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

If the cigarette tax would completely fund...

Posted By: Observer on 2007-09-28
In Reply to: I don't think most smoker's will quit just to - save money, so I think it's a great idea but...

the 6 billion in revenue expanding this program is going to cost,that would be one thing. It won't. You say you wouldn't mind "having your taxes raised a little." Isn't 35-40% off the top of your gross now enough? I think it is. I think they need to proritize the spending, that is all I am saying. It seems the consensus here is that health insurance for children is the most important. Then that program should be funded first. Then decide what is the next most important issue, and fund that, and on down the line. We cannot keep adding programs, adding taxes, adding programs, adding taxes. At some point it has to stop, or those paying the taxes are going to need help from a program to eat while they are working for taxes for programs. And as more and more people opt for programs and not working and paying into the system...the situation will only get worse. You do realize that realistically this cannot continue forever....right?

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

He said he "bummed" a cigarette occasionally -
I think anyone trying to quit smoking at the same time running a presidential campaign would be entitled to a slip up every once in a while...
Wow, my post was totally and completely respectful and yours is totally and completely not. sm
what a surprise.  Can't stand to be corrected or proven wrong, can you.  Have to call everyone a liar, don't you.  Got to tell people to stick things somewhere, don't you.   TSK TSK TSK  Anger management might be helpful.
Iraq war fund

Iraq War Funding Imminent, Timeline Absent







"  James Joyner | Thursday, December 13, 2007

After months of ranting and raving, congressional Democrats have backed down and approved funding for the war in Iraq without a troop withdrawal provision.



2nd Democratic lawmakers and staffers privately say they’re closing in on a broad budget deal that would give President Bush as much as $70 billion in new war funding.


The deal would lack a key provision Democrats had attached to previous funding bills calling for most U.S. troops to come home from Iraq by the end of 2008, which would be a significant legislative victory for Bush.


Democrats admit such a move would be highly controversial within their own party. Coming just weeks after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, vowed the White House would not get another dollar in war money this year, it would further antagonize the liberal base of the party, which has become frustrated with the congressional leadership’s failure to push back on Bush’s Iraq policy.


“The base will not be happy,” said one senior Democratic aide, who requested anonymity to candidly discuss budget negotiations that have not been completed.


The Democratic aide acknowledged the president is likely to get new money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan before Congress adjourns for the year. “Yes, in the end, that’s where we will be,” the aide said.


The bizarre thing is that everybody knew that months ago. Of course the president was going to “win” on this issue. No Congress is going to pull funds from an army currently in harm’s way. That Pelosi and company allowed this to be framed as a partisan issue was amazingly incompetent.



 
Why not? Pacifists have to fund
Get a grip.
Taxpayers do not fund PBS
You obviously do not watch PBS. It is solely viewer funded and publicly owned. (Although lately I HAVE seen paid commercials on there)

I'm beginning to see the reason some of the posters here sound so ignorant.
401K/retirement fund

You can't "take" your pension and 401K out of the stock market if you are not retirement age.  We are stuck with whatever the companies we work for invest in. my husband and I have some choices about where we invest our 401K but they all involve mutual funds, stocks, bonds, etc.


 

Borrowing from the fund is not the only problem --
I don't want to start an argument, but part of the problem is people like my grandmother (God bless her). She drew social security benefits off my grandfather for at over 20 years. She had never paid a penny into social security. Before that, he had drawn for at least 15 years. I know that he only paid in for very few years before he started drawing. So, just the two of them drew out many more thousands of dollars than they paid in.

Now think of all the people who never paid in and are drawing and the people who paid in very little and are drawing. Then think of how many more people are drawing than are paying in right now.

The funds are just not there for people to draw all their lives. I mean get real, when it was set up, people did not live as long, they did not pay in very much at all (in fact, my grandfather regularly paid in 10 cents a week before retirement), it just does not balance out. Now with the baby boomers getting ready to draw, we are really in trouble because the days of having 6-10 kids that would be contributing are over. Most of us only have 2 or less... Do you think we will ever get back the money we have contributed? No way!!!

That's why even though I feel bad for people having to go without a raise for a couple of years, I am not going to really get too upset because at least they are benefitting somewhat - My money is just lost!

