Giuliani's former mistress Judith Nathan and billing records

[tommybill]

<p>ACCORDING TO A MEMO WRITTEN BY JONATHAN FALWELL OF NOVEMBER 30 OF THIS YEAR WHILE SPEAKING TO AN AUDIENCE AT LIBERTY UNIVERSITY, A SCHOOL FOUNDED BY JONATHAN’S FATHER JERRY FALWELL, GOVERNOR HUCKABEE, “ said that Divine providence was responsible for his recent surge in the polls in Iowa.”</p>

<p>Now we know</p>

<p>Read the memo: [Jerry</a> Falwell Ministries](<a href=“http://www.falwell.com/index.cfm?PID=16037]Jerry”>http://www.falwell.com/index.cfm?PID=16037)</p>

[citygirlsmom]

<p>ewwwww…if you have turn to God for whatever goes right, does God hate you if it goes wrong…</p>

<p>scary stuff that God has chosen the next president…or so Huckabee thinks</p>

<p>creepy stuff</p>

[bluebayou]

<p>TD, point-by-point: LOL</p>

[bz2010]

<p>

If you want a President who will make you feel safe, </p>

<p>McCain doesn’t. I’m more worried about another pointless war we can’t afford and will serve as an even bigger recruiting poster for radical Islamists.

</p>

<p>Right - like al Qaida is really “bustin’ out” right now. We need to stay strong. McCain would make sure of that.</p>

<p>

optimistic & confident, </p>

<p>Preferred but insufficient. Bush is optimistic and confident and look where that’s gotten us.

</p>

<p>I said, “If you want a president who will make YOU feel optimistic & confident”. McCain’s experience, knowledge, and courage would do that.</p>

<p>

who will have the knowledge & experience to know what to do </p>

<p>Well, based on his policy stances he doesn’t have it now and I don’t think we can afford to wait.

</p>

<p>McCain is right on the money about Fiscal Responsibility, National Security, Immigration, Social Security, Education, etc. No waiting necessary. No on-the-job training needed!</p>

<p>

& have the guts to do it,</p>

<p>Back to Bush again. Having guts is important but only if you have them the right way. McCain doesn’t impress

</p>

<p>Well, if over five years in the Hanoi Hilton doesn’t impress, don’t know what will. McCain has two sons on active duty - on serving IN IRAQ. He can be trusted to make good decisions regarding use of the military. His campaigns against Pork-Barrell spending & improper actions by Congress demonstrate that he isn’t afraid to speak up for what is best for our country. No other candidate has any such credentials or record. </p>

<p>

who will put his own personal agenda aside to do what is right for the country, </p>

<p>Well, I’m not sure that I want someone who doesn’t pursue his own personal agenda. What do you mean? I want someone whose agenda is close to mine. McCain’s isn’t.

</p>

<p>I’m saying that McCain will step up to the plate & try to get things done that are in the best interest of this country, regardless of how his might affect his “political career” (unlike others who sit on the bench until some “political wind” tells them what position to play!). He’s been at odds w/ the “Christian Coalition” even tho’ some people have said he needs them to get elected, for example. Some Republicans don’t like him because he will work w/ democrats when necessary. He’s ticked people off in congress because he has spoken out against their pet pork projects. Is your agenda congressional paralysis and over-spending??</p>

<p>

who is fiscally conservative (to the point of displeasing some people!)… </p>

<p>There are nine-and-sixty ways of being fiscally conservative. Rolling back the Bush tax cuts that benefit the wealthy is a good thing. Putting our military adventurism on the budget books is a good thing. Cutting government services in lieu of repealing the Bush tax cuts is a bad thing. McCain is…clear as mud.

</p>

<p>McCain wasn’t in favor of the Bush Tax Cuts as I remember. The only Republican to oppose them I believe. McCain is in favor of tax cuts ONLY if it is accompanied by controlled spending - does that clarify it for you?</p>

<p>

I could go on here, </p>

<p>Well…yes…

Ah, so you agree that there are many more positives to a McCain Administration than have even been mentioned here. Good!</p>

<p>

but you get the idea! </p>

<p>I get it but don’t buy it.

</p>

<p>I bet it isn’t the first time you’ve been wrong!</p>

<p>

It all comes back to John McCain. All of the issues you have with all of the other candidates just fall away when you consider McCain! </p>

<p>No they don’t. How do you manage to misread me so thoroughly?

</p>

<p>I guess I overestimated you. Sorry.</p>

<p>

Forget Giuliani’s dalliances, Romney’s flip-flopping & sanctuary state, Huckabee’s inexperience w/ National Security, Clinton’s corruption, etc. and cast your vote for a true American Hero! </p>

<p>Being a “hero” is a lousy qualification for public office.

</p>

<p>I didn’t say it was a “qualification”, but it is a great quality!</p>

<p>

He can lead America thru this crazy time & bring us out on the other side better than ever! </p>

<p>An unsubstantiated assertion based on nothing more than hope.

</p>

<p>Not unsubstantiated at all - I have McCain’s record to examine.<br>
And what’s the matter w/ having “hope” in our government? That would be a GOOD thing, right? </p>

<p>

You know it’s true! </p>

<p>No I don’t.

</p>

<p>lol. nanny nanny boo boo to you too!</p>

<p>

So be sure to VOTE! </p>

<p>I certainly will. Hillary…more balls than any of her opponents.

