In your dictionary - as limited as it has proven to be
Posted By: sally on 2008-09-07
In Reply to: That issue defines liberals these days, sally... - sam
x
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
Don't think the benefits are limited to
More democratic debate and result-oriented compromise should lead both factions toward centrist positions and policies, which would be more representative of the WHOLE of the nation and would have the effect of crowding out special interests. Sounds less corrupt, more equal, and patently progressive toward a real change in the way Washington politics works. Should prove to be very interesting.
Because you limited it to Schumer...
When in all fairness, they all saw it coming and, I believe, had no idea how to stop it from gaining momentum - so they cashed out and left the rest of us to flounder.
Of interest, but probably of limited significance
FACT......Those who have never seen battle personally are usually cowards and the first ones to want war, who preach for war.....and will send your kids and keep their kids home...
Do We See A Pattern Here?
10-20-4
Democrats
* Richard Gephardt: Air National Guard, 1965-71.
* David Bonior: Staff Sgt., Air Force 1968-72.
* Tom Daschle: 1st Lt., Air Force SAC 1969-72.
* Al Gore: enlisted Aug. 1969; sent to Vietnam Jan. 1971 as an army journalist in 20th Engineer Brigade.
* Bob Kerrey: Lt. j.g. Navy 1966-69; Medal of Honor, Vietnam.
* Daniel Inouye: Army 1943-47; Medal of Honor, WWII.
* John Kerry: Lt., Navy 1966-70; Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V, Purple Hearts.
* Charles Rangel: Staff Sgt., Army 1948-52; Bronze Star, Korea.
* Max Cleland: Captain, Army 1965-68; Silver Star & Bronze Star, Vietnam.
* Ted Kennedy: Army, 1951-53.
* Tom Harkin: Lt., Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve, 1968-74.
* Jack Reed: Army Ranger, 1971-1979; Captain, Army Reserve 1979-91.
* Fritz Hollings: Army officer in WWII; Bronze Star and seven campaign ribbons.
* Leonard Boswell: Lt. Col., Army 1956-76; Vietnam, DFCs, Bronze Stars, and Soldier's Medal.
* Pete Peterson: Air Force Captain, POW. Purple Heart, Silver Star and Legion of Merit.
* Mike Thompson: Staff sergeant, 173rd Airborne, Purple Heart.
* Bill McBride: Candidate for Fla. Governor. Marine in Vietnam; Bronze Star with Combat V.
* Gray Davis: Army Captain in Vietnam, Bronze Star.
* Pete Stark: Air Force 1955-57
* Chuck Robb: Vietnam
* Howell Heflin: Silver Star
* George McGovern: Silver Star & DFC during WWII.
* Bill Clinton: Did not serve. Student deferments. Entered draft but received #311.
* Jimmy Carter: Seven years in the Navy.
* Walter Mondale: Army 1951-1953
* John Glenn: WWII and Korea; six DFCs and Air Medal with 18 Clusters.
* Tom Lantos: Served in Hungarian underground in WWII. Saved by Raoul Wallenberg.
Republicans
* Dick Cheney: did not serve. Several deferments, the last by marriage.
* Dennis Hastert: did not serve.
* Tom Delay: did not serve.
* Roy Blunt: did not serve.
* Bill Frist: did not serve.
* Mitch McConnell: did not serve.
* Rick Santorum: did not serve.
* Trent Lott: did not serve.
* John Ashcroft: did not serve. Seven deferments to teach business.
* Jeb Bush: did not serve.
* Karl Rove: did not serve.
* Saxby Chambliss: did not serve. "Bad knee." The man who attacked Max Cleland's patriotism.
* Paul Wolfowitz: did not serve.
* Vin Weber: did not serve.
* Richard Perle: did not serve.
* Douglas Feith: did not serve.
* Eliot Abrams: did not serve
* Richard Shelby: did not serve.
* Jon! Kyl: did not serve
* Tim Hutchison: did not serve.
* Christopher Cox: did not serve.
* Newt Gingrich: did not serve.
* Don Rumsfeld: served in Navy (1954-57) as flight instructor.
* George W. Bush: failed to complete his six-year National Guard; got assigned to Alabama so he could campaign for family friend running for U.S.
Senate; failed to show up for required medical exam, disappeared from duty.
* Ronald Reagan: due to poor eyesight, served in a non-combat role making movies.
* B-1 Bob Dornan: Consciously enlisted after fighting was over in Korea.
* Phil Gramm: did not serve.
