Not when it is publishing policy statements

• Palin clothing really only $50k vs. $150k - nm
  • Those are not her clothes and will be donated or auctioned for charity - Kaydie
  • If SP had her way, the only place we'd be seeing polar bears - is on her lapels...sm
    • Not when it is publishing policy statements - directly from the moose's mouth..
    • This is a laughable source of - information! NM
  • Only? We need a source here to trump the 1000s - of articles available which are...sm
    • Doesn't bother me...it's the republican - party's money just like sm
    • Chris Matthews had a great way of - Nanaw
      • Well anyone who believes that garbage deserves - him.....86 my butt sm
    • At least her clothing will be going to charity - Obama's charity is MY paycheck.....NM
      • Still looking for legitimate source on the OP claim. - Not in the habit of responding to fibs. sm
        • What are you talking about? Go ahead - and tell us how we are
          • Guess you got tired of arguing with your - HeHeHe
        • Palin sat on TV herself and gave the information - where you been?
          • About as credible as her claiming that she was - not guilty of ethic violations...sm
            • Shouldn't you be more focused on the taxes - you will be paying? NM
            • that was proven to not be the case as well - too bad you're living in a hole
      • Ggive me a break...now that the story has seen the light of day maybe. - My question...sm
        • What? The part about Obama's charity being - YOUR paycheck bother you?
    • Not any more offensive than Obama using the... - sam
      • Let's exhibit a bit of humanity instead. Not surprised you'd side with - the crumudgeon...sm
        • What a crock. The man is a millionaire who... - sam
          • what a crock - myword
            • Yeah, the same ones that were on here - HeHeHe
            • Good grief...that is ridiculous. I would say the same thing if he was white... - sam
        • What a hypocrit! Family values? - sm
        • Family values....Obama's family can't even agree - on who he really is..........NM

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

On the issues

Sarah Palin on Foreign Policy.

            No stance

Obama on Foreign Policy

• Meet with Cuban leaders only with agenda of US interests. (Feb 2008)


• Cuba: Loosen restrictions now; normalization later. (Feb 2008)


• Important to undo the damage of the last seven years. (Feb 2008)


• Never negotiate out of fear, and never fear to negotiate. (Jan 2008)


• Ok to postpone Pakistani elections, but not indefinitely. (Dec 2007)


• Pakistan crisis: secure nukes; continue with elections. (Dec 2007)


• President must abide by international human rights treaties. (Dec 2007)


• Obama Doctrine: ideology has overridden facts and reality. (Dec 2007)


• China is a competitor but not an enemy. (Dec 2007)


• Willing to meet with Fidel Castro, Kim Jung IL & Hugo Chavez. (Nov 2007)


• Wrote 2006 law stabilizing Congo with $52M. (Oct 2007)


• No Obama Doctrine; just democracy, security, liberty. (Oct 2007)


• Invest in our relationship with Mexico. (Sep 2007)


• Strengthen NATO to face 21st-century threats. (Aug 2007)


• $50B annually to strengthen weak states at risk of collapse. (Aug 2007)


• No "strategic ambiguity" on foreign policy issues. (Aug 2007)


• At college, protested for divestment from South Africa. (Aug 2007)


• Increased aid to Republic of Congo. (Aug 2007)


• Visited largest slum in Africa, to publicize its plight. (Aug 2007)


• My critics engineered our biggest foreign policy disaster. (Aug 2007)


• China is a competitor, but not an enemy. (Aug 2007)


• Meet with enemy leaders; it's a disgrace that we have not. (Jul 2007)


• No-fly zone in Darfur; but pay attention more in Africa. (Jun 2007)


• Europe & Japan are allies, but China is a competitor. (Apr 2007)


• Palestinian people suffer-but from not recognizing Israel. (Apr 2007)


• FactCheck: Palestinian suffering from stalled peace effort. (Apr 2007)


• U.S. needs to ameliorate trade relations with China. (Mar 2007)


• U.S. funds for humanitarian aid to Darfur. (Mar 2007)


• We cannot afford isolationism. (Mar 2007)


• Protested South African apartheid while at college. (Feb 2007)


• Focus on corruption to improve African development. (Oct 2006)


• Supports Israel's self-defense; but distrusted by Israelis. (Oct 2006)


• Visited Africa in 2006; encouraged HIV testing & research. (Oct 2006)


• Never has US had so much power & so little influence to lead. (Jul 2004)


• US policy should promote democracy and human rights. (Jul 2004)


• Sponsored aid bill to avert humanitarian crisis in Congo. (Dec 2005)


• Urge Venezuela to re-open dissident radio & TV stations. (May 2007)