Some things to think about....
RNC fund-raising letter

Michael Steele, Chairman


Republican National Committee


310 First Street, Southeast


Washington, DC 20003


 


Mr. Steele,


 


In response to your urgent ''roll call'' of Americans... (and solicitation of a donation) I can assure you that I certainly am fed up with the Obama administration and congressional Democrats.  But I must inform you that I am equally fed up with the Republican party as well.  What’s more, I feel great sense of betrayal because I expect Democrats to act exactly as they have, but not Republicans.


 


TARP and other bailouts were not a good idea just because they were begun by Bush.  The further bailouts, stimulus, deficit increase, nationalization of American business, universal healthcare and other travesties against capitalism are not bad ideas simply because Obama owns them.  These are wrong, no matter who is in charge.  Bush threw the ball, Obama knocked it over the fence.  Way to go.


 


Only in Washington, DC does it make sense to say, ''I’ve abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system.''   What makes our free market possible is the freedom of  losers to fail and winners to succeed.  No one and nothing is too big to fail. It’s how we weed out bad ideas.  You might remember this next time you are tempted to run a RINO for president.


 


The Republican party allowed Obama to be elected by fielding such a poor presidential candidate.  McCain:  Heck of a guy, admirable character, but not a true Republican.  By the time I voted in my state Ohio primary, any other appealing Republican candidate had dropped out.  In November I was forced simply to vote the NObama ticket.  I did not want a candidate who would ''reach across the aisle.''  I wanted a conservative Republican candidate.  Had it not been for Sarah Palin, I might as well have stayed home. 


 


I will not be attending the Republican ''listening tour.''  Listen to this:  The dismantling of the American way of life is on Republican as well as Democrat heads.  I now consider myself an Independent.  In 2012, if the Republican party manages to run a strong conservative candidate I will vote for that candidate. If the party persists in ''moving to the center'' and watering down its traditionally conservative principles, it will find itself in this identical situation.


 


Thanks for asking,  I feel much better now.

RNC fund-raising letter

Michael Steele, Chairman


Republican National Committee


310 First Street, Southeast


Washington, DC 20003


 


Mr. Steele,


 


In response to your urgent ''roll call'' of Americans... (and solicitation of a donation) I can assure you that I certainly am fed up with the Obama administration and congressional Democrats.  But I must inform you that I am equally fed up with the Republican party as well.  What’s more, I feel great sense of betrayal because I expect Democrats to act exactly as they have, but not Republicans.


 


TARP and other bailouts were not a good idea just because they were begun by Bush.  The further bailouts, stimulus, deficit increase, nationalization of American business, universal healthcare and other travesties against capitalism are not bad ideas simply because Obama owns them.  These are wrong, no matter who is in charge.  Bush threw the ball, Obama knocked it over the fence.  Way to go.


 


Only in Washington, DC does it make sense to say, ''I’ve abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system.''   What makes our free market possible is the freedom of  losers to fail and winners to succeed.  No one and nothing is too big to fail. It’s how we weed out bad ideas.  You might remember this next time you are tempted to run a RINO for president.


 


The Republican party allowed Obama to be elected by fielding such a poor presidential candidate.  McCain:  Heck of a guy, admirable character, but not a true Republican.  By the time I voted in my state Ohio primary, any other appealing Republican candidate had dropped out.  In November I was forced simply to vote the NObama ticket.  I did not want a candidate who would ''reach across the aisle.''  I wanted a conservative Republican candidate.  Had it not been for Sarah Palin, I might as well have stayed home. 


 


I will not be attending the Republican ''listening tour.''  Listen to this:  The dismantling of the American way of life is on Republican as well as Democrat heads.  I now consider myself an Independent.  In 2012, if the Republican party manages to run a strong conservative candidate I will vote for that candidate. If the party persists in ''moving to the center'' and watering down its traditionally conservative principles, it will find itself in this identical situation.


 


Thanks for asking,  I feel much better now.

Err, you mean the link to Commonwealth Fund report
"It has to do with Medicaid." Yes, Medicaid is mentioned in the report, but ONLY within the context of expanded eligibility (by various states) based on INCOME, not on age. Furthermore, the feds are actually trying to limit, as in RESTRICT, this type of expanded Medicaid coverage.

