Community > Posts By > leahmarie

 
no photo
Sat 07/05/08 12:19 PM
fanta ..... I don't have time to read such a long post or should I say novel. If you want it read, make it short and sweet.

no photo
Sat 07/05/08 12:17 PM

fruit of the loom has wedgie free underwear on the market.

No more picking your seat for the movies.I'm excited.

*this is lindys fault as she said to post a new topic*shades




I don't think Lindyy meant for you to post a thread about underwear in politics/current news.

By the way, who cares!? laugh

no photo
Sat 07/05/08 12:08 PM

Leahmarie,
read this!!:wink:


We can ignore the polls and just look around at the reality!
This site is national (actually International), and yet everywhere I look, I see a vast majority of Obama supporters!
Maybe 5 or 6 McCain diehards, and that's all!
You may not want to admit it, but the signs of an Obama win are pretty clear!

Might as well ask the question,
Would you prefer to call him President Obama, or President Barack??
laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh




Fanta ......

You are saying this site is international and that there are many Obama supporters outside of the USA. Let me point something out to you, and that is ONLY US CITIZENS CAN VOTE IN OUR PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. laugh

no photo
Sat 07/05/08 11:49 AM

The nationwide poll conducted by Newsweek showed Obama leading McCain by a margin of 51-36 percent, indicating that he might have got a bounce from his recent primary victory over Hillary Clinton.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080621/pl_nm/usa_politics_poll_dc

Most others show him ahead by 6-8 points.
Could it be that Newsweek is the only unbiased source left in America, or are the others correct?

I'll settle for the others. I'm not picky, 6-8 points is still a lead anyway you look at it.



fanta ..... you seem quite confused. In your earlier post you state you do not believe in polls, but here you are quoting more polls. So, which is it? Oh I get it, you are an Obama supporter ..... a flip flopper like Obama.



no photo
Sat 07/05/08 11:42 AM
fanta ..... The thread is about Obama's highly favorable loan.

However, even though you are off topic, you are right in that Americans should not fall for the con job that Obama is presenting. We had eight years of Clinton and his Tom Foolery and Americans should not be fooled again.

Fanta I concur with you ..... vote for McCain.

no photo
Sat 07/05/08 11:36 AM

i think he should focus on MENTAL HEALTH!!rofl rofl




I take it you are in need of some help in that area!? laugh

no photo
Sat 07/05/08 11:33 AM

laugh Freedom to be prosecuted and thrown in jaillaugh A cop can do anything to you they want at any timelaugh What freedom??laugh laugh Freedom to be beaten and killed if you resist?laugh Freedom to be humiliated?laugh Freedom to be spied upon, to have your property taken by a judge at anytime???huh What freedom??huh The local government where I live is no different than the Taliban.laugh They just have better military weapons to use against the people.ohwell To me, it sounds like your living in a dream land.ohwell To me, Im living in a nightmareohwell I just dont see the freedomohwell How many State Trooper roadblocks did I have to go thru to see the fireworks show??huh How many people can I assemble in one place without having the police arrive?huh I just dont see it.ohwell Freedom of WHAT?????huh You dont even got the freedom to die when you choose in this country:cry:



mirror/mirror ..... From what you are saying, it sounds as if you have been in serious trouble with the law with drugs. That would be the only way the things you describe could have happened to you. I am sorry for you, but hoped you learned your lesson.

no photo
Sat 07/05/08 11:22 AM
Fanta ......

You are wrong ..... most polls show Obama anywhere from three to five points ahead of McCain. However it is a proven fact that the polls are always wrong on Obama in that they tend to give him a plus three or four points that he doesn't actually have. Therefore, considering this important fact Obama and McCain are in a dead heat.

Additionally, I believe there will be an "October Surprise" on Obama and he will wind up losing the presidency by a vast margin. This guy has too many skeletons in his closet and they will come out.

no photo
Sat 07/05/08 11:11 AM
Edited by leahmarie on Sat 07/05/08 11:17 AM
Moondark ......