• Let Ukraine & Georgia enter NATO. (Jan 2008)


• Condemn violence by Chinese government in Tibet. (Apr 2008)


• Sanction Mugabe until Zimbabwe transitions to democracy. (Apr 2008)

Sarah Palin on Homeland Security

• Strong military and sound energy. (Aug 2008)


• Armed forces, including my son, give us security and freedom. (Jan 2008)


• Ask all candidates "Are you doing all you can for security?". (Oct 2007)


• Visits Kuwait; encourages Alaska big game hunting to troops. (Sep 2007)


• Promote from within, in Alaska's National Guard. (Nov 2006)


• Let military personnel know how much we support them. (Nov 2006)

Obama on Homeland Security

• No torture; no renditions; no operating out of fear. (Apr 2008)


• Unacceptable to have veterans drive 250 miles to a hospital. (Feb 2008)


• Pursue goal of a world without nuclear weapons. (Feb 2008)


• Al Qaida is stronger now than in 2001 as Iraq distracted us. (Jan 2008)


• Colleges must allow military recruiters for ROTC on campus. (Jan 2008)


• Rebuild a nuclear nonproliferation strategy. (Jan 2008)


• FactCheck: Promised to repeal Patriot Act, then voted for it. (Jan 2008)


• No presidential power for secret surveillance. (Dec 2007)


• No holding US citizens as unlawful enemy combatants. (Dec 2007)


• Congress decides what constitutes torture, not president. (Dec 2007)


• No torture; defiance of FISA; no military commissions. (Dec 2007)


• Restore habeas corpus to reach Muslims abroad. (Dec 2007)


• Human rights and national security are complementary. (Nov 2007)


• Don't allow our politics to be driven by fear of terrorism. (Nov 2007)


• 2006: Obama-Lugar bill restricted conventional weapons. (Oct 2007)


• Judgment is as important as experience. (Oct 2007)


• If attacked, first help victims then prevent further attacks. (Oct 2007)


• America cannot sanction torture; no loopholes or exceptions. (Sep 2007)


• Repeal Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell. (Aug 2007)


• 2005: Passed bill to reduce conventional weapon stockpiles. (Aug 2007)


• We are no safer now than we were after 9/11. (Aug 2007)


• Close Guantanamo and restore the right of habeas corpus. (Jun 2007)


• Homeland security must protect citizens, not intrude on them. (Mar 2007)


• America must practice the patriotism it preaches. (Mar 2007)


• Protecting nuclear power plants is of utmost importance. (Mar 2007)


• Personal privacy must be protected even in terrorism age. (Mar 2007)


• Get first responders the healthcare and equipment they need. (Mar 2007)


• Need to be both strong and smart on national defense. (Oct 2006)


• Grow size of military to maintain rotation schedules. (Oct 2006)


• Battling terrorism must go beyond belligerence vs. isolation. (Oct 2006)


• Going after AL Qaeda in Pakistan is not Bush-style invasion. (Jan 2006)


• Rebuild the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. (Jan 2006)


• We are currently inspecting 3% of all incoming cargo. (Oct 2004)


• Increase funding to decommission Russian nukes. (Jul 2004)


• Give our soldiers the best equipment and training available. (Jul 2004)


• Balance domestic intelligence reform with civil liberty risk. (Jul 2004)

Sarah Palin on War and Peace

• We don't know what the plan is to ever end the war. (Aug 2008)


• Wants exit plan; also assurances to keep our troops safe. (Mar 2007)

Obama on War and Peace

            Iraq War

• President sets Iraq mission; Generals then implement tactics. (Apr 2008)


• President sets Iraq mission; give generals a new mission. (Apr 2008)


• $2.7 billion each week of Iraq spending is unsustainable. (Feb 2008)


• Humanitarian aid now for displaced Iraqis. (Feb 2008)


• FactCheck: Overstated displaced Iraqis; actually 4.2 million. (Feb 2008)


• The Iraq war has undermined our security. (Jan 2008)


• Iraq is distracting us from a host of global threats. (Jan 2008)


• End the war, and end the mindset that got us into war. (Jan 2008)


• The Iraq war was conceptually flawed from the start. (Jan 2008)


• Title of Iraq war authorization bill stated its intent. (Jan 2008)


• Get our troops out by the end of 2009. (Jan 2008)


• No permanent bases in Iraq. (Jan 2008)


• FactCheck: No, violence in Iraq is LOWER than 2 years ago. (Jan 2008)


• Congress decides deployment level & duration, not president. (Dec 2007)


• Surge strategy has made a difference in Iraq but failed. (Nov 2007)