It also talks about the interplay between Medicaid and private companies and how it is picking up some but not all of the fallout from private insurance eligibility restrictions. The report goes on to say that Medicaid is functioning AS IT WAS INTENDED, thus lending credence to the assertion in the OP that the SCHIPS program being administered like Medicare and Medicaid is a good thing.

Here's a suggestion. Do a find/search on Medicaid within the article and then try to identify any single statement that indicates Meicaid AGE guidelines have been revised upward. Certainly, you will find nothing anywhere to support the hogwash in the other post that suggests it is now or ever going to be 30.

Here's a few more clues for you. In the excerpt from the other post, terms and phrases such as "nothing to do with federal mandate, their parents' INSURANCE POLICIES and allow INSURERS to set their own dependent age limits" can in no way be interpreted as referring to state funded insurance programs.

Bottom line, once again, is that the aim of health care reform is to INSURE folks, not EXCLUDE them. Raising age (and other) restrictions by private insurance companies is one of many creative ways of keeping folks OFF of state and federally funded health insurance programs.
Why shouldnt gov fund religious programs?
I should be able to get some funding just like everyone else if I have a religious program.  I mean we fund abortion here in the US and abroad.  We fund wars, we fund all kinds of CRAP so why NOT religion?  Isnt it supposed to be equal and fair?  Why is it the religious people of this world, namely the Christians get the short end of the stick? 
I guess because they/we fund it maybe? Not a birthday gift. nm
X
The congress which raided the SS fund was republican at the time
and at the rate the republicans are carrying the country, in ten years, it will resemble Argentina (who also ended up in the same place, as a debtor nation).

Israel has the republican party as it stands in his back pocket as does corportate america. The republican party isn't conservative anymore. It is a giant siphon of American assets into the pockets of the rich, at the expense of the taxpayer. Anyone can see this but the sheople who voted these clowns into office and didn't benefit from the tax cuts ::rolls eyes::.
Obama also voted not to fund troops in combat....
It should be apparent to all of us by now that whatever you can find on one politician you can find on another... :)

http://www.johnmccain.com/informing/news/PressReleases/454ad652-5f6d-4cb1-808d-d52a8aa6f4ac.htm
the drug companies that fund the research for new drugs
really don't have all that much time to make money on the drugs before generics are allowed. Do you think generic companies are going to start contributing to research? For all those people who gripe about the drug companies, I would like to see the day come when the drug companies aren't willing to spend another dime on the research. The gov can pay for all the research then. They still pay for the meds, and it might be more, factoring in the waste for the gov being involved.
Well surely Obama doesn't fund all sources
a name please of a source you would consider credible.
And govt shouldn't fund religious programs....
schools, facilities, etc.
Actually you are so completely right..

...I am every single person that has ever posted on the liberal board.  You have obviously found me out.  I have so many different monikers it is very very difficult to keep them straight.


As far as my being mad or angry as you suppose, no not in the least.  Most of my energy is spent trying to change syntax and moniker as often as possible on the MT Stars liberal board.

you are completely right
Of course it is an important day! As it should always be, and you are completely right about it should not be any different had a white man been put in office. Every time it is called a "historic" day that makes it about RACE, exactly what he said it wasn't about.

Seriously, how can you people argue that?

and get over the Bush thing. bush did a lot of stupid things and he spent way too much

so what makes obama different from bush in the spending category on his FIRST DAY??
you are completely right
Of course it is an important day! As it should always be, and you are completely right about it should not be any different had a white man been put in office. Every time it is called a "historic" day that makes it about RACE, exactly what he said it wasn't about.

Seriously, how can you people argue that?

and get over the Bush thing. bush did a lot of stupid things and he spent way too much

But Obama is filling his footsteps real quickly isn't he... and more
You completely said it all.
We are infidels, anyone who does not worship their God! In order for their Messiah to come, they have to KILL AS MANY INFIDELS as they can. In order to do this, they have to kill the Big God and the Little God. United States is the Big God and Israel is the Little God. There is no reasoning with people from Iran or other Muslim countries who worship their Allah. They want their Messiah to come desperately and the only way and I mean the ONLY WAY TO HAVE THEIR MESSIAH COME IS TO KILL US. It is their Bible.

