Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Feelings, goals, interests, families...

Posted By: Patty on 2009-05-22
In Reply to: The key word is tolerance....(sm) - Just the big bad

yes. Normal no. Tolerance is far different than acceptance. I and no one in my huge family has ever harmed a person who indulges in homosexual acts. We are as tolerant as you can get as I imagine millions of others are. Just saying that homosexuality is wrong is construed to be intolerance or verbal abuse by the homosexual community.


Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

95 percent of WORKING families, not welfare families sm
Working families will get the tax break, not welfare families. The money will come from removing the tax breaks for the rich. Obama is going back to the exact tax structure Clinton had. That is when we were in the black. Bush came into office and gave the rich a break. Very simple to understand, but I guess not for Fox news watchers.
UN Inspectord say US lying again - this time about Iran nuclear goals.

Here we go again.  :-(


U.N. Inspectors Dispute Iran Report By House Panel
Paper on Nuclear Aims Called Dishonest


By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 14, 2006; A17


U.N. inspectors investigating Iran's nuclear program angrily complained to the Bush administration and to a Republican congressman yesterday about a recent House committee report on Iran's capabilities, calling parts of the document outrageous and dishonest and offering evidence to refute its central claims.


Officials of the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency said in a letter that the report contained some erroneous, misleading and unsubstantiated statements. The letter, signed by a senior director at the agency, was addressed to Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), chairman of the House intelligence committee, which issued the report. A copy was hand-delivered to Gregory L. Schulte, the U.S. ambassador to the IAEA in Vienna.


The IAEA openly clashed with the Bush administration on pre-war assessments of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Relations all but collapsed when the agency revealed that the White House had based some allegations about an Iraqi nuclear program on forged documents.


After no such weapons were found in Iraq, the IAEA came under additional criticism for taking a cautious approach on Iran, which the White House says is trying to build nuclear weapons in secret. At one point, the administration orchestrated a campaign to remove the IAEA's director general, Mohamed ElBaradei. It failed, and he won the Nobel Peace Prize last year.


Yesterday's letter, a copy of which was provided to The Washington Post, was the first time the IAEA has publicly disputed U.S. allegations about its Iran investigation. The agency noted five major errors in the committee's 29-page report, which said Iran's nuclear capabilities are more advanced than either the IAEA or U.S. intelligence has shown.


Among the committee's assertions is that Iran is producing weapons-grade uranium at its facility in the town of Natanz. The IAEA called that incorrect, noting that weapons-grade uranium is enriched to a level of 90 percent or more. Iran has enriched uranium to 3.5 percent under IAEA monitoring.


When the congressional report was released last month, Hoekstra said his intent was to help increase the American public's understanding of Iran as a threat. Spokesman Jamal Ware said yesterday that Hoekstra will respond to the IAEA letter.


Rep. Rush D. Holt (D-N.J.), a committee member, said the report was clearly not prepared in a manner that we can rely on. He agreed to send it to the full committee for review, but the Republicans decided to make it public before then, he said in an interview.


The report was never voted on or discussed by the full committee. Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.), the vice chairman, told Democratic colleagues in a private e-mail that the report took a number of analytical shortcuts that present the Iran threat as more dire -- and the Intelligence Community's assessments as more certain -- than they are.


Privately, several intelligence officials said the committee report included at least a dozen claims that were either demonstrably wrong or impossible to substantiate. Hoekstra's office said the report was reviewed by the office of John D. Negroponte, the director of national intelligence.


Negroponte's spokesman, John Callahan, said in a statement that his office reviewed the report and provided its response to the committee on July 24, '06. He did not say whether it had approved or challenged any of the claims about Iran's capabilities.


This is like prewar Iraq all over again, said David Albright, a former nuclear inspector who is president of the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security. You have an Iranian nuclear threat that is spun up, using bad information that's cherry-picked and a report that trashes the inspectors.


The committee report, written by a single Republican staffer with a hard-line position on Iran, chastised the CIA and other agencies for not providing evidence to back assertions that Iran is building nuclear weapons.


It concluded that the lack of intelligence made it impossible to support talks with Tehran. Democrats on the committee saw it as an attempt from within conservative Republican circles to undermine Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who has agreed to talk with the Iranians under certain conditions.


The report's author, Fredrick Fleitz, is a onetime CIA officer and special assistant to John R. Bolton, the administration's former point man on Iran at the State Department. Bolton, who is now ambassador to the United Nations, had been highly influential during President Bush's first term in drawing up a tough policy that rejected talks with Tehran.


