Log In | Register
INDECENT
Logical Lurker.
Articles Posted: 61; Links Seeded: 254
Member Since: 3/2006Last Seen: 11/20/2009
Member Since: 3/2006Last Seen: 11/20/2009
26 Votes
57 Comments
Clinton's "Red Phone" attack on Obama
News Type: Event — Seeded on Fri Feb 29, 2008 3:26 PM EST
Article Source: marcambinder.theatlantic.comadvertisement
ANNCR: It's 3am and your children are safe and asleep.
But there's a phone in the White House and it's ringing.
Something's happening in the world.
Your vote will decide who answers that call.
Whether it's someone who already knows the world's leaders.knows the
military.someone tested and ready to lead in a dangerous world.It's 3am and your children are safe and asleep.
Who do you want answering the phone?
Published to:
- indecent's Column, All of Newsvine
- Groups: Left of Center, Media Watch, ObamaVine, Political Analysis
- Regions: none
- Public Discussion (58)
- Left of Center
- Media Watch
- ObamaVine
- Political Analysis
What's this?
Who's leading the conversation?
This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user
has on the current conversation.
The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd
row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera).
Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group
is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the
left, in their corresponding group.
Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the
number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative
one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their
relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.
57
15
5.7
{"commentId":1523968,"authorDomain":"indecent"}
Obama's response (got this in an email, btw):
Now, since I am also in the midst of a election, before we open this up for conversation, I do want to take a moment to respond, because the press is, I'm sure, curious, to an ad that Senator Clinton is apparently running today. It asks a legitimate question. It says, who do you want answering the phone in the White House when it's 3:00 a.m. and something has happened in the world. It's a legitimate question. And we've seen these ads before. They're usually the kind that play upon people's fears and try to scare up votes.
I don't think these ads will work this time because the question is not about picking up the phone. The question is, what kind of judgment will you exercise when you pick up that phone. In fact, we have had a red phone moment; it was the decision to invade Iraq. Senator Clinton gave the wrong answer. George Bush gave the wrong answer. John McCain gave the wrong answer. I stood up and I said that a war in Iraq would be unwise. It cost us thousands of lives and billions of dollars. I said that it would distract us from the real threat that we face, and that we should take the fight to al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
That's the judgment I made on the most important foreign policy decision of our generation, and that's the kind of judgment I intend to show when I answer the phone in the White House as president of the United States of America. The judgment to keep us safe [applause] -- the judgment to keep us safe, to go after our real enemies, and to provide the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States with the equipment they need when we do send them into battle, and the respect and care that they have earned when they come home. And I will never see the threat of terrorism as a way to scare up votes, because it's a threat that should rally the country around our common enemies. That is the judgment we need at 3:00 a.m., and that's the judgment that I am running for as president of the United States of America. Thank you very much. Thank you.
{"commentId":1523968,"threadId":"227231","contentId":"1335081","authorDomain":"indecent"}
- 15 votes
#1 - Fri Feb 29, 2008 3:30 PM EST{"commentId":1524615,"authorDomain":"blahmni"}
Point: Obama
{"commentId":1524615,"threadId":"227231","contentId":"1335081","authorDomain":"blahmni"}
- 13 votes
{"commentId":1524995,"authorDomain":"danish"}
So, she stole it from the Republican campaign manual and used it.
This is the best and, perhaps, only argument that really counts, in the likely Obama vs. McCain face-off. The Republican side will try to create the image of Obama arguing trade politics with Hu Jintao, nuclear proliferation with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and just about anything with whoever follows Putin in the March 2008 elections in Russia. Then they will cut to McCain laying it out in simple terms that every man can understand - something that rarely ever happens in diplomacy, and only with disastrous results - and try to get the Americans to vote for him, because he is hardheaded, and it is better to be safe than sorry.
Wait and observe...
{"commentId":1524995,"threadId":"227231","contentId":"1335081","authorDomain":"danish"}
- 6 votes
{"commentId":1525203,"authorDomain":"marygj"}
I am here in Texas and MSNBC and CNN gave Hillary's ad airtime all day long UNTIL Barack's response hit. Now I don't know who is running this show but they have got it together. Yes, Obama responded above but within a few hours he had an ad up in response. Amazing! Here it is. Believe me the media is flabbergasted at his lightening quick response to her attacks!! WOW!