I strongly believe we will have war right here in our country, soon.
Yes, you're completely correct. So we should do nothing to

only answer is hop around the globe, play eenie, meenie, miney, moe and choose another sovereign country to invade.


It didn't happen here.....yet.  But every single terrorism expert believes it's not a matter of if but a matter of WHEN.  And Bush is helping them by not protecting us satisfactorily and by providing THEM with OTJ training in Iraq.


Yes, I think I'm beginning to "get" it.


As far as what I feel about Conservatives, I've voted Republican a number of times in my life, so don't tell me what I think because you haven't a clue.  I vote for the candidate, not the party, and if Bush and Kerry are the best this country can offer up, we need to worry about much more than terrorists.

You are completely unhinged

Your posts show how completely filled with rage and hatred you are.  I have not called anyone a name, but you just called me many.  Enough said.

I agree completely.

Mentally ill, angry, hateful, and getting more out of control by the minute.


I suggest we don't read their/her posts any more and don't attempt to respond to them.  If they don't have an audience for the insane hatred they spew, maybe they will go away.  There's no point, anyway.  As in my post below, if I hold up three fingers and YOU see three fingers and the rest of the WORLD sees three fingers, they will only see ONE finger, turn it into something ugly and hateful and then and accuse me of giving them the bird.  How in the world can someone communicate with people like that?


I say we just start to ignore them before they pollute this board any further than they already have.  It's getting out of control.


They're turning the Liberal board into a sewer like they did the Conservative board.

You are completely wrong about
Bush not a friend of Bin Laden.  That's what is so disgusting about his war on terror.  Bush and his family have been friends with the Bin Laden clan for decades, that's how they made their money. You might have to read a little bit to find the facts, but those are FACTS and cannot be changed, unless he is going to rewrite history too. 
Taken COMPLETELY out of context
You liberals will go to any all lengths to take down this president down even lying. Personally, the president can take care of his self, and he doesn't need me to defend him, but you took so many statements out of context here it's not funny. Most people have been thankful for their evacuation, but the media has targeted the ingrates. This is not the issue here though. The issue is that you all have it in for the president, conservatives or any one who doesn't think exactly like you. If someone disagrees or has an opinion different than you you immediately yell attack. Your agenda is very clear, pathetic but clear.
I agree completely.....and would just add
I pray it can be done with minimal loss of life on the part of our military and the Iraqis who are brave enough to keep lining up to become policemen and military, even though their losses have been staggering. God bless and protect them all, American and Iraqi alike.

Happy New Year to you too!
I agree completely, however,
we know it won't be about substance as much as everyone's personal business. I could not care less what a person's faith is if he/she has the experience necessary, has above-average intelligence, a working knowledge of our own government, its history on the tip of his/her tongue, is quick on his/her feet and appears to be a qualified person, a person who is extremely well versed in the complexities that exist outside our own borders, someone who eats, sleeps, breathes history, politics, public service, someone who is a diplomat, and someone who can inspire us all to do better, to be better. But the tabloid stuff has already started and a lot of it has to do with Mormonism. I don't think a Morman has ever run for president, so this is apt to be a huge issue. Whether or not he can do the job will be secondary, maybe tertiary.
You have completely discounted what I said about...
the President visiting personally with families of fallen Iraqi soldiers. I have seen it covered numerous times. Why do you not accept that, and find fault that he has not actually attended a funeral? Why do you discount that his presence would turn a funeral into a media circus? It is not like he and Laura can fire up the Chevy and just go in and sit down like anyone else. Get a grip, Lurker. No family who had lost someone would want that...whether than be an Iraqi soldier or Jamey Bishop killed at V Tech. This is all about Bush and your hatred of him and of this administration. Clinton did not go personally to any of the funerals that I know of, he did not meet with the family of that soldier whose body was dragged behind the Jeep in Somalia on national television...but I do NOT find fault with him for that. It does seem like you are grasping at straws to find fault. Yes, soldiers have died in Iraq. The civilians being killed is horrible; killing happens in war. These civilians, however, are being killed by their own. They were being killed by Hussein before; they are being killed by their own now. Which is better? The fact that when Hussein was killing them we weren't there? They were still being killed. So, it was okay for them to be killed by gas, or killed in torture chambers, and your sensibilities were not offendeed; however, now that they are being killed by their own by car bombs and the like, that is somehow horrible because the US is there? Either you are horrified at civilian deaths or you are not. Your justification, and the justification of the man in the article makes no sense to me. That is what I do not understand about the left...you seem to trot out compassion when you want to make a point, yet are curiously silent if the same situation does not fit your agenda. Frankly, I do not understand that thinking. You cannot let the President's compassion for the victims of V Tech just stand...you have to demean it by saying where was his compassion for soldiers killed in Iraq. Pardon me if I don't understand it...and I, frankly, don't. If you had no problem with him being in VA Tech, then you should not have come on and posted criticizing him and comparing the two things. That seriously puts your *compassion* in question. Sorry, but that is how I see it.
First, I completely agree with you. There SM
should be national healthcare. However, it won't be just the conservatives that will be against it, but middle-class people who have to pay for the increased taxes it would take. You certainly wouldn't expect the wealthy to pay their share for it, do you?