Among the allegations in Fleitz's Iran report is that ElBaradei removed a senior inspector from the Iran investigation because he raised concerns about Iranian deception regarding its nuclear program. The agency said the inspector has not been removed.


A suggestion that ElBaradei had an unstated policy that prevented inspectors from telling the truth about Iran's program was particularly outrageous and dishonest, according to the IAEA letter, which was signed by Vilmos Cserveny, the IAEA's director for external affairs and a former Hungarian ambassador.


Hoekstra's committee is working on a separate report about North Korea that is also being written principally by Fleitz. A draft of the report, provided to The Post, includes several assertions about North Korea's weapons program that the intelligence officials said they cannot substantiate, including one that Pyongyang is already enriching uranium.


The intelligence community believes North Korea is trying to acquire an enrichment capability but has no proof that an enrichment facility has been built, the officials said.


© 2006 The Washington Post Company




Tell that to the families of the 100,000
Bet they might beg to differ.
I am sorry for their families.
x
My feelings exactly
unfortunately.
Just my feelings on it

Well, I don't know about any others, but to me that is a lot of money (quadruple what I'm used to making) and I don't feel the program's basic intent was to give financial help to people in that income bracket, the intent was to help the minimum wage earners who would not be able to afford insurance AT ALL even if it were offered through their employers.  If they set the cap that high, why bother to have a cap at all?


When I lived in Michigan I believe they had a similar program that was not based on income at all, but based on whether the parents were working or not.  It had been noticed that some people felt justified staying on welfare because they couldn't insure their children if they were working at minimum wage, so this was an incentive to get them to work.  It was very cheap (like $5 or $10 a month per child); at the time I had insurance through my employer and didn't utilize it, as I assumed it was mainly for minimum wage earners/those whose employers didn't offer any insurance.  Another reason I didn't utilize it was I assumed the coverage might be substandard to what I had, and less providers might be available that would take it.  Michiganders - correct me if I'm wrong about this program.


My feelings exactly......
These wars go back centuries. The Palistinians have never wanted peace and never will. There are many Palistinians and Israelites that have lived side by side in peace for the most part, until the Palistinian so-called leaders and just those that plain out hate start rearing their ugly heads again. If the Palistinian leaders weren't worried about their people before the bombings, why now? The terrorist leaders have never worried about the hospitals, schools, or anything else for that matter. Their country does live in a very primative existence compared to what it could but the terrorist leaders certainly do not want their people to think for themselves. Heaven forbid!!

If Palestine meant anything to those that "rule them", then they would see that Hamas is obliterated from the face of the earth but they won't and that is why this will continue until God calls us home......Israel and its people are God's chosen. Israel has been patient beyond belief with these people and at some point they have enough. Perhaps Palestians leaders should really put their concern in their own country instead of their putred hate and then change for the better could happen.
Yes, there are other families (liberals)

with the same problems as well.  Bush's family seems to take the lead as far as number of people who are drunks or drug addicts.


Now, if you don't mind, I think I will stop responding to your posts.  It's much more entertaining watching you talking to yourself on this board. 


I hope you find the attention you so desperately seek, but you're not getting any more of it from me.


Have a pleasant day, dear.


Tell that to the 7300 families who are..sm
without jobs.  How are they different from DHL's 9000????

The point is that America is crumbling down around our ears faster than we can sweep up.  I'm not blaming Bush, I'm not blaming Obama.  I am just stating the obvious.  America is dying..........is there a doctor in the house? 
I can only tell you what my feelings were this morning...sm
when I saw CP on Meet the Press. We already knew from the lead in that he was going to support one candidate or the other. I respect him so much that I was praying he would endorse Obama but had no real feeling of which way he would go. I listened to what he had to say and felt his pain that he was a republican through and through but just could not endorse McCain. He spoke of their friendship over many years and how much he respected him but could not abide the far right direction and the negative tone that the campaign had taken. He said he is an American first and thinks that Obama is better for America than McCain.
You mirrored my feelings exactly!

I find it amazing that some people on this board who are making such an issue of the Obama birth certificate nonissue on "Constitutional" grounds don't seem to care what Bush has done (and is continuing to do, even in his supposed last days in office) to this country.


I was pretty ambivalent about Bush when he was first (s)elected.  Quite frankly, Gore didn't excite me that much, either, and I was disappointed that in a country of a quarter of a billion people (at the time), these were the only TWO people we could find to run for President.


However, when Bush stood in that rubble with that megaphone, I developed huge respect for him and felt as if I was part of HIS America.