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/29/718431.aspx
Now the news stations are playing his response. She got free airtime all day. But he hit back and hit back hard and right on point. Notice what he says and who it is directed to -- not only Hillary but McCain too.
{"commentId":1525203,"threadId":"227231","contentId":"1335081","authorDomain":"marygj"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":1525215,"authorDomain":"danish"}
within a few hours he had an ad up in response.
A brilliant response too, a tad bid more aggressive than the original Clinton ad, but nowhere near "personal".
{"commentId":1525215,"threadId":"227231","contentId":"1335081","authorDomain":"danish"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":1525925,"authorDomain":"gpnavonod"}
I stood up and I said that a war in Iraq would be unwise.
But Barak!....You were "standing up" in the middle of a cow pasture..... Who could hear you?
{"commentId":1525925,"threadId":"227231","contentId":"1335081","authorDomain":"gpnavonod"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1526139,"authorDomain":"JoulesBeef"}
But Barak!....You were "standing up" in the middle of a cow pasture..... Who could hear you?
mainy claim to have been against the war but have no evidence for it or voted for the war and said, well if I knew now... well barak has evidence and if he was in a cow pasture, there wouldn't have been.. he was a senator int he illinois senate and stated unequivically that he was against the iraqi war.
Dis him if you want but try to keep it on policies and I will do the same.
{"commentId":1526139,"threadId":"227231","contentId":"1335081","authorDomain":"JoulesBeef"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1526203,"authorDomain":"chasing"}
Point: Obama
Eh, I don't know, it might be. I am impressed with the quickness and pointedness of Obama's parry, yet polls consistently show that people worried about international concerns and safety side with Clinton. Either this back-and-forth will harden their line, or might actually cause them to re-think it, which would mean Clinton will have shot herself in the foot. Her base seems to be holding, however, so I don't think that's the case. So really, it's point: Obama, only in the sense that it's wasted money on her part (I don't think she convinced many undecideds with her ad, and he did effectively parry it), and she doesn't have a whole lot of that floating around, these days. Otherwise it's pretty much a draw. If an entertaining one.
{"commentId":1526203,"threadId":"227231","contentId":"1335081","authorDomain":"chasing"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":1526977,"authorDomain":"indecent"}
But Barak!....You were "standing up" in the middle of a cow pasture..... Who could hear you?
First, he was a state senator in Chicago. That's the third largest city in the nation, and not even close to a cow pasture.
Second, even if you want to call Illinois a cow pasture, isn't it kind of sad that Mr. Cow Pasture had better judgment than the morons in DC?
Third, it's spelled Barack.
{"commentId":1526977,"threadId":"227231","contentId":"1335081","authorDomain":"indecent"}
- 8 votes
{"commentId":1527559,"authorDomain":"hamid"}
You See, I told you Hillary Clinton was really a republican in a democratic pants suit! She uses fear because she responds to fear herself, she understands that language and mentality. That's why she's been such a supporter of the Iraq war, that is, right up until she started her campaign...
{"commentId":1527559,"threadId":"227231","contentId":"1335081","authorDomain":"hamid"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1530870,"authorDomain":"gpnavonod"}
First, he was a state senator in Chicago. That's the third largest city in the nation, and not even close to a cow pasture.
Which means he has no vote to stand behind on the issue . So how much credit can you give for being "present" in the pasture? Talk is cheap when your vote is non- existant.
Second, even if you want to call Illinois a cow pasture, isn't it kind of sad that Mr. Cow Pasture had better judgment than the morons in DC?
Back to the Future ......Now that he's in DC .... he votes like the rest of the morons to continue to fund the war without any limitations or protest. Maybe it's the difference in the air there?
But then... that would make you right about him being for change...
{"commentId":1530870,"threadId":"227231","contentId":"1335081","authorDomain":"gpnavonod"}
{"commentId":1530883,"authorDomain":"marygj"}
Would you people go and find out what a "present" vote in the Illinois legislature. Better yet, are there any Illinois Viners who can explain this to outsiders?
{"commentId":1530883,"threadId":"227231","contentId":"1335081","authorDomain":"marygj"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1531428,"authorDomain":"indecent"}
First you say he has no vote. Then you claim he voted present? Which is it?