Obama is moving to the center, not because he believes in it, but because he knows it is the way to get more votes. When you move to the center for that reason, it is called flip flopping.

Or one can say that Obama is moving to the center to trick the voters into voting for him. As you say this is not flip flopping but being deceitful and dishonest and proving Obama is nothing but a corrupt politician and a liar who will do anything to get votes.

no photo
Sat 07/05/08 02:09 AM
Nooooooooooooo

no photo
Sat 07/05/08 02:04 AM
Edited by leahmarie on Sat 07/05/08 02:07 AM


if china and russia decide to merge ????????





countries, companies, governments merge for different reasons other than friendship sometimes. russia and china are no exception. they each hated america and perhaps still does, thats good enough reason, who knows? i don't.



This thread does not make any sense. China and Russia are enemies. You are saying they would merge because they hate America?

I say end this thread here and now since the idea of a thread is to interchange ideas or have a bit of humor. This thread does neither.

no photo
Sat 07/05/08 02:03 AM

their ideals of communism. do we know what the future might look like? i assume that usa and china and russia are strong trading partners but are memories of the cold war still lingering????

what do you think?



Where are you getting the idea that China and Russia might merge?

no photo
Sat 07/05/08 01:50 AM


It won't run out. The United States and Canada are sitting on vast reserves of oil shell and oil sands. In several million years, the oil shell and oil sands will turn into oil that we could pump out quite easily. We would actually have more oil than OPEC. However, we can't wait millions of years and the technology to get oil from the oil shells and oil sands is too expensive. But, I believe that if the price of oil keeps going up, then research will be put back into attempting to find a cheaper method of obtaining oil from these resources. Let me clarify that -- I should say from the oil sands since it is easier to get oil from the oil sands rather than the oil shell.

At present Shell of Canada is exploring methods of extracting oil from Canada's three oil sands resources in Alberta, but so far Shell is experiencing what the USA found in the 1970's ---- very costly. However, if the USA and Canada both work toward finding a cheap technology to extract oil from the oil sands, then we won't be dependent on foreign oil.


So what you are saying is that it wont run out "in your lifetime."

How can you say it will not run out at all?

The world is using oil at a tremendous rate. If it is too expensive to extract then it will not be cost effective to use it

It is a finite resource.

The earth doesnt just make it on demand.

You have said it takes millions of years.





Belushi.....


Read..... read ..... read my post. I am saying that we need to develop cheap technology to extract the oil from the oil sands. Right now it is too expensive, but Americans are clever and resourceful and we will find the technology to extract the oil from the oil sands cheaply.

Additionally, if oil keeps going up and does reach 10 to 15 dollars a gallon the way some people claim, then today's technology to withdraw oil from the oil sands will not be cost prohibitive.

no photo
Sat 07/05/08 01:36 AM
Edited by leahmarie on Sat 07/05/08 01:44 AM

Not to worry.
It wont happen!


They are not even a 1st world country!
They have a large military but their technology can hardly compare to ours.
I dont see them being able to do much more than manage to maintain a deterrent force!



Fanta......

I agree with you. In order for China to be a superpower, China would have to be a global force that can influence geopolitical and military events in every corner of the globe. China cannot do this. However, American should not take the Chinese lightly since their goal is domination over the USA.

I also concur with the poster who said that in order for China to become a "super power," China must embrace democracy. That means that the people of China must be able to elect governments of their choice. Also, China must withdraw its forces from the territories of other countries it presently occupies, eg. Tibet and parts of India. Additionally, for China to be a "super power," along with accepting democracy it must abolish forced labour, as well as respect human rights.

Fanta is right in that China is not a First World Country. The above problems, along with China's poverty margins, keep China in the category of a Third World Country.

Another area that prevents China from becoming a "super power" is that it is so far behind in science and technology when compared with other nations of the world.

My opinion is that China will never be anything more than a regional power. Let me correct that statement --- China will never be anything more than a regional bully.


no photo
Sat 07/05/08 01:00 AM
Edited by leahmarie on Sat 07/05/08 01:11 AM

Oil ... the current gold.