It was HIS very own actions that caused that respect to crumble, bit by bit, until I despised him and his "base," the same "base" on Wall Street that continues to rob us all to this very day.


He referred to the Constitution as a (expletive deleted) piece of paper, and his actions have proved his contempt for it.  (Isn't it telling that I can't even copy his entire statement here because it's considered too vulgar??!!)


I've never felt such distrust for my government until the last eight years.  I voted for Obama and will, like you, continue to trust him UNTIL he gives me a reason not to, and then I will be all over him (like you), but my days of just blanketly assuming my President is on the side of America and Americans are long gone.


I have mixed feelings on this.

I actually see both sides.  I don't like the idea of government telling businesses what they can and can't do because that is scary to let the government have so much control.  However, if you are getting government money, government should have a say in where that money goes.  This is a tough one for me.  Like I said, I can see both sides.


I know...the sky is falling....someone actually seeing things from both sides.  What are the chances? 


I have mixed feelings about
legalizing marijuana.  I think that cancer patients, MS patients, etc. should have the option of using if they so choose.  However, I'm afraid that if we legalize it, it will just lead to more of our kids using it because it is more socially acceptable.  One of my biggest pet peeves is those people at parks who think that because we are all outside that their cigarette smoke won't bother other people.  It is bad enough that non-smokers have to deal with THAT let alone legalizing marijuana and having to deal with people smoking that around us in parks, at ball parks, etc.  I seriously would be super ticked off if I saw someone smoking pot at my son's T-ball game whether it is legal or not. 
My personal feelings aside,,,
the three branches of government were meant to be equal. It was never intended for the judicial branch to be able to "overrule" the legislative branch or the voters whenever they felt that it was appropriate. It is abuse of what was meant to be a check and balance, but who checks the courts. It would appear that they have worked themselves into the final say and that is really unfortunate.
mixed feelings
I also have mixed feelings on the subject of alcohol. I am not in support of restricting this free choice at all, but what I would really like to see is more enforcement and stiffer penalties for drunken driving. Too many of these jerks have 5, 6, 7 and more drunk driving offenses, and keep on driving. Having lost my beautiful 32-year-old sister-in-law, mother of 3 and pregnant with her 4th baby, to a drunk driver with 3 prior offenses, His penalty was 10 years in jail, but he was out in a lot less. My SIL's husband is without a mate for life and her children are without a mother, too young at the time to really even remember her much. Our entire family has suffered a huge loss because of the misuse of alcohol. I get just nuts when I hear of some other drunk with multiple offenses continuing to drive - legally - and see some bartender who doesn't cut people off and get them a cab when it is obvious they have had way too much.
I never ever judge people by their families. sm
I hope no one ever judges me by mine!  No, I don't think he meant what he said.  I believe they mean he was a deputy for 17 years.  It said 17-year, not year-old.  :) 
Kids from families making as much as $83,000

Bush was lying about that, as the $83,000 income level limit was not a part of the bill that he vetoed.  Also, Democrats already worked with Republicans and compromised quite a bit to come up with a bill that many in both parties agreed upon - too bad only one guy matters, huh?  It's a sad day for many struggling middle-class families, but at least the issue has had a big spot light shined upon it - hopefully we can make some much-needed changes to make healthcare more affordable now.  All kids deserve healthcare, regardless of how much money their parents make or don't make!!!


Here's a section of a New York Times Article that states that the $83,000 guideline was not a part of the bill that was just vetoed:


"This program expands coverage, federal coverage, up to families earning $83,000 a year. That doesn't sound poor to me," the president told the Lancaster audience.
Dorn says that's not exactly right, either. "This bill would actually put new limits in place to keep states from going to very high-income levels. SCHIP money would no longer be available over 300 percent of the federal poverty level, which is about $60,000 for a family of four."


The president gets to make the $83,000 claim because New York had wanted to allow children in families with incomes up to four times the poverty level onto the program. That is, indeed, $82,600. The Department of Health and Human Services rejected New York's plan last month, and under the bill, that denial would stand. White House officials warn, however, that the bill would allow a future administration to grant New York's request.


link to the entire article:  http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14962685 


You have an issue...dissecting families.
Nice.
You are right, both sides have beautiful families sm
Obamas/Biden's and McCain/Palin.

Though, I don't know how real Cindy McCain is.
O will cut taxes for 95% to benefit WC families.
Then ask yourself which group you fall into. If you are in the top 5% economic class or area huge corporation, then by all means you should not vote for O. Take off your party hat and give this some real consideration.
The money from employees and their families...
is called "bundling." Lobbyists use "bundling" to get around finance limits.