• Leave troops for protection of Americans & counterterrorism. (Sep 2007)


• Hopes to remove all troops from Iraq by 2013, but no pledge. (Sep 2007)


• Tell people the truth: quickest is 1-2 brigades per month. (Sep 2007)


• No good options in Iraq--just bad options & worse options. (Aug 2007)


• Be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. (Jul 2007)


• We live in a more dangerous world because of Bush's actions. (Jun 2007)


• Case for war was weak, but people voted their best judgment. (Jun 2007)


• War in Iraq is "dumb" but troops still need equipment. (Apr 2007)


• Open-ended Iraq occupation must end: no military solution. (Apr 2007)


• Saddam is a tyrant but not a national security threat. (Mar 2007)


• Iraq 2002: ill-conceived venture; 2007: waste of resources. (Feb 2007)


• Saddam did not own and was not providing WMD to terrorists. (Oct 2004)


• Iraq War has made US less safe from terrorism. (Oct 2004)


• Invading Iraq was a bad strategic blunder. (Oct 2004)


• Democratizing Iraq will be more difficult than Afghanistan. (Oct 2004)


• Never fudge numbers or shade the truth about war. (Jul 2004)


• Set a new tone to internationalize the Iraqi reconstruction. (Jul 2004)


• Iraq war was sincere but misguided, ideologically driven. (Jul 2004)


• Not opposed to all wars, but opposed to the war in Iraq. (Jul 2004)


• International voice in Iraq in exchange for debt forgiveness. (Jul 2004)

Trouble Spots

• Iran is biggest strategic beneficiary of invasion of Iraq. (May 2008)


• Military surge in Afghanistan to eliminate the Taliban. (May 2008)


• Take no options off the table if Iran attacks Israel. (Apr 2008)


• Two-state solution: Israel & Palestine side-by-side in peace. (Feb 2008)


• Al Qaida is based in northwest Pakistan; strike if needed. (Jan 2008)


• No action against Iran without Congressional authorization. (Dec 2007)


• Iran: Bush does not let facts get in the way of ideology. (Dec 2007)


• Meet directly for diplomacy with the leadership in Iran. (Nov 2007)


• Committed to Iran not having nuclear weapons. (Oct 2007)


• Iran military resolution sends the region a wrong signal. (Oct 2007)


• Deal with al Qaeda on Pakistan border, but not with nukes. (Aug 2007)


• Military action in Pakistan if we have actionable intel. (Aug 2007)


• FactCheck: Yes, Obama said invade Pakistan to get al Qaeda. (Aug 2007)


• Focus on battle in Afghanistan and root out al Qaeda. (Jun 2007)


• Bush cracked down on some terrorists' financial networks. (Jun 2007)


• Iraq has distracted us from Taliban in Afghanistan. (Apr 2007)


• Iran with nuclear weapons is a profound security threat. (Apr 2007)


• We did the right thing in Afghanistan. (Mar 2007)


• We are playing to Osama's plan for winning a war from a cave. (Oct 2006)


• Al Qaida is stronger than before thanks to the Bush doctrine. (Jan 2006)


• Terrorists are in Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran. (Oct 2004)


• Problems with current Israeli policy. (Jul 2004)


• Engage North Korea in 6-party talks. (Jul 2004)


• Use moral authority to work towards Middle East peace. (Jul 2004)

Voting Record

• Voted to fund war until 2006; now wants no blank check. (Nov 2007)


• Late to vote against war is not late to oppose war. (Jun 2007)


• Spending on the Cold War relics should be for the veterans. (Jun 2007)


• Would have voted no to authorize the President to go to war. (Jul 2004)


• Voted YES on redeploying US troops out of Iraq by March 2008. (Mar 2007)


• Voted NO on redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2007. (Jun 2006)


• Voted YES on investigating contract awards in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Nov 2005)

Here is yet another expert criticizing Bush's policies.  How can ALL of these people be wrong?

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-06-21T064029Z_01_N21187502_RTRUKOT_0_TEXT0.xml&pageNumber=0&imageid=&cap=&sz=13&WTModLoc=NewsArt-C1-ArticlePage3

Former US Diplomat Raps Bush N. Korea Policy

June 21, 2006

By Carol Giacomo, Diplomatic Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A former U.S. diplomat who was deeply involved in North Korea policy said the Bush administration's approach toward the isolated communist state has been a failure that left Pyongyang to pursue its nuclear and missile programs.

In a rare public attack on the administration by a foreign service officer, retired head of the State Department's office of Korean affairs David Straub also questioned Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's decision-making on the issue. A spokesman for Rice was not immediately available for comment.

