Just to clarify....
Posted By: Chele on 2008-09-23
In Reply to: Question for Democrats...will you explain to me why (sm) - To all Obama supporters
Here is one thing that I must clarify in your post. Obama didn't have his hand over his heart during the singing of the national anthem. He claims that during the pledge he does put his hand over his heart but was never taught to put his hand over his heart during the national anthem.
Everything else you say....I agree with though.
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
Let me clarify it for you.
.......hatred of Clinton, anything to do with Clinton. The mere mention of his name causes the bile to rise and the red mist to engulf them. They hate, hate, hate. They blame, blame, blame. It's what they do. There is no having conversations with them. They don't see reason. They don't see fairness. They see nothing but hate. I remember this very same venom directed at Clinton, for about 8 years.
I don't hate Bush. I hate what his administration has done to our country and I always say his administration because I do not believe his personal merits, whatever they are, are presidential. I believe Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rove, the unholy trinity, serve as president. I have said and continue to say, Bush is just not good enough to be president. Hundreds of thousands of Americans do not have what it takes to be the President of the United States and George W. Bush he is one of them.
Let ME clarify....
in the same league... that is generalization...like a baseball league, a football league...covers a large number of people. I see equal meaning a more one on one comparison. Frankly, I do not consider you and Lurker equal. I see rather large differences both in personality (at least the personality displayed here), way of expressing yourselves, etc. She comes from a different point of view, and she is nowhere near as angry or condescending in her posting. It is merely an observation on my part, an opinion, because I have been on the receiving end of a lot of posts from both of you. In my mind, there is a big difference. So now we can stop beating this dead horse, shall we? Neither you nor Lurker give a tinker's darn what I think of you, so what does it matter? I only said it in the first place because you have invoked her a few times to make a point. I will not do so again. My opinion is my own and will remain the same until I see something to change it...I will just refrain from posting it.
Have a good day.
Maybe this will clarify why ND responded that way.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-12-10-corruptstates_N.htm
Yes I read their comments about USA Today. The OP did analysis had very similar results. Here are a few more who beg to differ:
http://www.drudge.com/news/115767/nd-most-corrupt-state
http://minnesotaindependent.com/20089/most-corrupt-new-york-times-vindicates-north-dakota-sort-of
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2008/12/is_illinois_the_most_corrupt_s.html
http://leisureguy.wordpress.com/2008/01/29/louisiana-most-corrupt-state-in-the-us/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/jan/18/20040118-114320-9103r/
http://www.commondreams.org/news2007/1008-04.htm
I should clarify......thanks dems
for letting us pay for your retreat. People are losing jobs, houses, etc. and they feel the need to go to a friggin spa. Times are tough and sometimes you have to break tradition to save money. Personally, I think both pubs and dems should have just stayed in D.C. and had a little group meeting or maybe a pitch in dinner.....pay for it themselves. The pubs retreat was paid for by lobbyists and the dems retreat was paid for by taxpayers while they bragged about not having lobbyists at the retreat. I don't care if Obama just showed up.......if government really cared about us, like they claim to, they would put any spa retreats on hold and SAVE SOME MONEY FOR ONCE INSTEAD OF SPENDING IT FOR CHRIST'S SAKE!
To clarify...I'm an independent who
leans conservative. I don't care for either far left or far right. I think that there are nut jobs in both extremes.
There are many things that run through my head when I think of President Obama. To me, Obama is too far left for my taste.
Some things that we should do right away is get the heck out of the middle east. Use our troops in rotation to guard our border with Mexico. Honestly, if we would keep our nose out of the middle east's business, maybe they would just keep fighting amongst themselves and we would have less to worry about. I know that sounds horrible, but there has been fighting in that region since the beginning of time. No amount of money we spend is going to change that. We need to worry more about our problems at home including illegal immigrants. They are costing us WAY too much money per year.
I do not want big government. I do not feel that government should have to bail us out. I believe that government created this problem allowing bad loans to be given out to people who couldn't afford to pay them. However, I feel that these "programs" that Obama wants to enforce really won't help the middle class he professes to be looking out for. Bigger government and more government programs does nothing more than promote and reward irresponsibility and laziness. Our coutry cannot afford to continually bail banks, companies, and people out. We have no money. China won't even help us out any more....not that I really like the idea of getting money from China...but you get my point.