The donkey in the room here, that you seem content to ignore, is that the Democrats, including Barack Obama, created this mess. They had a chance to stop it in 2005-2006 and did not. That is a fact. McCain tried to get legislation passed, they balked. If they did not do it for mnoney, I don't know why they did it...but the fact is, they did it, and WE are left holding the bag. And now, when Obama has a chance to help fix it, he is refusing again. Said "call me if you need me." Well I want a President I don't have to call. I expect when he is "multitasking" that he prioritizes, and the looming economic failure and the $700 billion it is going to take to get us out of it, is more important than a debate. What difference does 3 days make in the face of that?
Families abandon their own a lot anymore.
nm
Many of them are innocent and should be sent home to their families.
You should be more frightened of the American prisoners than the alleged terrorists that we have illegally held in Gitmo and tortured with the permission of George W. Bush and his cronies.

I am guessing Fort Leavenworth was there before you took up residence. If you don't like living near a prison, you are free to move.
Exactly. News states that 9/11 families
take the terrorists in his district of Pennsylvania.
U.S. Cole Families are supposedly

going to be on Fox news "later today." Just heard this. Supposedly they were at the White House in a meeting and after they left the meeting, they were not allowed back on the White House grounds. So, they're all going to Fox News to be interviewed.


 


U.S. Cole Families are supposedly

going to be on Fox news "later today." Just heard this. Supposedly they were at the White House in a meeting and after they left the meeting, they were not allowed back on the White House grounds. So, they're all going to Fox News to be interviewed.


 


Obama and USS Cole families
"It has been reported that the mother of one of the men killed on the USS Cole regrets that she voted for Obama, so there is at least 1 person who does not support him. "


Obama met with the families of the USS Cole, talked to them and listened to their concerns. That shows a lot of class and compassion. He explained that those who are responsible and need to be detained will be, and those who are not guilty will not be held. The one who just had the charges dropped will be recharged. They are trying to resolve the illegality/nebulous state of affairs at Guantanamo - not release dangerous terrorists into our midst. These, despite Rush's insistence, are not mutually inclusive terms.
Just saw 911 families speaking of their disgust with
nm
Again, Carla I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings

and I know this had to be a horrendous Christmas...


However, I just don't share your views about this administration.  I don't think trying to increase this country's intelligence and making the CIA and FBI better networking departments a controversial issue.  When asked the question what American has the Patriot Act violated the dems are strangely quiet.  They just continue to insist that Bush has done something wrong by increasing the intelligence level through wiretaps that every other American president was okayed to do.


I just don't understand congressmen and women standing up there having a hissy over Bush wire taps knowing, KNOWING, that the 4th plane on 9/11 was bound for an in session capital building.  To me the Dems are BLINDED by partisan politcs.  It frankly borders on sociopathic..


Bush has done nothing to to hurt Americans but only to protect them.   Frankly, I'm glad he's got the guts to do what it takes to keep America safe.  I don't know what *9/11 perps* you are talking about, but I don't think anyone has gone free.  I really don't know why in the heck you care about terrorists rotting in jail in the first place.  They are not American citizens and have none of the rights an American has.  If the military was allowed to do what it was supposed to do and try them they would be dispensed with, but throwing them in the American legal system  only condemed them to the piss poor, liberally manged American judicial system---who would much rather have a T.V. celebrity trial with all the trimmings than actually get down to work to putting some of the psychos and thugs behind bars or better yet....executing some the slime who prey on children and the innocent. 


While I will never convince you to support this president you need to see things for what they really are.  What is going to take for some of you to see that the president is not the problem but terrorism and partisan politics is?  I guess it may take a much broader hit than 9/11.  I pray it doesn't happen, but if you and the dems don't wake up and smell the coffee I'm afraid I could happen again.


of course I didn't share my feelings with my son, but thank you. nm
nm
You guys have the most dainty little feelings. sm
How DO you live in this world?  My goodness!  Ann Counter is HARDLY at the helm of the Republican party.  In fact, there are a lot on the right who don't like her either.  Can you guys talk about anything but hurt feelings? 
I looked at it....and I understand the feelings...
however, you know where I stand. I stand on the sides of the soldiers who said *yes, it is our right to do that, that does not mean we have to exercise it* and *I myself would not have done that.* I do not blame any of those soldiers for appearing, other than I believe, whether intentions are good or not, that they worsened their situation by emboldening the enemy. I see that that was not a question that was asked. If those soldiers had to answer that question truthfully, a whole different debate might be out there.