* John McCain: Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross.
* Dana Rohrabacher: did not serve.
* John M. McHugh: did not serve.
* JC Watts: did not serve.
* Jack Kemp: did not serve. "Knee problem," although continued in NFL for 8 years.
* Dan Quayle: Journalism unit of the Indiana National Guard.
* Rudy Giuliani: did not serve.
* George Pataki: did not serve.
* Spencer Abraham: did not serve.
* John Engler: did not serve.
* Lindsey Graham: National Guard lawyer.
* Arnold Schwarzenegger: AWOL from Austrian army base.
Pundits & Preachers
* Sean Hannity: did not serve.
* Rush Limbaugh: did not serve (4-F with a 'pilonidal cyst.')
* Bill O'Reilly: did not serve.
* Michael Savage: did not serve.
* George Will: did not serve
* Chris Matthews: did not serve.
* Paul Gigot: did not serve.
* Bill Bennett: did not serve.
* Pat Buchanan: did not serve.
* John Wayne: did not serve.
* Bill Kristol: did not serve.
* Kenneth Starr: did not serve.
* Antonin Scalia: did not serve.
* Clarence Thomas: did not serve.
* Ralph Reed: did not serve.
* Michael Medved: did not serve.
* Charlie Daniels: did not serve.
* Ted Nugent: did not serve. (He only shoots at things that don't shoot back.)
Does your head have a limited capacity?
Thanks for the warning. You know it appears you're following me around making disparaging comments under every one of my posts for no purpose whatsoever except to annoy me.
I'm flattered:) Like your new name too - but by any name, you are never anonymous. Just can't stay on the conservative board can ya? Haha, never thought you could!
Limited government period. nm
z
GP - where was Transcriptions Limited located? nm
x
Don't you own a dictionary? nm
?
"Hoax limited to identity of story's SOURCE,
By my read, looks like the jury is still out on this one. They retracted the false (hoax) report that Eisenstadt was the source...but the story is still out there.
I did not see Palin deny this outright. I saw Palin say she would not comment on an answer to a question by an anonymous source until the source comes forward. I doubt that the alleged source will come forward, given the likely motivation behind the report. What I DO think is pertinent here is that many, many people INCLUDING Fox News find this report perfectly plausible, based on Palin's demonstration of BLATENT lack of knowledge of world affairs and foreign policy.
You know what they say. You don't get a second chance to make a first impression.
Ever hear of TWO WRONGS DON'T MAKE A RIGHT? sheesh you are limited
nm
Dictionary of Republicanisms
Dictionary of Republicanisms
by KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL
[from the December 12, 2005 issue]
Over the past few decades, the radical right has engaged in a
well-funded, self-conscious program of Orwellian doublespeak, transforming the
American political discourse to suit its ends. Think tanks like the Cato
Institute routinely market phrases for their political resonance, like
personal vs. private accounts. Frank Luntz, the Republican
pollster, lexicographer and MSNBC pundit who combines Madison Avenue techniques
with K Street connections, sends out regular missives informing
Republican operatives and politicians on how to spin conservative policy
proposals. (He was on The Daily Show demonstrating his talents, defining
manipulation as explanation and education.) Paul Wolfowitz admitted to
Vanity Fair that weapons of mass destruction was agreed upon as the
reason to go to war with Iraq because it was the most salable rationale.
And we all know how that turned out.
Before we can win the great battle of ideas, we must debunk the right's
political discourse, a veritable code of encrypted language that twists
common usage to deceive the public for the Republicans' purposes. The
key to their linguistic strategy is to use words that sound moderate to
us but mean something completely different to them. Their tactics range
from the childish use of antonyms (clean = dirty) to the
pseudo-academic use of prefixes (neo is a favorite) to the pernicious and very
expensive rebranding of traditional labels (liberal as an insult).
We decided we needed to break the code by building a Republican
dictionary. Skewer their deceptions with the fine-tipped sword of satire. Lies
melt away in the face of mockery.
Unlike Republicans, who rely on rich old cranks and
intellectuals-for-hire to do their dirty work, we opened up the process to the people. For
six months, thenation.com accepted suggestions from everyone who wanted
to participate. The result was an overwhelming grassroots groundswell
of hilarious submissions from citizens who are mad as hell and aren't
going to take it anymore. Thousands of definitions were entered from all
over the country, forty-four states in all, along with Puerto Rico and
Washington, DC. (We even received a few from outraged Canadians,
Australians and Brits.)