What I want is for government to stop handing out and stop spending money it doesn't have. Get rid of our tax code and have a flat tax for everyone. You pay more based on the more you earn. That way it closes loopholes for crooks so they don't have to pay their taxes or they "make a mistake" and don't pay their taxes.
I'm tired of packages filled with pork and I'm pointing fingers at both dems and pubs on this one as both parties are guilty. Get rid of the pork and the pet projects.
The idea of Obama wanting to do away with secret ballots in union votes....I totally disagree with. Why shouldn't they continue to be secret? Making that information known just gives unions the chance to bully people and that isn't looking out for employees like the unions claim to do.....even though it is proven that unionized states show less production and less job growth than states without unions.
Bigger government also scares me because obviously politicians are too crooked....how can we trust them to run everything in this country.
We also need to reform welfare. I was truly upset when I heard Obama wanted to get rid of the reform that Clinton had done on welfare. We need some regulations and limitations to our welfare system.
I do not have much hope in change. So far all I see are the same old cronies that were in Washington before. We have too many crooked politicians and too many people giving money to them in order to get them elected so they have a puppet in Washington to do their bidding.
Just to clarify, Hannibal.
I am not the poster who apologized to you and asked you not to go. Judging by the length of your rambling post, you never had any intention of leaving anyway.
To clarify your misguided attempt
I am not a republican, I do not care for Hannity, and I don't particularly care for McCain either. As far as Obama, I know a skunk when I smell one.....
Sorry to pop your bubble.
Just to clarify, inciting one is a felony. sm
That would include just warning people to get their money out. They warn us about this in discussions we have in finance forums.
Washington Mutual was limiting or refusing withdrawals to depositors. I am not leaving my money in the bank, only enough to keep the account open. I do not want them making money off me. For every $1,000 you leave in the bank, they create $10,000 in credit, and debt is our biggest problem.
Huh? Care to clarify this incoherence?
su
And to clarify...I did not insinuate that the new Prez...
has to respond NOW and neither did Russia. They just threw down the gauntlet. It is up to him how and when he responds.
As to communism...there is no "authority" required for an opinion. Obama has been influenced by Marxists throughout his life...first Frank Marshall Davis, followed by the Marxist professors and students he said in his book he sought out....followed by Bill Ayers...that he taught and used the Saul Alinsky method community organizing..and on and on. The influence is there. Karl Marx said socialism was a start but it did not go far enough because it did not address redistribution of wealth. We know where Obama stands on redistribution of wealth. Everything he has been and everything he says tells me he thinks he can make it work and very well may attempt to in this country. They had a Marxist revolution in Russia. We see how that turned out. They had a Marxist revolution in Cuba. We see how that turned out. So far they are just socialist in Venezuela, but we see how that turned out. There will have to be no revolution here, because our new Prez and apparently 51% of the American people think it will work too. We may very well be the USSA...or worse, the UCSA. Taken over from within without having to fire a shot. THAT is what I meant about communism, and it is a far statement based on Obama's entire history from childhood into adulthood. I have no reason to think he is turning from that now. I will wait and see, of course. But just because he won does not mean I will change everything I want and believe overnight...just like I think he will not change everything he has thought and believed throughout his life. I think it is very naive to ignore that and think that he somehow has.
Again...this has nothing whatsoever to do with Bush. I don't care what Bush does; he's gone. What I care about is the man with the power for the next 4 years.
Just to clarify, I like Palin and am not the same Kendra as above...
I just quit posting on here because I get too irritated with people like my namesake here.
Just to clarify - this is for infants who were actually born .
x
Well you didn't clarify a single thing,
just restated your point all over again. Which I still don't understand. Never mind. 
to clarify - the baby's safety is the first thing I thought of that was worrisome..
it appeared tacky to me to use the baby in such a way. When I re-read my post I guess it could have been taken differently than it was meant. anywho - it is not a choice I would have made as a mother...
to clarify - NO to fed laws superseding laws of State of California against voters
nm
|