And I'd rather him vote Present than yes or no on large bills. He, unlike 98% of congress, takes the time to read each bill and put thought into it. He doesn't sway until the bill is how it should be. He votes Present when he is continuing to work on the committees that put the bill out, when he is trying to change something in the bill. Which is FAR better than those that shrug at the pork and the bull@!$%# in the bills and just stamp them with a yes.
They all - democrats, republicans - vote for the funding, because taking away the funding does not make the troops come back. We've already seen that when there was an attempt to filibuster and not fund them back in september. All that happened was troops were not getting what they needed (even more so than already). Not funding the troops was simply meaning not getting them helmets and food. It wasn't bringing them home.
{"commentId":1531428,"threadId":"227231","contentId":"1335081","authorDomain":"indecent"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1532710,"authorDomain":"gpnavonod"}
indecent
First you say he has no vote. Then you claim he voted present? Which is it?
So how much credit can you give for being "present" in the pasture? Talk is cheap when your vote is non- existant.
pres�ent NOUN:
A moment or period in time perceptible as intermediate between past and future; now.
READ/ COMPREHEND/ THINK/ RSVP....Good idea,no?
Who said he voted on the war while in the pasture?
Are you having a problem with the word "present"?...I wonder why?
{"commentId":1532710,"threadId":"227231","contentId":"1335081","authorDomain":"gpnavonod"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1533874,"authorDomain":"indecent"}
From Mary's post, I'm not the only one who thought you were saying he voted "Present". It's hard to understand when you're typing gibberish anyway.
Just because you can't vote on an issue doesn't mean your stance on it is any less valid. He talked against the war, even if it was "just" from a "pasture", you know, that pasture in Chicago, wherever the hell it is. Perhaps it's near O'Hare.
{"commentId":1533874,"threadId":"227231","contentId":"1335081","authorDomain":"indecent"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1524362,"authorDomain":"agio"}
I know who I want answering the phone, and it ain't Mark Penn.
{"commentId":1524362,"threadId":"227231","contentId":"1335081","authorDomain":"agio"}
- 2 votes
#2 - Fri Feb 29, 2008 4:33 PM EST{"commentId":1524798,"authorDomain":"platypus60"}
Is Bill supporting Obama now?
"If one candidate's trying to scare you and the other one's trying to get you to think, if one candidate's appealing to your fears and the other one's appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope." Bill Clinton 2004.
{"commentId":1524798,"threadId":"227231","contentId":"1335081","authorDomain":"platypus60"}
- 16 votes
#3 - Fri Feb 29, 2008 6:04 PM EST{"commentId":1525091,"authorDomain":"jaawalla"}
Wow. Great line. Hopefully Bill won't be too bitter to let Obama use that quote against McCain in the general election.
{"commentId":1525091,"threadId":"227231","contentId":"1335081","authorDomain":"jaawalla"}
- 9 votes
{"commentId":1526014,"authorDomain":"blahmni"}
Lol ~ he's already using it!
{"commentId":1526014,"threadId":"227231","contentId":"1335081","authorDomain":"blahmni"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":1526136,"authorDomain":"platypus60"}
Ha! Thanks, blahmni and Jace. With Bill on our side, who needs superdelegates. Or autodelegates, or whatever.
{"commentId":1526136,"threadId":"227231","contentId":"1335081","authorDomain":"platypus60"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1524849,"authorDomain":"nikwax"}
she's really getting desparate.
{"commentId":1524849,"threadId":"227231","contentId":"1335081","authorDomain":"nikwax"}
- 4 votes
#4 - Fri Feb 29, 2008 6:16 PM EST{"commentId":1525197,"authorDomain":"AsymptoticToZero"}
I think it's a fair ad in that there's legitimate concern that Obama would make a weak, naive, accommodationist president who would damage America's national security. However, considering that the Clintons were asleep at the wheel for eight years, for the Hillary to seriously put herself forward as the better alternative is ridiculous. It's a virtual certainly that any Dem presidency will mean four or eight years in which Islamic extremists, Russia, and China beef up, causing more and more mischief everywhere, whereupon the electorate will once again turn to the Republicans, the party with a spine.