As momentum for the project grew, friends and allies joined the effort.
TomDispatch.com asked its readers and writers to submit their own
definitions. Reviewing the submissions from our website, we found that
certain trends became apparent. Compassionate conservative and ownership
society were the most popular targets. No Child Left Behind was the
most common riff. The disaster in Iraq was the subject of the most
outrage. The results have been compiled in a new book, Dictionary of
Republicanisms (Nation Books). Here are some of my favorites. I hope they
inspire you to action, to take back this great nation from those who are
doing it such harm.
abstinence-only sex education n. Ignorance-only sex education [Wayne
Martorelli, Lawrenceville, NJ].
alternative energy sources n. New locations to drill for gas and oil
[Peter Scholz, Fort Collins, Colo.].
bankruptcy n. A punishable crime when committed by poor people but not
corporations [Beth Thielen, Studio City, Calif.].
burning bush n. A biblical allusion to the response of the President
of the United States when asked a question by a journalist who has not
been paid to inquire [Bill Moyers, New York, NY].
Cheney, Dick n. The greater of two evils [Jacob McCullar, Austin,
Tex.].
China n. See Wal-Mart [Rebecca Solnit, San Francisco, Calif.].
class warfare n. Any attempt to raise the minimum wage [Don Zweir,
Grayslake, Ill.].
climate change n. The blessed day when the blue states are swallowed by
the oceans [Ann Klopp, Princeton, NJ].
compassionate conservatism n. Poignant concern for the very wealthy
[Lawrence Sandek, Twin Peaks, Calif.].
creationism n. Pseudoscience that claims George W. Bush's resemblance
to a chimpanzee is totally coincidental [Brian Sweeney, Providence, RI].
DeLay, Tom n. 1. Past tense of De Lie [Rick Rodstrom, Los Angeles,
Calif.]. 2. Patronage saint [Andrew Magni, Nonatum, Mass.].
democracy n. A product so extensively exported that the domestic supply
is depleted [Michael Schwartz, unknown].
dittohead n. An Oxy(contin)moron [Zydeco Boudreaux, Gretna, La.].
energy independence n. The caribou witness relocation program [Justin
Rezzonico, Keene, Ohio].
extraordinary rendition n. Outsourcing torture [Milton Feldon, Laguna
Woods, Calif.].
faith n. The stubborn belief that God approves of Republican moral
values despite the preponderance of textual evidence to the contrary
[Matthew Polly, Topeka, Kans.].
Fox News fict. Faux news [Justin Rezzonico, Keene, Ohio].
free markets n. Halliburton no-bid contracts at taxpayer expense [Sean
O'Brian, Chicago, Ill.].
girly men n. Males who do not grope women inappropriately [Nick Gill,
Newton, Mass.].
God n. Senior presidential adviser [Martin Richard, Belgrade, Mont.].
growth n. 1. The justification for tax cuts for the rich. 2. What
happens to the national debt when Republicans cut taxes on the rich [Matthew
Polly, Topeka, Kans.].
habeas corpus n. Archaic. (Lat.) Legal term no longer in use (See
Patriot Act) [Josh Wanstreet, Nutter Fort, WV].
healthy forest n. No tree left behind [Dan McWilliams, Santa Barbara,
Calif.].
homelandism n. A neologism for love of the Homeland Security State, as
in My Homeland, 'tis of thee, sweet security state of liberty... [Tom
Engelhardt, New York, NY].
honesty n. Lies told in simple declarative sentences--e.g., Freedom is
on the march [Katrina vanden Heuvel, New York, NY].
House of Representatives n. Exclusive club; entry fee $1 million to $5
million (See Senate) [Adam Hochschild, San Francisco, Calif.].
laziness n. When the poor are not working [Justin Rezzonico, Keene,
Ohio].
leisure time n. When the wealthy are not working [Justin Rezzonico,
Keene, Ohio].
liberal(s) n. Followers of the Antichrist [Ann Wegher, Montello,
Wisc.].
Miller, Zell n. The man who shot and killed Alexander Hamilton after a
particularly tough interview on Hardball [Drew Dillion, Arlington,
Va.].
neoconservatives n. Nerds with Napoleonic complexes [Matthew Polly,
Topeka, Kans.].
9/11 n. Tragedy used to justify any administrative policy, especially
if unrelated (See Deficit, Iraq War) [Dan Mason, Durham, NH].