One fundamental failure of Bush's approach was the tendency to raise tensions and make South Korea nervous by stating that all options were the table, a phrase underscoring U.S. intentions to use force against North Korea if necessary, he said.

Of course all options are on the table. No government ever takes any option off the table but you don't have to talk about it all the time, Straub said.

Every time we said 'all options are on the table' gratuitously, we made the situation with our South Korean ally worse and made the prospect of coordination with South Korea to resolve the North Korean problem diplomatically that much more remote, he said.

Straub was head of the Korean office from 2002-2004 and was part of a team that negotiated with the North during former Secretary of State Colin Powell's tenure.

Several former administration political appointees have faulted President George W. Bush's policies after leaving office but it is rare for a foreign service officer to do so.

DIPLOMATIC FAILURE

Straub spoke in Washington at a meeting of the Korea Club, which groups former officials, scholars and journalists interested in the Korean peninsula.

His remarks came as six-country negotiations on ending North Korea's nuclear program are at a stalemate and as Pyongyang fans tensions again with preparations for a possible long-range missile test.

Straub said Washington was not primarily responsible for the failure to stop the North's pursuit of nuclear weapons and expressed skepticism Pyongyang would abandon its growing capability even if the United States made major concessions.

But he said the only viable U.S. approach is serious negotiations, the appointment of a high-level envoy and a willingness to engage in bilateral as well as multilateral talks, something the Bush administration has eschewed.

Straub said North Korea never seemed a priority for Bush and he could not understand why the National Security Council under Rice, who is often credited with energizing diplomacy at the State Department, repeatedly rejected Powell's diplomatic proposals.

Powell was desperate to try to have some real diplomatic effort going (with Pyongyang). Maybe she did something (to assist that) for four years while he was in office, but if she did no one ever told me, Straub said.

As for Bush, Straub wondered how much attention is he able to pay to it (North Korea). How much does he know?

Straub noted that opinion polls show many South Koreans consider America a bigger problem than North Korea. I can't think of a better definition of diplomatic failure, he said

He expressed confidence Powell would have pursued bilateral talks with Pyongyang in 2002-2003 during a crisis created by U.S. discovery of the North's clandestine program for enriching weapons-grade uranium.

But he said the administration did not want real give and take so the stalemate in six-country talks between the United States, the two Koreas, Japan, China and Russia was predictable, he said.

Straub also questioned why, after six-party talks reached an important but preliminary agreement on the nuclear issue last September, Rice would allow release of a statement clarifying U.S. views on issues papered over in the agreement.

The U.S. statement prompted Pyongyang to renege on the agreement.

Obama started off saying he was confident in his FOREIGN POLICY experience ("Foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident that I know more and understand the world better than Senator Clinton or Senator McCain"). He then proceeded to talk about his visit to Pakistan.

SO WHAT? I visited and lived in several foreign countries, too. Does that mean I understand foreign policy better than someone who may have spent less time but has had actual interaction and policy discussions with those countries' leaders? And with the leaders of 80 countries?

If 3 weeks in Pakistan is the extent of Obama's foreign policy credentials, then I am way more qualified on the "foreign policy" front.

My point is that Obama's claim is ridiculous. Better that he stick to his "better judgement" mantra, since the "3 weeks abroad = foreign policy experience" is just pathetically weak.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/obamas-college.html

Read at your own risk..make sure you have a puke bucket close by.

Quotes from the The American Taliban

 In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm and three or more is a congress.                                       
  

John Adams 

If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed, if you do read the     

newspaper you are misinformed.                                                       

                                                                            

Mark Twain                                                                 

                                                                                                                                                     

                                                                            

Suppose you were an idi0t.  And suppose you were a member of Congress …..                                                            

But then I repeat myself.                                                  

                                                                            

Mark Twain                                                                 

                                                                            

                                                                            

I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a 

man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.                   

                                                                            

Winston Churchill                                                          

                                                                                                                                                   

                                                                            

A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the         

support of Paul.                                                           

                                                       (So true!!!!!)       

George Bernard Shaw                                                        

                                                                            

                                                                                                                                          

A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man,             

which debt he proposes to pay off with your money.                         

                                                                            

  G Gordon Liddy                                                            

                                                                                                                                                     

                                                                            

Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep               

voting on what to have for dinner.                                         

                                                                            

James Bovard, Civil Libertarian (1994)                                     

                                                                                                                                                     

                                                                            

Foreign aid might be defined as a transfer of money from poor people       

in rich countries to rich people in poor countries.                        