{"commentId":1525197,"threadId":"227231","contentId":"1335081","authorDomain":"AsymptoticToZero"}
- 2 votes
#5 - Fri Feb 29, 2008 7:51 PM EST{"commentId":1526979,"authorDomain":"indecent"}
I would rather have a naive President who will encounter all situations with a mindset of "Whats best for the people of the US?" than one with an itchy trigger finger who's been begging to go to war with Iran for the past four years.
{"commentId":1526979,"threadId":"227231","contentId":"1335081","authorDomain":"indecent"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":1528487,"authorDomain":"Jivatmanx"}
A republican president would mean another four years of a war with accounting practices for it that would make ENRON proud, and a mentally, and physically strained military that could scarcely respond to a disaster or attack here, much less abroad.
Another four years of massive subsidies for corporations, especially in Oil and Agribusiness(Primarily Meat and Corn, primary causes of the obesity epidemic).
Note that Osama Bin Laden now says that his goal is to bankrupt America. Even if he, with the hundreds of billions being spent on security now, could organize another 9/11, the number of deaths would pale in comparison to the number who die each year of easily preventable diseases, which people cannot afford to treat because the government is devaluing their currency and has a terribly expensive and inefficient healthcare system that caters to corporations.
But yeah, a crazy, evil guy in the hills of Afghanistan is an easier and more emotional enemy than the less visible elitists who have stolen our country from us.
{"commentId":1528487,"threadId":"227231","contentId":"1335081","authorDomain":"Jivatmanx"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1525248,"authorDomain":"marygj"}
Don't give me that split second decision crap either. I cannot imagine a situation where the president has to make a split second decision on his own. I am not buying it. I prefer judgement and she needs to get off that experience crap because she has nothing in her resume that makes her any more qualified than Barack Obama, period. If people would check her credentials they will see what she has done over 35 years. 15 years at a corporate law firm Rose Law Firm in Arkansas, 6 years on Walmart board (fighting against people she purports to support now) and 8 years as First Lady. What in her 8 years as Senator from NY gives her anything special? Naught...
{"commentId":1525248,"threadId":"227231","contentId":"1335081","authorDomain":"marygj"}
- 6 votes
#6 - Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:11 PM EST{"commentId":1526211,"authorDomain":"chasing"}
You're right, it isn't split decision, but it can (I'm sure) be very near to it. But certainly there's war rooms and advisors and aides, so it's not like you respond just BAM right there, yourself, middle of the night. However, the ad isn't directed at you, or me, who realize that. And it also is evocative of national safety - split decision or not - and Clinton still holds the lead in that segment. I do question that maybe she might have shot herself in the foot with the ad, though, especially given Obama's prompt response.
{"commentId":1526211,"threadId":"227231","contentId":"1335081","authorDomain":"chasing"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1525364,"authorDomain":"catmomtx"}
Obama's add is a copy of hers as usual. It is just as fear mongering as hers but he gets a pass? I just don't get it. Hillary's add was legitimate and those talking about fear mongering are just keeping their head in the sand. Because of George Bush and the Republican Congress our country is in bad shape. Yes people hate us. Yes, bad, crazy things can happen. It's our reality. As far as the ad is concerned, how presumptive of Obama to think she was only referring to him. By the way, Obama was not in the Senate to hear the arguments made for going to war, he was not a Senator from New York whose state was devasted by the attack, and he has voted the same as Hillary on every vote made to continue the war.
{"commentId":1525364,"threadId":"227231","contentId":"1335081","authorDomain":"catmomtx"}
- 2 votes
#7 - Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:50 PM EST{"commentId":1526059,"authorDomain":"gpnavonod"}
and he has voted the same as Hillary on every vote made to continue the war.
Now! Now!.......He's just "Supporting the Troops" now!
Gone are the days of taunting from the balcony!
{"commentId":1526059,"threadId":"227231","contentId":"1335081","authorDomain":"gpnavonod"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1526237,"authorDomain":"twiz"}
Uh, who else is she running the ad against? Kucinich? (speculation:)He's mocking her ad, shamelessly, because he feels that the issues it raises are secondary and/or unrealistic and doesn't make the kind of argument that this election needs to be about.(end speculation)
Does it really matter that Hillary had some institutional support and really wanted a Senate seat in a(n incredibly Democratic) state that happened to be affected by 9/11? She coasted into the Democratic senate nomination for New York UNOPPOSED. Picture this: running unopposed in a state where the general election is a lock. Why didn't she run in Arkansas, or Illinois? She's got more hometown credibility there. Perhaps she fears losing? Perhaps she fears it enough to cry?