No Child Left Behind riff. 1. v. There are always jobs in the military
[Ann Klopp, Princeton, NJ]. 2. n. The rapture [Samantha Hess,
Cottonwood, Ariz.].
ownership society n. A civilization where 1 percent of the population
controls 90 percent of the wealth [Michael Albert, Piscataway, NJ].
Patriot Act n. 1. The pre-emptive strike on American freedoms to
prevent the terrorists from destroying them first. 2. The elimination of one
of the reasons why they hate us [Michael Thomas, Socorro, NM].
pro-life adj. Valuing human life up until birth [Kevin Weaver, San
Francisco, Calif.].
Senate n. Exclusive club; entry fee $10 million to $30 million [Adam
Hochschild, San Francisco, Calif.].
simplify v. To cut the taxes of Republican donors [Katrina vanden
Heuvel, New York, NY].
staying the course interj. Slang. Saying and doing the same stupid
thing over and over, regardless of the result [Suzanne Smith, Ann Arbor,
Mich.].
stuff happens interj. Slang. Donald Rumsfeld as master historian
[Sheila and Chalmers Johnson, San Diego, Calif.].
voter fraud n. A significant minority turnout [Sue Bazy, Philadelphia,
Pa.].
Wal-Mart n. The nation-state, future tense [Rebecca Solnit, San
Francisco, Calif.].
water n. Arsenic storage device [Joy Losee, Gainesville, Ga.].
woman n. 1. Person who can be trusted to bear a child but can't be
trusted to decide whether or not she wishes to have thechild. 2. Person who
must have all decisions regarding herreproductive functions made by men
with whom she wouldn't want to have sex in the first place [Denise
Clay, Philadelphia, Pa.].
Don't know what dictionary you're using.
From Merriam Webster on line http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=persecution
Main Entry: per·se·cu·tion 
Pronunciation: p&r-si-'kyü-sh&n
Function: noun
1 : the act or practice of persecuting especially those who differ in origin, religion, or social outlook
2 : the condition of being persecuted , harassed, or annoyed
As LVMT pointed out, they have been provoked, as well.
I repeat. Iraq and Iran were enemies. Due to Bush's ridiculous war, the area is now split open and on the verge of civil war with influence from Iran that never existed before because Saddam Hussein kept his vacuum very secure.
I won't address the remainder of your post because it is inflammatory, rude and defamatory, and I don't communicate with people who can't stick to the issues without resorting to personal insults against other posters. Such remarks have no value among intelligent mature adults attempting to engage in a meaningful dialogue.
Thanks, but I did not want a dictionary definition....
I wanted a *liberal* to define what that means to them...what are their views...what is the *platform* so to speak...what makes a *liberal* different from a *leftist?* Why is Obama not a liberal? That is the information I am seeking...not a dictionary definition. In a liberal's own words, so to speak.
Okay....in your own words, then, not the dictionary...
liberal to the core...why? What are your values, your ideas? Yours? You say those old men with old ideas, so out of touch. What are your ideas? What makes you so happy you are a liberal Democrat, and why is Obama not one? Thanks!
Did you know gullible's not in the dictionary?
x
If you look in the dictionary under hypocrit
It will say "early 21st century Republican Party." How else can you call yourself pro-choice and be pro-war at the same time, all the while back a President who took us into a country that had done nothing to us, kill a lot of innocent people while looking for something that the Bush knew wasn't there in the first place. Who else would say they backed "less government" while trying to legislate the heck out of our personal choices, if the choices were different from theirs. Who else would complain about too much spending and all the while support a President who took a surplus and turned it into a hugh deficit, mostly supporting a war that was a lie, and did not bother providing our soldiers forced to fight in this war the proper protection, and even cut funds to make sure that they could not get health resources when they went home! Shall I go on? Because there is a lot more??
Look, you righties are entitled to your opinion, misguided as it is, and Kathy and I are entitled to ours. Time to find something else to talk about because this is going no where.
This is from OneLook Dictionary search. sm
partial-birth abortion
n.
A late-term abortion, especially one in which a viable fetus is partially delivered through the cervix before being extracted. Not in technical use.
The following is my OPINION on the whole issue:
PRACTITIONERS OF THIS BARBERIC PRACTICE SHOULD BE TRIED AS MURDERERS by the state in which they live.
Nice dictionary definition....
Obama practices the Marxist version.
"Marx believed that the problem with the socialism of his day was that it did not deal with economic issues. He proposed that his new (communist) economic system, which called for redistribution of wealth, was more equitable."
Read up on that, and on black liberation theology and "economic parity." Then come back and let's talk about Obama socialism.