Again, I support their right to do whatever they think is best; I do not support their timing. The problem is that others also have to live with the consequences of their actions. We all have a lot of rights to do a lot of things...we simply choose where and when to exercise those rights...using discretion...and considering how our actions will affect others. I had a right to carry a sign in the park across from the White House while Clinton was in office saying the President of the US is an admitted albeit unindicted felon, but I did not exercise that right. That is basically what I am talking about. It is how you choose to exercise the right...not that you HAVE the right. And I don't think hiding behind *I have the right* always excuses the fallout from the exercising. But you knew we would not agree on this.

I also have a problem with a statement like *the majority of the country is against the war in Iraq,* and *the majority of the military is against the war in Iraq.*
When you look at the percentages on the polls they are very close. Without giving the actual percentages, it gives the impression of a much larger gap. And they quoted the Military Times poll for the other statement. The Military Times does not now nor has it ever represented the majority of the American Military, and there is a definite bias there. But I will stop on that subject now.

As to biased on the part of CBS...I believe CBS probably actively hunted for this story, and I expect those gentlemen were paid well for their appearances, though we will never know that, and it really does not matter in the grand scheme of things.


Again...my feelings about Barack Obama have nothing to do...
with his color and one wonders why people keep bringing that up. My issue is with his policies and the direction he wants to take the country in. I would feel the same if he were white. Or Asian. Or Hispanic...or anything else.

Just because he is elected doesn't mean I am miraculously going to change the value system I grew up with and still have. I would not expect you to change yours if the other side had won. I would expect they would have to win you over...just like he will have to win me over. Just because he won I did not become an Obama supporter. Nothing has changed for me since yesterday as far as how I feel about him. He himself understands he has to earn my respect. So, I say to him...go ahead, President Obama. We shall see how it turns out.
Thanks so much! Sums my feelings up perfectly. nm
x
My feelings exactly! It was a great show.
nm
I have mixed feelings on this subject.

I lost my father to emphysema so this subject is very touchy to me.  I HATE cigarettes with a passion.  On one side, I think it is great that they are going to control what tobacco companies put in their cigarettes.  My mom and I have said for years that all the crap they put in tobacco is just ridiculous.  Surely there is a way they can "clean up" their cigarettes so to speak.  I can't help but wonder how many years my dad lost in his life due to his cigarette smoking.  I remember vividly how many times he tried to quit and just couldn't do it.  The man literally smoked until one day he couldn't breathe and my mom called 911.  My dad was rushed to the hospital.  He had started to turn bluish gray.  He lived 4 days after that.  He never came home and that was 2 years ago. 


However, I agree that...what is next...alcohol....fast food...etc.  There are a lot of alcohol related illnesses and there are also a lot of illnesses related to being overweight.  Then we have the people on illegal drugs, etc.  I'm tired of government involvement in every little thing and yet at the same time I can't be unhappy with this whole tobacco thing.  Call me a hypocrit if you will, but cigarettes have cost me 2 grandpas, 1 uncle, and a dad.  I'd be happy if cigarettes were gone totally but that is just me.


Yes, but families are in Mexico and South America.
That was my point. Of course, I have no idea what prices are down there. Never been.
You ascribe me feelings about people whose name I have never mentioned here.
His book is a bestseller.  Evidently, many many people think he is credible.  The world of credibility does not revolve around you, gt.
I've got mixed feelings, too, Democrat.

I've never walked in their boots, and I can't imagine what it must be like to wonder if every single next step you take might be your last, especially if a soldier is completely worn out, physically, mentally and emotionally because he or she is forced to do multiple tours. 


I can't imagine what it might be like to see one or more of your buddies killed by a group of people who don't abide by the rules of war.  I can't imagine how long I'd be in a position like that before I would simply snap and go beserk.


These young people must be stretched beyond any human limit, and although I don't condone it or agree with it, at the same time, there's no way in my heart that I can condemn them. 


The military can punish them all they want.  But if these young Iraqi War soldiers are anything like the Vietnam War veterans I personally know, I can promise you that there is no prison more painful and punitive than their own personal prisons that their minds, hearts, bodies and souls inhabit. 


We don't know for sure that these soldiers weren't following orders.  They have a commander-in-chief who favors torture, so anything is possible.  Deep in my heart, I feel these soldiers are just being used scapegoats to protect those in the highest of command who gave the orders they followed.