What about the senators from Virginia? Are they qualified to be commander-in-chief because a building was hit in their constituency? What about the other New York Senator?
Hillary didn't even HEAR the arguments for OR against the war by not reading the National Intelligence Estimate provided to her.
Your post rambles somewhere in between "the war was good", "the war was bad", "people will try to hurt us :(", "obama thinks this is all about him", and "9/11". I'm glad you could string those topics together, but let's work on composition next time, okay?
{"commentId":1526237,"threadId":"227231","contentId":"1335081","authorDomain":"twiz"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":1526372,"authorDomain":"platypus60"}
Correction: Obama voted to support our troops thrown into a meat grinder. Money for armor for our young folks who should never have been thrown into Iraq's impossible conflict to begin with. Our people are there. They shouldn't be there, but Obama won't underfund their safety.
Wouldn't be needed if we had a sane leader to start with. Obama voted for our troops, who are sacrificed by an idiot.
{"commentId":1526372,"threadId":"227231","contentId":"1335081","authorDomain":"platypus60"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":1528797,"authorDomain":"marygj"}
Obviously he did not need to be in Congress and neither did so many other Americans who did not believe we should go to war with Iraq. I love how people sit in their cozy homes, cars or wherever they might be while our military does three and four tours of duty and say oh we need to stay there.
Suit the hell up and go fight the darn war yourselves.
{"commentId":1528797,"threadId":"227231","contentId":"1335081","authorDomain":"marygj"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1525397,"authorDomain":"catmomtx"}
Uh Pseudonihilist, in case you didn't know the country was attacked on George Bush's watch. The first World Trade Center incident happened just one month into Bill Clinton's first term. He did not spend the next eight years blaming Bush, Sr. The people who perpetuated the attack were captured, tried, convicted and are in jail. It's silly to continue to blame Bush's failures on Bill Clinton who hasn't been in office for the past seven years. Besides, if the Republican Congress had paid half as much attention to the country rather than trying to destroy Bill Clinton, maybe they would have caught something other than Monica.
{"commentId":1525397,"threadId":"227231","contentId":"1335081","authorDomain":"catmomtx"}
- 2 votes
#8 - Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:57 PM EST{"commentId":1525464,"authorDomain":"njb"}
Agreed...but to be factually correct, all they caught was a blue dress.
A blue dress that cost us how many millions of dollars? Every American should get a thread of it, since we paid for it.
{"commentId":1525464,"threadId":"227231","contentId":"1335081","authorDomain":"njb"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1526160,"authorDomain":"JoulesBeef"}
Don't forget the millenium attack was prevented on clintons watch and the GOP lead congress refused to give clinton the same powers they are now telling us will kill us if we don't give them powers to bush.
(i happened to agree with the gop back then when they said what clinton wanted amounted to be elected king.. apparently that is only dangerous, if you are a dem, otherwise it is downright nessary)
I think pseudonihilist is hoping most people too young to rememeber the facts.
Oh and last.. we didn't know who attacked the cole until 2001.. just before it is brought up.
{"commentId":1526160,"threadId":"227231","contentId":"1335081","authorDomain":"JoulesBeef"}
{"commentId":1528805,"authorDomain":"marygj"}
Maybe if the GOP had not been claiming a "Wag the Dog" scenario Bill Clinton would have acted. Damned if you do damned if you don't is the situation the almighty, holier than thou Republican party put him in. The irony is that this bunch of hypocrits were doing the same thing Bill was doing.
{"commentId":1528805,"threadId":"227231","contentId":"1335081","authorDomain":"marygj"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1525500,"authorDomain":"dtagair"}
Obama was not in the Senate or House to vote on the war so all we have is his word that hw would have voted against it. More likely he would have been absent from the Senate that day if you go by his record in Chicargo which shows he voted 129 times present so he would not have to take a position on important issues facing his community. Also the times there was an outcry about the way he voted how he claimed to have meant to vote the other way but made a mistake. So he did not have the conviction to stand by his vote and claimed he meant to vote the other way as an excuse. Sounds like bull to me. This is a poor example of showing he has good judgement. Was it good judgement to do business with Resko? Well he got a good property deal out of it for himself but what did he give up for it?