Yes, Palin is NOT socialist because she said ALL Alaskans should share in revenues derived from the state's vast national resources. Not taxing wealthy Alaskans to subsidize lower income Alaskans.
Clearer now?
Thanks for your helpful dictionary comment.
That's the problem with discussing things like religion, sexuality, and politics - someone always has to make some kind of smart-a$$ comment and then...
Discussion over.
And you need to read your dictionary for correct spelling......
NM
Consulting Webster's Dictionary online........... sm
resulted in the following. I don't seem to see the word "cult" there.
Christianity
Noun
1. The system of Christian beliefs and practices.
2. A group of Christians; any group professing Christian doctrine or belief; "the church is debating the issue of women priests".
3. The collective body of Christians throughout the world and history; "for a thousand years the Roman Catholic Church was the principal church of Christendom".
Source: WordNet 1.7.1 Copyright © 2001 by Princeton University. All rights reserved.
Date "Christianity" was first used in popular English literature: sometime before 1050.
Consulted yet another web site for Merriam-Webster and found the following....still no "cult" appearing in the definition.
Main Entry: Chris·tian·i·ty
Pronunciation: ˌkris-chç-ˈa-nə-tç, ˌkrish-, -ˈcha-nə-, ˌkris-tç-ˈa-
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 : the religion derived from Jesus Christ, based on the Bible as sacred scripture, and professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic, and Protestant bodies
2 : conformity to the Christian religion
3 : the practice of Christianity
How about Dictionary.com? Nope, not there either.
christianity - 5 dictionary results
Sponsored Links Find The Perfect Religion
Which religion is right for you? Find out with the religion test.
DumbSpot.com/religion-test
Modern Ekklesia Blog
Exploring the intersection of church, leadership, and technology.
www.modernekklesia.com
Chris⋅ti⋅an⋅i⋅ty /ˌkrɪstʃiˈ¿nɪti/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kris-chee-an-i-tee] Show IPA
–noun, plural -ties. 1. the Christian religion, including the Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox churches.
2. Christian beliefs or practices; Christian quality or character: Christianity mixed with pagan elements; the Christianity of Augustine's thought.
3. a particular Christian religious system: She followed fundamentalist Christianity.
4. the state of being a Christian.
5. Christendom.
6. conformity to the Christian religion or to its beliefs or practices.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Origin:
1250–1300; ME cristianite < L chrîstiânitât- (s. of chrîstiânitâs), equiv. to chrîstiân- Christian + -itât- -ity; r. ME cristiente < MF < L, as above
Maybe the American Heritage dictionary? Sorry...not there.
Chris·ti·an·i·ty (krĭs'chç-ân'ĭ-tç, krĭs'tç-) Pronunciation Key
n.
The Christian religion, founded on the life and teachings of Jesus.
Christians as a group; Christendom.
The state or fact of being a Christian.
pl. Chris·ti·an·i·ties A particular form or sect of the Christian religion: the Christianities of antiquity.
Maybe WordNet by Princeton University? Nope....
christianity
noun
1. a monotheistic system of beliefs and practices based on the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus as embodied in the New Testament and emphasizing the role of Jesus as savior
2. the collective body of Christians throughout the world and history (found predominantly in Europe and the Americas and Australia); "for a thousand years the Roman Catholic Church was the principal church of Christendom" [syn: Christendom]
Gee....I can't seem to find Christianity defined as a cult in any mainstream online dictionaries. Which one are you using?
Because MT has proven herself over and over and over
again to be a LIAR. So I've learned to doubt every single thing she says because she is a compulsive liar with no credibility.
I would believe my DOG over anything MT would say.
And as far as Nan having a *civil* long conversation with anyone, ESPECIALLY if MT was involved, I've never seen that happen anywhere on the Conservative board. They don't know what civility is. All they do is attack, bully, gang up and chase away those who don't agree with them.
Just trying to point that out to the liberals who believe that telling the truth is a GOOD thing and that constant lying is BAD.
I think it has been proven..(sm)
that with enough torture anyone will admit to anything. Coming out of Gitmo, I have to take that with a grain of salt.
No he has not proven anything. He still cannot
//
That has yet to be proven...(sm)
We'll have to wait until Israel lets reporters in there to find out the detaills on that. I'm sure by then they will have figured out some other fairy tale for the press.