</p>

<p>I THOUGHT I noticed a five o’clock shadow! I don’t dispute she has balls, but that’s ALL she’s got!</p>

<p>

It all comes back to John McCain. All of the issues you have with all of the other candidates just fall away when you consider McCain! </p>

<p>You know, Dr. Goebbels said that if you repeated something often enough, people would believe it. But in this case, repetition doesn’t serve.

</p>

<p>Ha! Repetition serves well when it’s TRUE! Thanks for repeating!</p>

[Pharmagal]

<p>Tommybill,</p>

<p>The NBC evening news reported today that Huckabee is now leading in Iowa.
If he wins Iowa, he will get quite a boost nationally too I suspect.
Despite his pro-life views, I really think he could be a strong contender. He seems to be far more sincere than Rudy and far more like-able as well. Big plus points for him in this regard. </p>

<p>Huckabee vs Hillary could be a tough race due to his “likeability factor”</p>

[thisoldman]

<p>^My favorite son and daughters (in law), Arkansas. MidAmerican leaders.</p>

[lealdragon]

<p>

ewwwww…if you have turn to God for whatever goes right, does God hate you if it goes wrong…</p>

<p>scary stuff that God has chosen the next president…or so Huckabee thinks</p>

<p>creepy stuff

</p>

<p>I agree. Creepy stuff! This is the same mentality that says ‘God will bless our nation’ to the exclusion of others and ‘God raised up bush to save our country.’</p>

<p>Very creepy.</p>

[cartera45]

<p>Huckabee seems like a nice enough man but, as the next president, he may get three Supreme Court nominations and he doesn’t believe in evolution. Doesn’t believe in evolution = three Supreme Court justices. That is really frightening to me.</p>

[tommybill]

<p>Pharmagal </p>

<p>I absolutely agree with your comment on the likeability factor. It is her weakness and his strength. </p>

<p>It will be interesting to see how the economic royalists in the Republican Party try to deal with Huck. They are split among themselves and as such don’t have the control of the party they are use to having. </p>

<p>If the real 3 way race develops Huck may be able to pick the R nominee among the other two.</p>

[tommybill]

<p>sjmom2329 in post 114…… “I won’t continue to discuss this with you – your words tell me all I need to know about your outlook.”</p>

<p>Please be nice to other posters.</p>

[sjmom2329]

<p>Right back at you, tommy.</p>

<p>Should I be flattered that I’m now the target du jour? You’ve already gone after 1sokkermom and zoosermom. Aren’t you tired of cyber-stalking yet?</p>

[bulletandpima]

<p>tommy,
might be wrong, she did not saying anything offensive. I took it as she understands what your points are and that the two of you would never see eye to eye. Also why do you post this now? Three days later and many posts later. If it was that upsetting to you, you chould have said something earlier.</p>

[tommybill]

<p>Post 171…Is name calling OK, or does accusing someone of cyber-stalking fall outside the bounds of proper CC posting?</p>

<p>I would like to hear what others think and have to say about not just this case of name calling but the issues of name calling in general.</p>

[bulletandpima]

<p>Huck will never win the nom, he is only rising now because people are finally looking at him (did well at the last debate, but was out of the fray). The attacks are going to start now and he will have to defend himself, which I think he won’t be able to do. Romney, Rudy and McCAin have had to spend months defending themselves while pushing their agenda, whereas, Huck hasn’t had to do this.
Tommy…I also find it interesting that you are not a republican, but have first hand knowledge on their beliefs and party.
Following your thought couldn’t the samd be said about the democrats. There is no clear front runner. Iowa has 2 polls one where Barak is leading by 4 points, one where Hillary is leading be the same amount, with Edwards in the margin of error. Thus, who do you believe has control over the dems?
Even all of the pundits can not come to a majority decision on who will be either noms.</p>

[bulletandpima]

<p>Tommy,</p>

<pre><code>Yes, saying cyber stalking was taking it a little too far, but how ABOUT ECONOMIC ROYALIST?

Political views are personal, I could easily have taken that comment as a slam to me personally.
I don’t know about the reason sjm said that (obviously there is a history), but was she right about comments you might have made to sokkermom and zoosermom? Is there a basis for her comment, or maybe they too feel like they were attacked for their position?
</code></pre>

[btm]

<p>tommy, is English your first language? Your writing style, as well as the nature of your responses, make me believe that you miscomprehend many statements of the opponents, resulting in your unfounded attacks on them, and it really starts looking more and more like a chronic pattern. This is not an offence, just an honest question. If this is your problem, you should say it. Nothing to be embarrassed about – I am not a native English speaker myself (as many can probably tell).</p>

[bulletandpima]

<p>My guess is that you are from a British background. Offence with a “c”, which is British, India, Australia, Canada. Am I in the ballpark?</p>

[btm]

<p>Nope, my first language is Russian :eek: (stating this very cautiously, because I am not Russian and don’t associate myself with Russia at all). I usually recognize my spelling mistakes while proofreading my posts, but who has time to do this? ;)</p>

[bulletandpima]

<p>I was just curious, lived in the UK for several years and they spell offense with a “c”. Also spell tire with a y. </p>

<p>Don’t worry about stating you’re from Russia, I don’t think that you need to defend yourself.</p>

<p>Also, I am 3rd gen. American, and I still make mistakes. Our fingers are sometimes faster than we can control. LOL</p>

[tommybill]

<p>Post #175…… “how ABOUT ECONOMIC ROYALIST”</p>

<p>A term FDR used in the 1930’s to describe the “Wall Street” Republicans, and the term has been in popular use every since then.</p>