Was it good judgement to go to Kenya in 2006 and support his cousin's run for President of that country which was our ally? Kenya is still in a state of uproar due to the genocide Obama's cousin incited when he lost the election. Why hasn't the media explored Obama's trip to Kenya in 2006 to see what really happened and how he made very bad judgement calls while there. By the way his cousin is a radical Islamic Muslim and you cannot believe Obama did not know this.
{"commentId":1525500,"threadId":"227231","contentId":"1335081","authorDomain":"dtagair"}
- 3 votes
#9 - Fri Feb 29, 2008 9:24 PM EST{"commentId":1526175,"authorDomain":"renaissancelady46"}
@ Sgt Thank you. I found an article today on how Obama made his meteoric rise. I forget the man's name that decided Obama would become his "king". Many important legislative pieces in the Illinois Senate were given to Obama as the sponsor. It was a shame because the legislators who had worked so hard on these legislative pieces were disenfranchised.
{"commentId":1526175,"threadId":"227231","contentId":"1335081","authorDomain":"renaissancelady46"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1526998,"authorDomain":"indecent"}
Yes, how dare he support his brother? You must remember when you run for office in the United States, you must forsake your family if they don't fit into the perfect Christian ideals. Gag me.
The Rezko deal has been repeatedly, repeatedly, oh, and repeatedly shot down. Obama did nothing wrong. You can keep talking about it, posting seeds about it, and its not going to change the fact his name was cleared and he did nothing wrong.
And I can find no grounds for the fact you say his brother is a radical. Please cite sources. The only thing I can find saying that is some conservative morons blog, and thats hardly newsworthy. Next time you show up on my thread, you better have sources.
{"commentId":1526998,"threadId":"227231","contentId":"1335081","authorDomain":"indecent"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":1527159,"authorDomain":"clueless-1"}
Sgt David A. Tartaglia
Sgt- makes one believe you are in the military,wish you were,or perhaps was at one time.Now the question I have is you took an oath to defend the Constitution,where have you been while this nut job in the White House has been calling the Constitution that GD piece of paper and violating the freedoms of this nation and its people.I notice you have much to say about the behavior of others but sadly are lacking in yours.!!!
{"commentId":1527159,"threadId":"227231","contentId":"1335081","authorDomain":"clueless-1"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1527091,"authorDomain":"consciousempress"}
indecent, i like you...
{"commentId":1527091,"threadId":"227231","contentId":"1335081","authorDomain":"consciousempress"}
- 1 vote
#10 - Sat Mar 1, 2008 9:43 AM EST{"commentId":1527238,"authorDomain":"indecent"}
Is it my scathing wit, soft elbows, or set of plush animals?
Thanks ^^ And welcome to vine!
{"commentId":1527238,"threadId":"227231","contentId":"1335081","authorDomain":"indecent"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1528539,"authorDomain":"tbh29520"}
In Hillary's ad, the phone rings over and over and over again! Why didn't someone pick up the phone? In Obama's ad the phone was picked up on the 3rd ring! Perhaps Hillary did not pick up the phone because it was 3:00am afterall. This is known in Catholic mythology as the witching hour. I am sure by all of her evil doings recently that she was extremely busy at this hour calculating her next move!
{"commentId":1528539,"threadId":"227231","contentId":"1335081","authorDomain":"tbh29520"}
- 3 votes
#11 - Sat Mar 1, 2008 5:18 PM EST{"commentId":1530907,"authorDomain":"gpnavonod"}
Catholic mythology ?
The term "witching hour" can also refer to the period from midnight to 3am.
In neopaganism , it is sometimes used to refer solely to midnights occurring during a full moon,
Maybe you need some religion lessons?.....Yea!....Good starting place.
{"commentId":1530907,"threadId":"227231","contentId":"1335081","authorDomain":"gpnavonod"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1531761,"authorDomain":"tbh29520"}
The term "witching hour" can also refer to the period from midnight to 3am.