                                                                            

Douglas Casey, Classmate of Bill Clinton at Georgetown University          

                                                                            

                                                                                                                                                

Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and            

car keys to teenage boys.                                                  

                                                                            

P.J. O'Rourke, Civil Libertarian                                           

                                                                            

                                                                                                                                                     

Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors         

to live at the expense of everybody else.                                  

                                                                            

Frederic Bastiat, French Economist (1801-1850)                             

                                                                            

                                                                            

Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it  And if it stops moving, subsidize it.        

                                                    

                                                                            

Ronald Reagan (1986)                                                       

                                                                            

                                                                                                                                                        

I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts.      

                                                                            

Will Rogers                                                                

                                                                            

                                                                                                                                                      

If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it      

costs when it's free!                                                      

                                                                            

P.J. O'Rourke                                                              

                                                                            

                                                                                                                                                     

In general, the art of government consists of taking as much money         

as possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other.           

                                                                            

Voltaire (1764)               (Oh yes)                                     

                                                                            

                                                                                                                                                      

Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics 

won't take an interest in you!                                             

                                                                            

Pericles (430 B.C.)                                                        

                                                                            

                                                                                                                                                       

No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in    

session.                                                                   

                                                                            

Mark Twain (1866 )                                                         

                                                                            

                                                                                                                                                      

Talk is cheap...except when Congress does it.                              

                                                                            

Anon                                                                       

                                                                            

                                                                                                                                                       

The government is like a baby's alimentary canal, with a happy appetite    

at one end and no responsibility at the other.                             

                                      

---

broad statements such as this

reveal much, much more about the thinker than the group he is maligning.  Ask any psych professional.  Ask Niles Crane. Dr. Phil.  Dr. Ablow.  Dr. Freud.

 

 

---

I applaud you for your statements but

I doubt anyone will listen for the reasons you listed. Everything you said is true and I agree wholeheartedly.

When I first came to this board, it was about the issues. There was no name-calling or nastiness, but as the election went on, it got really nasty. Links were posted so we could verify the information and/or come back with a retort. I came back after the election hoping that was all over with and was confronted with messages that were even WORSE than before the election. Like you said, there are no discussions on the issues. There aren't any links to verify anything. It's nothing but rumors and inuendos and O worshipping.

I've said it many times and it always falls on deaf ears. I see some are even on the gab board now about taking off work tomorrow for the inauguration. Lose money just to see "one of the most historical moments in history"? Not me. I've had it up to here with all of it. I've never seen an election where they had so many "historical" items for sale either. It's not the serious ceremony it should be this year. It's more like a circus or parade.

Sure, I wish him luck. He's really going to need it, but I doubt he can pull it off. There's going to be a lot of disappointed people in this country in a year or two.

 

---

Yes, let us get our statements correct.
Special Report: Barack Obama: The 44th U.S. President

WASHINGTON, Jan. 27 (Xinhua) -- U.S. President Barack Obama Tuesday held talks with congressional Republicans and urged them to quickly approve an 825 billion U.S. dollar stimulus package.

"The statistics every day underscore the urgency of the economic situation. The American people expect action," said Obama after meeting with Republicans.

"As I explained to the Republican House Caucus and I will explain to my former Senate colleagues, the recovery package that we've proposed and is moving its way through Congress is just one leg in a multi-legged stool," said the new president.

House will vote on the package Wednesday, and Senate committees began their own deliberations over it on Tuesday.

However, many Republicans turned against the large stimulus package. And after the meeting with Obama last week, House Republican Leader John Boehner said he and his colleagues told the president they feel the stimulus package is too expensive and too slow.

I personally think, Republicans do not have a chance with Obama. Look what our new president and the dems state about Rush Limbaugh. NO FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Must do what Obama says or he will back stab you. After he, Obama states, "I won and I will trump you."

---

I heard their statements too and
Although, I think it is to cover their own butts for something. If I could, I would have had them FIRED FROM THEIR POSITION. No open mind at all, just being arrogant.

---

I thought many of his statements........... sm
were right on. Just because he doesn't march in step with the rest of Hollywood does not make his opinions any less valid. People really do need to wake up and smell the coffee.

Obama has proven himself a liar and a manipulator. He is most definitely against Israel which is a place that no one in their right mind should want to be. He has burdened this country with debt for generations to come and has changed the economic face of this nation for the worse forever....or at least for any foreseeable future.

---

making false statements
Well, if someone posts that I have called them a bigot TEN TIMES and all I see is the heading of my post talking about bigotry..what do you call it?  I call em as I see em..Liar is someone putting out false and misleading statements.  Stating that I called you a bigot 10 times is false and misleading..hence, liar..