However, just for the sake of arguement, let's say you are correct and that Hamas was operating from these locations. I still have a problem with that. Think about it this way:
Let's say that you have kids that go to school. One day a group of people show up going postal at the school. Should we just blow up the whole school so we can make sure we get the bad guys? According to your posts, I assume you would think this would be the appropriate response.
These are real people being killed over there that will mourn the loss of their children just as you would yours. The fact that it's not in our backyard doesn't make it any less real for the people living in this nightmare.
Nobody has proven me wrong.
But you've proven just what you are: Just another lying conservative. Maybe someday will come when we finally catch one telling the truth. You have no intention of leaving, and you know it. You live to spread your idiocy.
And as far as what you wrote on the Monitor board about people posting on the Conservative board, if someone did, I wasn't the person who did it.
Wouldn't surprise me a bit if it was YOU who did, though, just to start garbage. That's the way you CONS work. Just like when Bush's goons *leaked* the story about Iraq's *WMDs* in time for it to print on a Saturday, and the very next day, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld were all on the Sunday talk shows saying, *Just like the NYT said yesterday...*
You're not fooling anyone.
You all have proven Rush right ...
no meaningful dialogue, just name-calling.
Right on, Sam. And McCain has proven himself to
nm
Point just proven!
Over and over again on this forum.
Question....now that it has been proven...
that the democrats in Congress are responsible for this 700 billion bailout we are going to be on the hook for...and Obama has taken more in donations from them in his 4 years in the senate than most have in 30 years...you are still going to vote for him? That does not matter to you? Does not bring his decision making process seem a little suspect? I am not trying to start a fight....I am just trying to understand how that would not make you question whether he should be President.
You have just proven the point of the OP, being that
white pastors are never perceived as such. You may be too dense to recognize the bigotry and racism in the viewpoints of Falwell, Robertson, Hagee and their ilk, but for the rest of us outside the right-wing WASP Christian Evangelical inner circle, it is positively palpable. For example, what part of Hagee's pronouncements about Katrina victims is void of racism?
When every single Sunday sermon drills the same dogma week after week and year after year, it does not need to be posted on a website or have a fancy name attached to it to make it a philosophy or a theology. It is what it is.
Beyond that, simply stated, none of the hate patrol can present one shred of evidence that Obama holds black liberationist viewpoints except through their impotent guilt by association protestations. His life experience, his political career and his current campaign platform belie even the loudest shouting you canmuster.
You guys have been hawking this Black Liberationist spiel for nearly 2 years now and Obama is leading in the polls by double digits, dear. Nobody seems to be buying what you are selling. What does it take for you to understand that not only is it not working, but it is also transforming your candidate into somebody who has less than zero cerdibility, even on the most legitimate of campaign issues? By the way, most Americans know racism and hatred when they see it...and by the looks of your post, others can't even recognize it when it is coming out of their own mouths.
There are studies that have proven
that what FDR did during the great depression actually prolonged the duration of the great depression. Do we really need that?
The first thing I would do is fine all companies who hire illegal immigrants and then load em up and ship em back to Mexico. That would save us a buttload of money right there. Did I mention to ship illegal immigrants back? LOL!
that was proven to not be the case as well
@@
SO far he hasn't proven anything
nm
This last election has proven
that the majority of us do not bother to educate ourselves on a candidate or an issue. We just grab at something shiny: Ooh, ooh! That one speaks well and looks good!
In any election, if there are candidates or issues I don't know enough about to vote on (judgeships, etc.) I actually leave that item blank rather than just put just anybody's name in there! Candidates actually fight to have their name placed at the top, because they know that some voters will just select the first one they see. Or they go for name recogition, and vote for the one who'se spent the most on advertising. Horrifying to think this is how some candidates get elected.
In the election before that I was aghast when a friend that I thought was intelligent said of Bush/Kerry. ''We've tried it one way for four years. Time to try give somebody else a chance.'' When asked, she could not name any area in which Kerry was better; he was just ''different.'' Oh, well, if it's somebody else's turn.......
And that's the main problem with our political system. We seldom get a candidate that really inspires us and too often we just end up voting for the one we hate least, or the one whose name is listed first. Or we get bamboozled by flashy packaging with absolutely nothing inside.
So I have no idea how we make people pay attention and vote responsibly in order to change all 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.
That's *innocent* until proven guilty...sm
I don't know which way it will go, but when you tell the truth your story never changes - his did over and over and over.