The whole thing is really making me sick. We do need healthcare reform. I'm not sure it will ever happen.

completely filled
The main board used to be completely filled with them...and I mean completely.  You apparently missed all that.  Not sure if there are still there or not.
I understand completely
Your posts were both humerous and informative and I enjoyed them. I was only joking about getting Xanax (I absolutely hate taking any meds and will suffer with a headache before I take aspirin). I only meant I wanted something to "numb" out the news of Hillary (still can't figure out why she's dominating the news when she's no longer running)...anyway...I took your original post to be humerous and took your second post to be very informative about CF. I have learned something new. I am truly greatful not to have such a horrible disease and I really did not know much about it til I read your post. Thank you for that. Keep posting the humerous messages - I love em.
Agree completely. nm
nm
All I can say is, I completely disagree with you!
nm
Yes, the author of this is completely...
truthful and trustworthy. Ahem. And you left out this part of his letter:
(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.

(a) The religion of the Unification of God; of freedom from associating partners with Him, and rejection of this; of complete love of Him, the Exalted; of complete submission to His Laws; and of the discarding of all the opinions, orders, theories and religions which contradict with the religion He sent down to His Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Islam is the religion of all the prophets, and makes no distinction between them - peace be upon them all.

It is to this religion that we call you; the seal of all the previous religions. It is the religion of Unification of God, sincerity, the best of manners, righteousness, mercy, honour, purity, and piety. It is the religion of showing kindness to others, establishing justice between them, granting them their rights, and defending the oppressed and the persecuted. It is the religion of enjoining the good and forbidding the evil with the hand, tongue and heart. It is the religion of Jihad in the way of Allah so that Allah's Word and religion reign Supreme. And it is the religion of unity and agreement on the obedience to Allah, and total equality between all people, without regarding their colour, sex, or language.

(b) It is the religion whose book - the Quran - will remained preserved and unchanged, after the other Divine books and messages have been changed. The Quran is the miracle until the Day of Judgment. Allah has challenged anyone to bring a book like the Quran or even ten verses like it.

(2) The second thing we call you to, is to stop your oppression, lies, immorality and debauchery that has spread among you.

(a) We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling's, and trading with interest.

We call you to all of this that you may be freed from that which you have become caught up in; that you may be freed from the deceptive lies that you are a great nation, that your leaders spread amongst you to conceal from you the despicable state to which you have reached.

(b) It is saddening to tell you that you are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind:

She is right, they don't like, in fact they hate, everything about this country. They hate it because we don't have Sharia law. The only way they will stop trying to kill us is if we kill enough of them first, or convert to Islam and fall under Sharia law.

Which do you choose?
My take, go figure, is completely different...
and I am an independent, not a Republican. First of all, he questioned her like she is running for President. She isn't. I would like Bill Clinton to have had this kind of questioning when he first ran for President having only been a governor. He would have done no better than she has, but the left would have sung his praises. Such is politics.