Really now..seems like that would be more than an hour....hmm maybe someone needs lessons in math? Yea!
{"commentId":1531761,"threadId":"227231","contentId":"1335081","authorDomain":"tbh29520"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1532489,"authorDomain":"gpnavonod"}
raven29520
The term "witching hour" can also refer to the period from midnight to 3am. Really now..seems like that would be more than an hour....hmm maybe someone needs lessons in math? Yea!
Catholic "mythology" ?[What's "Catholic Mythology" anyway?..... Is that like Greek mythology,Norse Mythology .........or "Protestant" Mythology?...or more like something you made up last night?]
Math Lesson:
Catholic equal neopaganism. ...as in "witching hour".... -------------------------is = to
need some religion lessons?.....
...Check your watch ..... it might be slow too.
{"commentId":1532489,"threadId":"227231","contentId":"1335081","authorDomain":"gpnavonod"}
{"commentId":1532792,"authorDomain":"tbh29520"}
"For those unaware about the 3am phenomena it is presented by many Christians as being the true 'Witching Hour' or 'Devil's Hour' when Demons and Spirits are strongest. This is apparently in mockery of the supposed hour of Christ's death at 3pm. Since the majority of Western civilization has at some point become saturated with the bloody symbolism of Christianity, it is understandable that many will think twice when glancing at their bedside alarm clocks late at night. Time Zones and seasonal variances are not applicable in determining this hour. To think that they are is overlooking the possible origins of such phenomena. Time is perceived in many different ways (whether fast or slow) and therefore whenever 3am rolls around for the person(s) in question then it dosn't matter if it is two hours later in another city or lunch time around the other side of the world."
* 2 weeks ago
Source(s):
The Catholic Church it was said that Jesus died on the cross at 3 am. Therefore becoming mythology of the catholic church.
...Check your watch...Hillary might be calling you!
{"commentId":1532792,"threadId":"227231","contentId":"1335081","authorDomain":"tbh29520"}
{"commentId":1533093,"authorDomain":"gpnavonod"}
"For those unaware about the 3am phenomena it is presented by many Christians as being the true 'Witching Hour' or 'Devil's Hour' when Demons and Spirits are strongest. This is apparently in mockery of the supposed hour of Christ's death at 3pm. Since the majority of Western civilization has at some point become saturated with the bloody symbolism of Christianity, it is understandable that many will think twice when glancing at their bedside alarm clocks late at night. Time Zones and seasonal variances are not applicable in determining this hour. To think that they are is overlooking the possible origins of such phenomena. Time is perceived in many different ways (whether fast or slow) and therefore whenever 3am rolls around for the person(s) in question then it dosn't matter if it is two hours later in another city or lunch time around the other side of the world." * 2 weeks ago Source(s): The Catholic Church it was said that Jesus died on the cross at 3 am. Therefore becoming mythology of the catholic church. ...Check your watch...Hillary might be calling you!
According to the Catholic church Christ died at 3 pm on Good Friday...not 3 am.
So stop reading your Witchcraft books and get your story straight from those you claim to speak for. The Romans had this thing about sleeping in the wee hours of the morning..so they took care of business in the daytime. Not to mention... since there were no stadium lights ....the crowd could learn the "Lesson" better in the daylight.
You obviously are sourcing some wacky information. It's your choice to indulge in any nonsense you like.
But you do think Obama is the next Messiah..so that does explain a lot.
{"commentId":1533093,"threadId":"227231","contentId":"1335081","authorDomain":"gpnavonod"}
{"commentId":1533296,"authorDomain":"tbh29520"}
No I don't think Obama is the next Messiah...but neither do I think Hillary is the next Mother Teresa either!
{"commentId":1533296,"threadId":"227231","contentId":"1335081","authorDomain":"tbh29520"}
{"commentId":1533328,"authorDomain":"gpnavonod"}
neither do I think Hillary is the next Mother Teresa either!
that makes two of us
{"commentId":1533328,"threadId":"227231","contentId":"1335081","authorDomain":"gpnavonod"}
{"commentId":1530130,"authorDomain":"lawnorder"}
Yes, we don't want the Clintons answering the phone.