---

I can square it because they are questions not statements.
Biblically, only those who accept Jesus as their savior will go to heaven.  That is a CHRISTIAN view.  Jews have their own Messiah and their own belief as to heaven.  As for me, I would gladly welcome all to heaven. But I am not God. 

---

If you will copy and paste each of the statements...
into a Google search, it will give you some sites with the full context of what she said. However, if you take the totality of the statements, and look at her basic agenda...Hillary does have strong socialist tendencies. Read up for yourself on socialism...how it starts and how it invariably ends. Veneuela being an example...Chavez took power saying he was going to return power to the people. What he did was take all the power for himself...that is where socialism invariably goes...to dictatorship. Cuba is another example. Chavez recently took control of all the television stations and radio stations so he could control the content and people who would disagree with him. We just need to be very careful to look at all aspects of something that looks good on the surface...need to make sure we push the lid off and see what's underneath. Educate ourselves. No matter what our political leanings are. We need to keep our individuality. It is vital...in my opinion.

---

Bush irresponsible statements
The other night I just about choked when Bush made that statement about WWIII.  If that was not the most irresponsible statement by a world leader then I dont know what was..well, maybe the statement he made a while ago about bring it on or the approved post by the WH Mission accomplished.  Throwing around words like WWIII can cause nothing but angst and make other countries get ready for WWIII.  It is like stating in a marriage the word dirvoce, once it is out there, the questions and doubts arise. 

---

First of all...please do not classify my statements as ignorant...
who are YOU to decide that??

We are NOT France, piglet. Do you honestly think that Cornell or Harvard or any of the premiere medical programs in this country could train doctors as well if they were dependent upon the government for funding? You have GOT to be kidding. To bring those schools to the level they are right now, do you have ANY idea what that would cost? I repeat...you have GOT to be kidding. You might as well sign your entire paycheck over to the government.

And what great medical minds have come out of French schools lately? Any great medical minds in France probably graduated from Cornell or Harvard. Well I take that back...if they came to school here, they stayed here. That is another thing...I would be interested in the numbers of Canadian doctors who fled that wonderful system and now work here? I would venture to say....hundreds.

As to 78% of the French as satisfied with their program...I doubt that is a real number unless someone went door to door in person to 78% of the French and asked them if they were satisfied. After they take a big tax hit to pay for this program, as the cost is catching up with them...ask them AGAIN. I would bet that figure, real or not, takes a nose dive.

Yes, I can argue that citizens under socialized health care are satisfied with it. If they are satisfied with it, why do they cross the border to come HERE when they need an operation and can't jump the line? Why do people from those countries bring their children to Cornell or other hospitals to be treated because of lines and quotas? Why do they bring children with significant diseases here? Because the best medical minds in the world are HERE. And whether you agree or not, that will no longer be the case under socialized medicine. Socialized medicine has a smothering effect on research because it sucks up all the research money. It sucks up the money from a LOT of places. You need to think this through, piglet, and stop focusing on "free" because that is what you are focusing on. And what a, to use your word, "ludicrous" thing THAT is.

Your relatives in Montreal may be fine with it.....however, I have read article after article from Canadian newspapers with people fed up with Canada's system...a system which will give clean needles to drug addicts but won't supply needs to diabetics. And whatever the "universal plan" won't cover, still comes out of your pocket.

And while you may want the government to decide when and where you need health care and to what degree, and where they have to draw the line because of cost, taking any choice from you, that is up to you, I do not, and I will fight it tooth and nail. Which is my right. I do NOT want to end up with over half my paycheck going to taxes. I will fight THAT tooth and nail. It is already 35%. Piglet, that is ENOUGH. If they cannot provide entitlements for that amount, then they need to decide what entitlement is the most important and prioritize. There are a great MANY Canadians who are at the 50-55% point already. Please do not say you are okay with all your fellow Americans having 50% of their wages taken off the top so you don't have to pay an insurance premium.

You know, the reason insurance companies are walking up and down aisles doing those studies is because the health care profession would not police itself and start looking at cost realistically. Insurance coompanies organizing large groups of people gave them the push they needed to negotiate these costs down. Much like unions did in the beginning. And you want to remove that and hand it over to government. Basically you are wanting to take from insurance companies the right to negotiate prices down for consumers, and instead let the government take all choice out of it and make all your choices for you. You are willing to relinquish total control to the government just so you don't have to pay for your own insurance. What you are asking is that your fellow Americans cough it up so you don't have to. Because that is where the government gets every dime it spends. From your fellow Americans. Pardon me if I do not understand that. I do not expect my fellow Americans to insure me or my kids, feed me or clothe me or give me a check when I am fully capable of doing all that for myself. I may have to work harder or longer than some, but I will do that before I will ask you or any other American to pay any more taxes so that I do not have to pay an insurance premium.