Politics aside, she did well. She avoided the traps he laid, and there were many.
As to avoiding answering questions and only hitting the talking points...did you watch the Obama-O'Reilly interview? Danced all around subjects and would not commit to anything. I don't hear any on the left complaining that he tried to evade questions and threw out talking points.

Keeping the money from the bridge to nowhere...states do that every day. Lobbyists for Alaska...earmarks. Joe Biden's son was a professional lobbyist until yesterday and he and dad did a great many deals while Dad has been in Congress (I guess they finally decided they really could not dump on lobbyists when they had them in the family). Obama has worked with lobbyists as well, has some on his advisory staff. And as far as earmarks...he got elected, Michelle Obama's hospital doubled her salary, and Obama earmarked a million plus for them. Who benefitted from that? Fact is, all politicians have done that. What you don't say here is what Palin explained very well...the earmarks they seek to stop are the crooked under the table ones, attaching huge earmarks to bills to get them passed that would not otherwise pass. The earmarks that were asked for by Alaska were by the Fish and Game Commission in Alaska. It is perfectly fine for states to request funds from Washington. Some get them, some don't. But the practice of adding "pork" to a bill just to get it passed is the WRONG practice and that is the one they seek to stop. She was very succint in explaining that. Guess you missed that part of the interview.

As far as abuse of power in troopergate...maybe we should wait for the results? And I STILL say, any "trooper" who tasered an 11-year-old for ANY reason SHOULD be fired.

There is nothing wrong with having the ceremony for sending off those troops on 9/11 to commemorate the day. I do not believe she did it for publicity. It is a very meaningful date for many of the soliders who are being deployed. I think that is a cheap shot at them as well as her, implying she does not care about them (one of whom is her son) and just wanted publicity. I think she has PLENTY of publicity without that.

As as for disparaging things said about someone in the primary season...most of the other democrats in the primary focused on Obama's inexperience. Hillary did. His now running mate did...if I recall, said "The Presidency does not lend itself to on-the-job experience." You can't have it both ways either.
Well said. I agree completely! nm
.
Completely agree
and I'm not even really sure why. I know the two candidates certainly have completely different views of how to change things, but isn't that the way it's always been, way back to Thomas Jefferson and John Adams? Now there was another really nasty election!
I completely agree with you. nm
x
Not completely true
Pres. Bush certainly had a hand in it, but this meltdown goes way back - it didn't just come on suddenly in the last 8 years. Raising taxes with Bush Sr. was a good start, then moving on to the subprime loans and NAFTA with Clinton sure helped, but the problem with Pres. Bush is that he did nothing to stop it until now, as well as adding to it the war in Iraq. I guess if you even want to go back further than that, you can go to Carter (economy was very bad then), and tack on Reagan (trickle down economics), or maybe even further - Truman dropped the bomb on Japan and then spent millions and millions of American money to help them rebuild. I'm no fan of Pres. Bush, but to totally blame him for all the problems we're having now negates the responsibility of everyone else that had a hand in it.
Not completely true
Pres. Bush certainly had a hand in it, but this meltdown goes way back - it didn't just come on suddenly in the last 8 years. Raising taxes with Bush Sr. was a good start, then moving on to the subprime loans and NAFTA with Clinton sure helped, and the problem with Pres. Bush is that he did nothing to stop it until now, as well as adding to it the war in Iraq. I guess if you even want to go back further than that, you can go to Carter (economy was very bad then), and tack on Reagan (trickle down economics), or maybe even further - Truman dropped the bomb on Japan and then spent millions and millions of American dollars to help them rebuild. I'm no fan of Pres. Bush, but to totally blame him for all the problems we're having now negates the responsibility of everyone else that had a hand in it, including the American people.
Completely agree
Don't always agree with them all, but still love the way they speak their minds.

another rightie
I agree completely......
I had relatives in both places when Katrina hit. My relatives around New Orleans were sickened at all the whining, looting, blaming the government for the situation while they have days to leave and prepare but did neither.