They have proven ties to Al Queda. nm
nm
Yeah, and McCain has at least proven he would
nm
Right on, Kaydie! -at least McCain has proven he
nm
It's a fake and will be proven in time....sm
Why then when asked where Obama was born his family couldn't agree on which hospital in Hawaii....because when you lie you can't keep facts straight that's why. Obama was born in Kenya.
Already proven but the myth continues. nm
.
The Palestinians have proven time and again
their preference for a one-state solution - a Palestinian state. Israel has made numerous concessions, agreed to everything they want, only to have new demands made before the ink is dry. All our administrations from Carter on have tried to broker a two-state agreement. Israel is justifiably tired of bargaining in good faith, giving up territory, agreeing to demands, only to find the finish line moved once again. Obama did not invent the concept of a two-state solution. He's just in office when Israel is saying ''enough of this crap, no more going through the motions.''
Hmmm...innocent until proven guilty....
you certainly don't think that about George Bush and Dick Cheney, do you? I don't see you asking fellow liberals not to make judgments until they are proven guilty by a jury of their peers...? LOL. Ahem. Think the hippocracy is showing there a little bit. I certainly don't think Kam is considering them innocent until proven guilty, nor are any of the rest of you by your posts. I believe she considers them guilty and impeachment a formality. So please stop with the noble innocent until proven guilty and that is the best system. You don't believe it across the board, so don't speechify. It rings hollow.
And what makes you think I have always voted a Republican ticket? I can tell you right now, I have not, especially in congressional races where I think the most difference is made.
There is nothing to say that Ron Paul would not be a great President. I threw his name out there because he is so radically different than any other Republican running and any Democrat running. Would not surprise me if he lost the Repub nomination and ran as an Independent, which would give disgusted folks such as myself and Kam a real alternative. But Kam is not disgusted with politics. She hates George Bush and she would not vote for a Republican no matter WHAT he or she said, she said as much. And that is what is wrong with politics today, as you have stated so many times and accused me of not wanting change because I said I would never vote for a Democrat. I said I would not vote for a pro abortion Democrat if I have an alternate choice, you are right. But, there are pro life Democrats and I have voted for some for congressional seats. And would continue to do so if I felt they were the most qualified person on the ticket. That is the reason I threw his name out. The only thing that goes against him being able to make any meaningful change is that Congress would hamstring him. If we really want change, we need an independent prez AND an independent congress. That won't happen this election cycle. That kind of change will take years. It could start with this one, and I think that is exactly what Pelosi is trying to avoid by not letting an impeachment go forward right now...too much might come out.
I am not victimized. If anyone is victimized it is poor Kam with that virulent hatred for George Bush. It sounds like it consumes every waking moment. Good grief. I go on about my daily life just like anyone else does, and in the grand scheme of things, WHOever is elected President has his/her work cut out for him/her, we all know that. If it is a Democrat, all I know for absolutely sure is my taxes are going to go up and social programs won't be reined in, they will just get money thrown at them, and if that doesn't fix them, we will get more programs. It has happened every time. And if there is anything in this country that needs to be fixed, that's it. That is another priority for me, and yes, my congresspeople could attest to that from the sheaves of paper they have received from me.
If it is a Republican, what happens depends upon which one it is. If it is Guiliani, I don't see much difference in he and most Democrats and I would have to weigh him against whatever Dem gets the nomination. If it is Romney, I think the man can balance the budget and get runaway spending under control, because say what you want about the man, he is a financial genius and the government is the biggest business there is, and frankly it needs to be run like one. So, if he is the nominee, most likely he will get my vote, because I think it is HIGH time that someone starts to run the government like a business and gets runaway spending under control, starting with social programs. That is so broken it screams to be fixed.
If nominee is Thompson, he will get my vote. For many reasons, the most important of which is putting power back in the states that the feds have stolen over the years. States have demonstrated time and time again they administer their affairs much better than when the Feds get into it. And states may be able to put enough pressure on their reps that Congress might actually do something about that, even if there is a Dem majority. One can only hope. Ron Paul believes that too, and I am in agreement with him on that. We certainly don't need as much centralized power in DC as we have right now. I will vote for the man (or woman) I feel most qualified and most closely follows my vision for the country, just like I would hope everyone else does.
Kam is disgusted, but it is more about her healthy hatred for the MAN George Bush, and the MAN Cheney which has nothing to do with politics and one need only read her posts about them to see that. Which is all well and good, and that is her right and I would argue for her right to say so. Her crusade is to punish George Bush and I don't really think that is going to cure what is wrong with politics in this country. If she thinks Obama is the answer, then I would think her time and energy would be better spent trying to get him the nomination and the election rather than crusading to punish someone on his way out anyway. But that is just me.