What did Bill do when the phone rang about:
1) Attack on USS Cole
2) Bombing of US Embassies
3) "We've got Osama Bin Laden, do you want him?"
to name but a few blunders in an administration that cared more about political correctness and nothing about the lives of those who died.
We don't want McCain answering the phone either - he's far too conflicted by his own, awful personal experiences.
Barack Obama - I'll sleep safe knowing he'll answer that phone, and knowing he'll make the right decision because he has the intellectual ability and the personal integrity to do the right thing.
{"commentId":1530130,"threadId":"227231","contentId":"1335081","authorDomain":"lawnorder"}
- 1 vote
#12 - Sun Mar 2, 2008 3:03 AM EST{"commentId":1530274,"authorDomain":"chasing"}
Are you visiting the sins of the husband on that of the wife? And it's easy to say "Oh, Osama is a great evil who shall do us irreparable harm" now hindsight being 20/20 and all, but at the time there is no reason to doubt that Bill Clinton though he was making the right call.
I stood on a Dublin street when the embassies were hit. You could tell who were the Americans, and who were not, by the shock and steely resolve on their faces. And yet it wasn't until years later that they seemed to have decided we should have done more. Like what, exactly? Invade a sovereign nation, perhaps?
{"commentId":1530274,"threadId":"227231","contentId":"1335081","authorDomain":"chasing"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1530749,"authorDomain":"tbh29520"}
Bill Clinton did say that when you vote for Hillary you get two for the price of one. That the Clinton campaign is a family campaign. Therefore, the answer to the question is yes-you do have to take into consideration the Clinton Presidency as they will be consulting with each other to make decisions!
{"commentId":1530749,"threadId":"227231","contentId":"1335081","authorDomain":"tbh29520"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":1531284,"authorDomain":"gpnavonod"}
when you vote for Hillary you get two for the price of one.
consideration the Clinton Presidency as they will be consulting with each other to make decisions!
I hope they're not asking Michelle Obama.....We're really not sure how she feels about her country on any given day.
{"commentId":1531284,"threadId":"227231","contentId":"1335081","authorDomain":"gpnavonod"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1531431,"authorDomain":"indecent"}
I hope they're not asking Michelle Obama.....We're really not sure how she feels about her country on any given day.
Give me a break. You obviously didn't hear the actual speech and context behind the "I'm finally really proud of my country" statement, or you wouldn't be saying such idiotic things.
{"commentId":1531431,"threadId":"227231","contentId":"1335081","authorDomain":"indecent"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1532573,"authorDomain":"gpnavonod"}
{"commentId":1532764,"authorDomain":"gpnavonod"}
Barack Obama - I'll sleep safe knowing he'll answer that phone, and knowing he'll make the right decision because he has the intellectual ability and the personal integrity to do the right thing.
Ring!..Ring!...........Hello?.......Mr. who?....... Oh Yea!.. That's me!....Yes or no?........ahhhhhh??...."Present??"
{"commentId":1532764,"threadId":"227231","contentId":"1335081","authorDomain":"gpnavonod"}
{"commentId":1531153,"authorDomain":"lawnorder"}
"the Clinton campaign is a family campaign" Yes, but you won't get 2 for the price of one. Where do you think Bill will be at 3 o'clock in morning?
As for the 20/20 thing, on OBL, there was credible evidence of the threat he posed, capturing him would have been easy, and we'd never have ended up where we are today. You're still in love with the Clintons and believe me, it's ok for Democrats to stop apologizing for them. It's over for the Clinton, let's work towards a brighter, smarter presidency that isn't tainted with scandals and behooved to cronies.
{"commentId":1531153,"threadId":"227231","contentId":"1335081","authorDomain":"lawnorder"}
- 1 vote
#13 - Sun Mar 2, 2008 1:06 PM EST{"commentId":1531809,"authorDomain":"tbh29520"}
Bill and McCain will both probably be out bedding lobbyist. How could anyone help put these men into office knowing their moral values?
{"commentId":1531809,"threadId":"227231","contentId":"1335081","authorDomain":"tbh29520"}
{"canLink":false,"threadId":"227231","isPrivate":false}
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
Start Tracking
Stop TrackingCOMPANY STUFF:
LEGAL STUFF:
- © 2005-2009 Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine is a property of