My relatives on the coast, where they were hit the hardest, not New Oreleans, got up and began clearing the roadways for when help did arrive, moving trees out of the way, and trying to help one another, not standing in the streets trying to kill one another and blaming Bush for all their woes.

So many in N.O. had spent generation after generation doing nothing but living off the government, free everything, to when they actually had to use their own mind and do something for themselves or their neighbor, what did they do? Blame the government!!

It was terrible what happened to those that were helpless, but these people were not helpless. THEY WERE LAZY WELFARE BEGGING MOOCHERS!

And I can guarantee they continue to be just that. Their attitude was very clear when thousands upon thousands came to our community where we housed them and took care of them. The local churches took thousands in and what did many do? STEAL! They were given air conditioning and comfortable beds, when WE got A/C ourselves. They got 3 square meals a day, hot meals cooked by volunteers; their babies got all the formula and diapers and even medical care that was needed. They were given clean clothes as well as emotional care by our local pastors and counselors.

If they needed something they didn't have, all they had to do was asked. We staffed many volunteers around the clock but that wasn't enough. They were so sorry, they broke the lock to the supply room and took all they wanted and most of what they didn't need and still had the gall to lay their lazy bums up on the beds with the goods they stole. When pastors and others came around to ask those we could obviously see why they had stolen these things, they actually got an attitude with us, telling us it was our place to help them, and starting spewing hate about why it was the white man's fault they were in that situation in the first place, that they wouldn't be there if the white man had put them up a descent levy!

And for any who might want to agree with them, just remember their wonderful mayor Ray Negan or whatever his name is, had OVER 60 million dollars given to him years earlier to secure the levy and not a dime was spent on it. And no one can answer or has demanded an answer as to where that money went.

I for one am sick of the handouts! Get off your butt and get a job.
Completely agree.
If they were going to pay off mortgages for everyone else, then they better be buying me a home too and then I could use all the money I have been working hard to save for a down payment on furnishing my new home instead while stimulating the economy. Why should they only reward those who act irresponsibly?
agree on that completely! nm
s
Completely blameless?
Yes
Oh, I agree completely.
My faith is definitely a crutch; I lean on it every day. In fact, that's precisely what faith is supposed to be - a source of support and strength.

Of course, my education is a crutch, also. And so is my family. So are my friends, and my advisors. I lean on all of them to get through life.

So what? You see, when you call faith a crutch you haven't managed to mount anything like a criticism of it. When you pretend that you yourself don't have, and use, dozens of crutches to get through life, you're only being arrogant, or unbelievably ignorant.
Agree completely..... it is the act!
--
Completely agree with you and since when
did children become open targets in politics, it doesn't matter if the parents are republicans or democrats.  In my opinion, that is just morally wrong.  Children should be left out completely and I don't care if they are 2 or 25.  It is one thing to attack someone's character who is running for office but leave their children out of it. 
I completely agree with you ...
During the election I was very impressed by her and wanted to know everything I could about her.  I read some of her writings from when she was in college and was shocked at the bitterness and disdain that came through.  *Chip on the shoulder* was the exact impression that I got and was extremely disappointed by this. 
this is completely different. It is not proven
yet that Iran HAS nuclear weapon, it is an assumption. To just take the protest about the rigged election as justified reason to attack Iran because of their suspected hidden nuclear bomb arsenal,
is just idiotic. Do we apply again teh 'Weapon of Mass Destruction Theory?' Iran did not threaten yet to shoot missiles to Hawaii, wheres North Korea did and is testing its missiles for a while already.

Obama just cannot meddle or interfere into Iran's internal affairs, yet, don't you understand? It is not the US's business if the election was a fraud and the wrong president was elected.
And it is not the business of the US's to encourage people tocontinue with the protests. Even giving the protesters too much verbal support is dangerous as this will embolden them and the army will slaughter them and even THEN the US has no right to interfere, because it is not a direct threat to the US and the world. Only if Iran brings out its missiles, if it has any.

The US just cannot interfere or attack a sovereign country in defense of democracy and because it is the military superpower. Only if the country asks for it or the UN decides.

I wished Mousavi had won.

I am ignoring your bashing of Obama, to me it is again blah, blah, blah.
© Copyright 2001-09 MTStars.com All Rights Reserved