Without it we are a society set back by 200 years.

It causes wars, unrest and greed.


So, what ARE you going to do when it runs out?




It won't run out. The United States and Canada are sitting on vast reserves of oil shell and oil sands. In several million years, the oil shell and oil sands will turn into oil that we could pump out quite easily. We would actually have more oil than OPEC. However, we can't wait millions of years and the technology to get oil from the oil shells and oil sands is too expensive. But, I believe that if the price of oil keeps going up, then research will be put back into attempting to find a cheaper method of obtaining oil from these resources. Let me clarify that -- I should say from the oil sands since it is easier to get oil from the oil sands rather than the oil shell.

At present Shell of Canada is exploring methods of extracting oil from Canada's three oil sands resources in Alberta, but so far Shell is experiencing what the USA found in the 1970's ---- very costly. However, if the USA and Canada both work toward finding a cheap technology to extract oil from the oil sands, then we won't be dependent on foreign oil.

no photo
Sat 07/05/08 12:50 AM
Why I’m Not Patriotic
by Matthew Rothschild


Madman ......

I didn't bother reading any of your post, only the title and author. You made a mistake ---- "Why I'm Not Patriotic" is something that is attributed to Obama. bigsmile


no photo
Sat 07/05/08 12:45 AM


It appears that you did not read or comprehend the text I posted. I will NOT do the math as there is nothing to calculate.

You need to get educated on the truth and not be so afraid of change.


Change for what?! I 'have a plan' but it is not worked out yet change. The "change" but no one knows specifics of what the 'change' is?

Darn right I am afraid of what obama considers 'change.' Put this man in office and say goodby to the USA.

He started out last year by mouthing off to one of our biggest ally's, the Prime Minister of Australia.

He thinks he can sit down and have 'tea and crumpets' with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran.

"July 2, 2008
Today, The Washington Post Reported That Obama Received A Sweetheart Mortgage Deal For His Chicago Mansion:

Obama Received A Discounted Rate On His $1.32 Million Mortgage For His Georgian Mansion In Chicago. "Shortly after joining the U.S. Senate and while enjoying a surge in income, Barack Obama bought a $1.65 million restored Georgian mansion in an upscale Chicago neighborhood. To finance the purchase, he secured a $1.32 million loan from Northern Trust in Illinois. The freshman Democratic senator received a discount. He locked in an interest rate of 5.625 percent on the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage, below the average for such loans at the time in Chicago." (Joe Stephens, "Obama Got Discount On Home Loan," The Washington Post, 7/2/08)

"The Loan Was Unusually Large, Known In Banker Lingo As A 'Super Super Jumbo.' Obama Paid No Origination Fee Or Discount Points, As Some Consumers Do To Reduce Their Interest Rates." (Joe Stephens, "Obama Got Discount On Home Loan," The Washington Post, 7/2/08

Obama's Discounted Rate Could Have Saved Him More Than $300 Per Month. "Compared with the average terms offered at the time in Chicago, Obama's rate could have saved him more than $300 per month." (Joe Stephens, "Obama Got Discount On Home Loan," The Washington Post, 7/2/08)

The Obamas Secured Their Discounted Home Loan Despite The Fact That They Had "No Prior Relationship With Northern Trust When They Applied For The Loan." "The Obamas had no prior relationship with Northern Trust when they applied for the loan. They received an oral commitment on Feb. 4, 2005, and locked in the rate of 5.625 percent, the campaign said. On that date, HSH data show, the average rate in Chicago for a 30-year fixed-rate jumbo loan with no points was about 5.94 percent." (Joe Stephens, "Obama Got Discount On Home Loan," The Washington Post, 7/2/08)

NOTE: Obama Also Has Received $71,000 In Campaign Contributions From Northern Trust Employees. "Since 1990, Northern Trust employees have donated more than $739,000 to federal campaigns, including $71,000 to Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics." (Joe Stephens, "Obama Got Discount On Home Loan," The Washington Post, 7/2/08)