I constantly condemn this war and the lies and liars that led to it, but I find it impossible to feel any ill feelings towards these soldiers for actions that may very well have been orders they were obeying from higher-ups.  I also can't condemn them if they just *snapped.*  A human being can only take so much, and I believe these poor soldiers have been stretched way beyond what most humans could endure.


She apparently had no hard feelings. She supported
nm
Okay, no hard feelings. I had to leave for a while but I'm baaaaaack. LOL

I wasn't sure on that since you posted under my message.


Did the bad cartoon hurt your wittle feelings?
Ugh, get over it already.
There are many families of the fallen who praise Bush and I'm not outraged. sm
I don't understand them, but there's no outrage.

Like I said before grief is different for everyone and for people to continue to say "she's done a 360," to me is not really relevent. Most intelligent people know that grief has stages and this lady is entitled to change her mind, her feelings. That's something the neocons can't grasp, why I'm not sure. Maybe after reality and permancy set in, her feelings changed. This lady has lost her son, and you actually think she's camping out for political reasons. I mean come on. That's a ridiculous argument.

I dont think that he HAS to speak to the lady again because he has already had his press time with her while she praised him, BUT what does he have to lose by speaking with this lady again.
I posted under Libby's post which brother up *other* families
Libby made it fair game.  She brought it up...
I don't despise any women....please do not ascribe to me feelings I don't share...
and the scope of the issue is something you don't understand either, it would appear. There is nothing in that post to suggest I despise any women. I am against the procedure of abortion. Yes, you bet I am. I despise it. It is horrendous, horrible, terrible way to die. Why are people concerned about water boarding a terrorist but don't mind cutting a living human to ribbons? Nope, you're right, I don't understand it. I don't see any way TO understand it.

The poster made a good point about women resistant to birth control. All I said is if you add women who are resistant to all forms of birth control to women who have been raped or victims of incest, and when the life of the mother is in danger, you could cut abortions 85-90%. That would save a lot of lives. The last sentence was addressing those who say that the baby is not alive or moving at the time most abortions are performed and that is simply not true. The point I was trying to make is that when a woman has a planned, wanted pregnancy, if you tell her when she feels that movement that that child is not alive inside her, that would be a hard sell. The point is, it IS alive, and people want to rationalize abortion by saying they really aren't killing anything. THey are. Just be up front about it and say that they are pro choice, and if a woman makes a decision to take that child's life for whatever reason that is her choice. Fine. Just call it what it is. We have legalized killing of unborn children in this country and made it a cash industry. Not a good thing in my books.
Mixed feelings - Bills speech was excellent.
To be honest I didn't watch her speech - refused to. I didn't feel like listening to her talk about me, me, me and how she feels she really won. So - in all fairness I don't know whether it was a good speech or not. What I have read about her speech is that someone said she said the party needs to be united and support Barack. I read another article that said she didn't do anything to unite the party. And I read another article that said Hillary's speech was a blow to the campaign and because of it Baracks ratings have dropped. I read all of this on the drudge page and I do believe there are both liberals and conservatives there, but I could be wrong. In honesty I can't tell you what I thought of it, and I think my hatred for her really is not fair to her but it does make me biased against anything she has to say.

On the other hand - I thought I hated Bill Clinton more than I did her and I was planning to refuse to listen to his speech tonight, however, found myself to curious so I did listen. Once he got past the praising Hillary & his presidency (which he didn't do as much as I thought he would) I actually thought his speech was very good. Well thought out and I thoroughly enjoyed it and my opinion of him has definitely changed (we just won't tell my mother-in-law - think she'd have a seizure- ha ha ha).

Bill Clinton for the first time finally came out backing Barack and listed the reasons why we need Barack as president, and why he is the right choice. He was sincere, intelligent, and I actually enjoyed his speech.

I have heard that Bill Clinton has planned that he is not going to be there tomorrow when Barack walks out to give his acceptance speech he is going to leave (I guess a protest that Hillary didn't get picked), but after his speech tonight I wonder if that was just a rumor. Time will tell.

I still think he was a horrible horrible present for 8 years (one of the worst presidents in history), but tonight he showed a different side to him and I give him credit for that.
Mere words cannot describe my feelings to your post....so I won't even try....


Other addicted Americans aren't putting people in jail or ripping apart families for drug crimes.
nm
Republicans favor giving poor families subsidies to afford private schools. Obama opposed.
Yet Obama sends his daughters to a private school, 29,000 for EACH KID. Hypocrisy, here we come. Geesh, not even in office yet.