Clinton's NON reponse after the first World Trade Center bombing?

On February 26, 1993 terrorists attacked the World Trade Center during the Clinton administration. The explosion caused 6 deaths, 1,042 injuries, and nearly $600 million in property damage. Bill Clinton never visited the World Trade Center sight after the attack, and during his weekly radio address, advised Americans to "not over-react" to the attack.

It was the first attack on U.S. soil since the attack on Pearl Harbor. The attack was planned by a group of conspirators including Ramzi Yousef, Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, El Sayyid Nosair, Mahmud Abouhalima, Mohammad Salameh, Nidal Ayyad, Ahmad Ajaj, and Abdul Rahman Yasin. They received financing from al-Qaeda member Khaled Shaikh Mohammed, Yousef's uncle, who was the mastermind behind the 9-11 attacks.

Ramzi Yousef was later found with an Iraqi passport in Pakistan. According to phone records, Mohammad Salameh made 46 phone calls to Iraq after the attack.

The FBI believed that Yousef was possibly an Iraqi intelligence agent who worked for Saddam. They believed that Saddam was likely behind the attack since the attack happened on the second anniversary of the end of the Gulf War, and the attack was his revenge for the war.

Abdul Rahman Yasin fled to Iraq after the attack. He was the only member of the al Qaeda cell that detonated the 1993 World Trade Center bomb to remain at large in the Clinton years.

In the spring of 1994, a Jordanian stringer working for ABC News spotted Abdul Rahman Yasin outside his father's house in Baghdad and learned from neighbors that he worked for the Iraqi government. As recently as May 1998, FBI director Louis Freeh affirmed that Yasin was in Iraq.

Yet the Clinton administration made no serious attempt to secure Yasin's extradition. Baghdad might well have refused to turn him over, but the US could have used Yasin's presence in Iraq to isolate and condemn the Iraqi regime. It was as if the administration did not want to draw attention to aspects of the case which suggested an Iraqi link to the Trade Center bombing.

U.S. forces recently discovered a cache of documents in Tikrit, Saddam's hometown, that show that Iraq gave Mr. Yasin both a house and monthly salary. According to Laurie Mylroie, who served as Clinton's adviser on Iraq during the 1992 presidential campaign, Bill Clinton’s decision to hit Baghdad with cruise missiles on June 26, 1993, was made in part because he believed Iraq had been involved in the first World Trade Center bombing four months earlier.

Can't wait for Rudy to debate Hillary actually! The question is CAN HILLARY hold up the scrutiny??

Comment Posted By carol On 30.03.2007 @ 22:10



Pages (1) : [1]

«« Back To Stats Page