FLASHBACK: Obama Paid $300,000 Less Than The Asking Price For His Mansion, While Tony Rezko's Wife Paid Full Price For A Vacant Lot Next Door On The Very Same Day. "Two years ago, Obama bought a mansion on the South Side, in the Kenwood neighborhood, from a doctor. On the same day, [Antoin 'Tony'] Rezko's wife, Rita Rezko, bought the vacant lot next door from the same seller. The doctor had listed the properties for sale together. He sold the house to Obama for $300,000 below the asking price. The doctor got his asking price on the lot from Rezko's wife." (Tim Novak, "Obama And His Rezko Ties," Chicago Sun-Times, 4/23/07)

The Seller Of Obama's Home "Wanted To Sell Both Properties At The Same Time." "On the same day Obama closed on his house, Rezko's wife bought the adjacent empty lot, meeting the condition of the seller who wanted to sell both properties at the same time." (Brian Ross and Rhonda Schwartz, "The Rezko Connection," ABC News' "The Blotter" Blog, abcnews.go.com, 1/10/08)

Obama Later Purchased A Portion Of Rezko's Land For $104,500; It Was Valued At $40,500. "Later, the Obamas bought a 10-foot-by-150-foot piece of the lot for $104,500. An appraisal put the value of the strip at $40,500, a spokesman said, but Obama considered it fair to pay one-sixth of the original price for one-sixth of the lot." (Peter Slevin, "Obama Says He Regrets Land Deal With Fundraiser," The Washington Post, 12/17/06)"

As you can see, obama has a history of funny-bunny real estate financial transactions.

Lindyy
:heart:






Good job Lindyy! flowerforyou

no photo
Fri 07/04/08 06:49 AM

It appears that you did not read or comprehend the text I posted. I will NOT do the math as there is nothing to calculate.

You need to get educated on the truth and not be so afraid of change.



yawn

Got to go --- am going out for the day. To you and everyone else on the site ---- have a good Holiday!

no photo
Fri 07/04/08 06:41 AM


WTF? It was a very cute, entertaining movie. Why do people look for so much hidden meanings in things such as this?


Just look at what was once said about the children's show, Teletubbies. People get crazy.



I haven't seen the movie, but I do know that as noted above, People get crazy," in that anything can be spun anyway one wants.

no photo
Fri 07/04/08 06:38 AM



This is right wing propaganda, twisted and skewed.

Very LAME.



1956deluxe......

Okay if this is twisted and skewed, then why don't you give us what you consider the real facts? What was the rate on Obama's loan? What was the rate on others in Chicago pursuing similar loans? Of course, you can't respond because my facts are correct.


You and the Washington Post clearly want to characterize this as a serious story.

In this case, there's less here than meets the eye. Nearly four years ago, Obama received a 30-year fixed rate of 5.625 percent. The average at the time was 5.93 percent. As such, it was a good deal, but not a sweetheart deal. Obama had received competing offers from another lender and, as a result, got a more competitive rate. As Oliver Willis, who used to work for a mortgage company, put it, "The idea that the lender gives a few fractions of a percent to a borrower of a jumbo loan is about as common as breathing air." I personally got a rate of 5.75% on my home loan about that same time.

As controversies go, this is pretty thin. Obama got a legitimate mortgage, at a competitive rate. He didn't try to conceal anything, and even posted the records related to his house purchase on his website.

As the Chicago Tribune's Swamp blog concluded, "Obama's political opponents will certainly try to make something out of this story. But contrary to the famous adage, not all smoke means there's a fire."

Most news organizations have dropped the story you cite on your thread as they have seen it has no merit. Yet, you continue to spread this propaganda as though it were newsworthy.

Very lame.





It is not lame; it is newsworthy. No matter how you spin it, Obama received a lower rate. Over a thirty-year period a fraction of a percentage point adds up to quite a bit of money. Do the math!

1 2 3 4 6 8 9 10 24 25