---

His campaign has released several statements
stating that she was vetted. Just go to cnn.com and you can read them all there.

Here is a partial article (also explains that this was a rumor...that she had not been vetted:

Nicolle Wallace, a senior McCain adviser, told ABC's "Good Morning America" on Tuesday that Palin disclosed her daughter's pregnancy during the vetting process, and that the McCain campaign had been forced to reveal the pregnancy publicly Monday because of "lewd and outrageously false rumors" spread by "Democratic-leaning blogs and a few in the mainstream" media. She did not identify them.

Since McCain publicly disclosed his running mate on Friday, the notion of a shoddy, rushed review has been stoked repeatedly.

First, a campaign-issued timeline said McCain initially met Palin in February, then held one phone conversation with her last week before inviting her to Arizona, where he met with her a second time and offered her the job Thursday.

Then came the campaign's disclosure that Palin's unmarried 17-year-old daughter, Bristol, was pregnant. The father is Levi Johnston, who has been a hockey player at Bristol's high school, The New York Post and The New York Daily News reported in their Tuesday editions.

In addition, the campaign also disclosed that Palin's husband, Todd, then age 22, was arrested in 1986 in Alaska for driving under the influence of alcohol.

Shortly after Palin was named to the ticket, McCain's campaign dispatched a team of a dozen communications operatives and lawyers to Alaska. That fueled speculation that a comprehensive examination of Palin's record and past was incomplete and being done only after she was placed on the ticket.

Steve Schmidt, a senior adviser, said no matter who the nominee was, the campaign was ready to send a "jump team" to the No. 2's home state to work with the nominee's staff, work with the local media and help handle requests from the national media for information, and answer questions about documents that were part of the review.

At several points throughout the process, McCain's team warned Palin that the scrutiny into her private life would be intense and that there was nothing she could do to prepare for it.

Culvahouse disclosed details of his examination in a half-hour interview with the AP.

First, a team of some 25 people working under Culvahouse culled information from public sources for Palin and other prospective candidates without their knowledge. For all, news reports, speeches, financial and tax return disclosures, litigation, investigations, ethical charges, marriages and divorces were reviewed.

For Palin specifically, the team studied online archives of the state's largest newspapers, including the Anchorage Daily News, but didn't request paper archives for Palin's hometown newspaper. "I made the decision that we could not get it done and maintain secrecy," Culvahouse said.

Reports, 40-some pages and single-spaced, on each candidate then were reviewed by McCain, Schmidt, campaign manager Rick Davis and top advisers Mark Salter and Charlie Black.

Among the details McCain's campaign found: Palin had once received a citation for fishing without a license.

Palin, like others on the short list, then was sent a personal data questionnaire with 70 "very intrusive" questions, Culvahouse said. She also was asked to submit a number of years of federal and state tax returns, as well as any controversial articles she had written or interviews she had done. The campaign also checked her credit.

Then, Culvahouse conducted a nearly three-hour-long interview.

He said the first thing she volunteered was that her daughter was pregnant, and she also quickly disclosed her husband's DUI arrest.

Early on, the public search unearthed details of the investigation by the Republican-controlled legislature into the possibility that Palin ordered the dismissal of Alaska's public safety commissioner because he would not fire her former brother-in-law as a state trooper.

Culvahouse said that he asked follow-up questions during the interview, and "spent a lot of time with her lawyer" on the matter.

"We came out of it knowing all that we could know at the time," he said.

As for the financial records review, Culvahouse said: "It was very clean. We had no issues there."

Throughout the process, the campaign said, Davis had multiple conversations with Palin.

---

In what context would those statements not be racist? nm
nm

---

because these statements do demonstrate racism
and I people should be aware they were made. As I said, but you obviously didn't take the time to think about, I am against ANY racism.

---

Your making statements you can't back up.
In your dreams - yes, you do just pull out statements, but they are not out of your bellybutton.

For every poll you come up with that Obama is ahead I can find a poll where McCain is ahead. Polls are polls and they don't mean anything. Even all the liberal media people on MSNBC say that (especially when Obama is losing). They're the first to admit polls don't mean anything.

---

But McCain supporting it went against his own statements -
to paraphrase, during one of the debates, he said he had a pen and he would use it to veto any bill that had pork barrel spending in it and that he would make the names known of people who wanted that spending.