Yes, a lot of things about politics and about the way this country is going is disheartening. I do the best I can with my vote and working for whatever candidate I choose to support. Since I am not a rich person I sure can't throw much money at campaigns, but I do what I can.
As to the law is the law and innocent until proven guilty by a jury of your peers...fine. Does that mean if Bush is impeached and not convicted all would be forgiven on the basis of the law is the law? All of you who are calling for his head would go quietly away because he was judged innocent by his "peers?" ROFL. I don't THINK so.
I would agree with you that we the people of America need to change the way politics are played. But before THAT can happen, the minds of Americans have to change. And the way to do that is stop the bitterly partisan way of thinking (ANY party) and if these political boards, and all the political boards and blogs and sites on the internet are ANY indication, that is not going to happen anytime soon.
Does not mean I am not a happy person, does not mean I am going to slink into a closet and into a depression if Clinton or Obama become President or Paul or WHOEVER becomes President. Life will go on, the chips will fall, and we shall see what happens. Same thing if Guiliani or Romney or Thompson or whoever is elected. It is what it is. Noble ideas and good intentions are wonderful things. But if our Congress cannot drop partisanship long enough to do what is best for the country (if they even know what that is anymore, or care), then it doesn't matter who is President. And I don't know how we can really expect them to if we as rank and file Americans are unwilling to...what goes around comes around, and around, and around, and around....until someone gets off the merry-go-round and pulls the plug. Someone a lot more important, sadly, than kam, than me, or you, piglet. And for the right reasons. And therein lies the rub.
Remember that song, I Need A Hero? Well...America needs one right about now. :)
It has been proven that his birth certificate is authentic. nm
.
It has NOT been proven his certificate is authentic - see note
What he has provide is a computer generated copy - not the original type written certificate typed in a typewriter that was used in 1961 (there were no computers back then), and it is NOT authentic. What part of that don't you understand. The people who said it was authentic is the Annenberg foundation who is connected with Ayers and ACORN - hence, they are tied in and supporting Obama.
This has not been verified otherwise the supreme court would not be issuing an order that it be presented. There is something fishy about the whole issue especially when Obama legally had the records sealed so nobody could see the certificate.
The only ones who will not see this is the Obamabots. Open your eyes - you know, if it's found that he is inelligible to be President then Biden will become President (which is who I wanted for President in the first place and we'll see who he picks as VP).
The issue needs to be resolved and at least now we have a supreme court justice wanting to see the original type written certificate and not a computer generated certificate created by a group who is supporting Obama.
You must be against Michele Obama, then too....she's a proven racist...
and no, I will not tell you what I mean, because if you don't remember, yet again, selective memory, and it was explained away.
But make no mistake. Michele Obama is a racist and a bigot. Married to the Barack Obama.
You will just excuse her, like everything else Obama
So lets do all tax cuts which have proven to be ineffective?
That trickle down crap doesn't work - or haven't you figured that out yet? Hmm, over 10 trillion dollars spent on Bush's watch and what did he accomplish? It sure as helll didn't trickle down but all the CEOs got nice bonuses. This crisis is Bush's doing - why don't you get that?
As proven by the Republican majority in the Senate. Yeehaw! nm
Stem cell research has no proven cure rate.
I remember years and years ago when animal experimentation was being protested. I saw this fellow who was a soap opera actor. He was crying and crying because they wanted to stop torturing animals to find cures. His son had diabetes and he said they were THIS CLOSE to finding a cure. that had to be at least 25 years ago. Millions of animals have died and there is no cure for diabetes. So when does it end?
Wow, you have just proven my point with such a nasty slam, you knew exactly that I was referring to
thankfully has been translated into the King's English, as I, too, never found the time to learn the old languages, but if you look into any bookstore, you can pick up a copy, best seller, very easy to read and follow with an open heart. Why the nasty slams, do they stem from some very frayed, exposed nerves that come from trying to defend the indefensible? Mr. Bush is a very nice, Christian man in my point of view, I would probably love to meet him, but he made an abdomination out of the office of the presidency, and I am just hoping and praying for a return to respect, decency, hope, altruism, etc for this country. But if the haters have their way, it will never happen, a house divided against itself really will fall, and we can all continue to argue and ridicule. Really sad.
nope, y'all are sore democrat winners. Obamas are proven bigots and
they'll show their true colors again soon, not to worry.
|