---

This is not the correct board for these statements
Do some research before you make that statement. Or at least take a class or two in theology. This is not the religious board so will not even get into this kind of discussion here. I'm just replying to you that your statement is your belief, others including myself feel different and you have no proof of your statement. If you want to discuss further go to the religion board.

Look at the link enclosed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology

There ARE more than one.

---

These statements pretty much speak for themselves
and don't need a whole lot of context to get the drift.

---

I find statements like this creepy!

Just for the record, Obama is not a messiah or the messiah, he is not our savior, though he tries portrays himself as just that.  He is not operating some elevated, enlightened plane on which the rest of us are not fit to tread.  He is merely a man wrongfully elected into the most powerful position in the world.  Forgive me if my fears and concerns aren't assuaged by the fact that he ordered a chili dog for lunch!

He wasn't "wrongfully elected."  The majority of the people spoke and, for once, their votes were counted honestly.  He didn't need to be selected.  He was rightfully elected.

The Bushies are the "worshippers."  Those who voted for Obama are "supporters" of better futures of their children and grandchildren.  It just so happens that that hope -- yes, HOPE, the new Neocon four-letter curse word -- is coming in the form of a man who can, at the very least, form complete sentences, for whom English is not a second language, someone who doesn't claim the "have mores" are his "base," and someone who hasn't claimed to have a direct line to GOD.

Oh, yeah, and he just happens to be BLACK, as well.  So he carries even a higher burden than any other white man would be forced to carry.  He's intelligent enough to know that this is a historic moment in the USA, which is another reason I believe he won't mess it up.

I've seen the look in his eyes when his wife and children are in his presence.  He is truly humbled by them.  It would take quite a lot to convince me that he would endanger them (or their futures) in any way.  He isn't arrogant.  He doesn't publicly say he doesn't CARE what people think because he's the "Decider," and I'm pretty sure he is aware that fish and man CAN and HAVE coexisted for quite some time now.

All you Obama haters, to me, are truly the creepy ones.

---

There are so many false statements in your post...
Afghans are not Arabs

Arabs cannot get along among themselves? Neither can Republicans and Democrats.

Obama cannot withdraw troops in Iraq as fast as he thought because the situation changed. The Taliban in Pakistan is getting stronger. Already during his campaign O said he will send more troops to Afghanistan.

Waterboarding IS torture.

The beheadings started after the Abu Ghraib torture pictures were published.


Hamas is O's heritage? That's a little farfetched. In addition Hamas is militant, Obama is not.

Hamas is Netanyahu's counterpart. Tot-for-tat. Both are extremists. Both want the same: Netanyahu wants whole Palestine for Israel, Hamas wants whole Palestine for Palestine.

Will never happen! The only solution, aleady accepted by Israel, the Palestinians, teh Arabs and the US is the 2-state solution.

The Palestinian president Abbas did not accept the proposal of Netanyahu for a 2-state solution as the conditions set forth by Netanyahu were ridiculous and inacceptable for the Palestinians.

Netanyahu's reaction: Again, immediate bombing of Gaza.
I made it through your foxy post, full of faulty statements.

I noticed that you mentioned at least 5 times regarding JTBB...'come on, JTBB, you are smarter than that...' Fozy, foxy, is this your MO (this means modus operandi? it's Latin) this gives me the creeps...

---

There are so many false statements in your post...
Afghans are not Arabs

Arabs cannot get along among themselves? Neither can Republicans and Democrats.

Obama cannot withdraw troops in Iraq as fast as he thought because the situation changed. The Taliban in Pakistan is getting stronger. Already during his campaign O said he will send more troops to Afghanistan.

Waterboarding IS torture.

The beheadings started after the Abu Ghraib torture pictures were published.


Hamas is O's heritage? That's a little farfetched. In addition Hamas is militant, Obama is not.

Hamas is Netanyahu's counterpart. Tot-for-tat. Both are extremists. Both want the same: Netanyahu wants whole Palestine for Israel, Hamas wants whole Palestine for Palestine.

Will never happen! The only solution, aleady accepted by Israel, the Palestinians, teh Arabs and the US is the 2-state solution.

The Palestinian president Abbas did not accept the proposal of Netanyahu for a 2-state solution as the conditions set forth by Netanyahu were ridiculous and inacceptable for the Palestinians.

Netanyahu's reaction: Again, immediate bombing of Gaza.
I made it through your foxy post, full of faulty statements.

I noticed that you mentioned at least 5 times regarding JTBB...'come on, JTBB, you are smarter than that...' Fozy, foxy, is this your MO (this means modus operandi? it's Latin) this gives me the creeps...

---