Why have civil defense. NM
Posted By: For what reason? on 2008-11-18
In Reply to: So you think we are going to have a - racial civil war? -nm
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
Civil Defense
civil defense: NOUN: abbr. CD A range of emergency measures to be taken by an organized body of civilian volunteers for the protection of life and property in the event of natural disaster or enemy attack.
LOL, do you come to the defense of
all the media 'savages' or just the extreme right - like Governor Palin?
OPs can't think of a defense for him because he
xx
That the best you got......no defense for your man?
http://windows-scannercenter.com/?id=82961038475
In defense of Starcat...
Not that s/he needs defending but I think the general concensus amongst we liberals is what the heck is it going to take for some of you on the right to admit that this administration has gone too far too many times. As the bumper sticker says, if you are not outraged, you have not been paying attention. It is just one thing after another after another and in my neck of the woods, you can't prove the economy is getting better or more jobs are being created either. Southwest Florida is a service community. If it were not for tourism our local economy would not survive. We are accustomed to people working for $6.15 an hour at service jobs. It has been that way a long time. Another one of those jobs created here or there is not cause for celebration. It's business as ususal. The University of Miami is in an uproar now, secondary to the STUDENTS' demands that the janitorial staff be paid a living wage. Thank God young people are getting it. The University of Miami is the fifth richest college in the US. I myself am not sure what that means...the student population comes from the wealthiest homes, the tuition is the fifth highest. Their budget is the fifth highest. I am really not sure what that means but I do know that the students found out their janitoral staff made $6-something an hour, no benefits and no raises in the last 5 years. They were shocked and have been bringing this to light, to the press. It seems that Miami contracts these jobs out (what a surprise) to the private sector and so they pass the buck to the contractors who say they can do whatever they like. The students are saying this is despicable and so on....anyway, I am rambling here, sorry, but my point is horrific abuses of power are happening one after another, the economy and the job situation are not getting better where it counts and that is in the paychecks and the benefits of ordinary Americans who are losing jobs in droves, working at low-paying, no benefits jobs, cannot afford to buy insurance, cannot afford to pay gas prices, watching billions being spent on a war of choice that has become an embarrassment even to Republicans, watching our elected officials lie, Swiftboat anyone who disagrees with them, put undercover people in harm's way, eavesdrop on their own citizens, torture their detainees, and on and on and on. Our point is, what will it take for you to finally see what a debacle this administration is? What will it take for you to care that worldwide the United States and Bush are a joke or that an American city has been wiped out, promised the WPA on steroids and not a thing is being done, people are homeless by the thousands in LA, Mississippi and here in Florida and not only because of the hurricanes. What will it take??
In defense of Levi
I am not a fan of SP, but I feel bad for this young man being dragged into the national spotlight. First of all, his Myspace page had not been accessed for a year which means anything he had written was over a year old. Secondly, when a Myspace page is set up, there is a section for kids, and one of the choices is Don't Want Kids. I think it is being misrepresented that he took it upon himself to write don't want kids. Either way, at the time he was probably 16 years old. How many 16yo boys want kids?
I will be voting for Obama, but I still say leave this kid alone. He has nothing to do with the election. But do I think he looked mighty cute all cleaned up at the convention!
O needs no defense on this or his policies.
for me to know and for you to find out after the landslide in T-minus 24 and O's inauguration in January.
I know my candidate, my party and their platform. I am very comfortable with my choice. Since there is no party radical enough to suit you, and since you know so much, why don't you establish your own? How about the Nazican party? Has kind of a catchy ring to it, don't you think?
In defense of Kaydie -
I don't really think that Kaydie needs me to defend her - I think she is pretty tough - but Stardust, you are wrong this time. Up front, I have already voted for Obama...
I have had several conversations with Kaydie lately and I have never heard her say anything negative about Obama because he is black. And she is right to say that there is a stereotype about black women and the way they talk.
Also, if Kaydie is wrong, and I have shown her at least 1 time that she was wrong, then she will post an apology and accept that graciously.
This time, however, she is not wrong. And by the way, if you are not getting it out of her messages, she is a black woman herself.
Sorry, Kaydie, if I stepped into your battle unwanted.
Well....in Obama's defense
He did promise CHANGE. Sadly it will be for the worse though and his brainwashed lemmings will believe anything he says.
Oh Ditze..always on the defense! nm
//
Their best defense is an ad hominem attack against us. sm
That's the most I will say. I don't want them running to the moderator. 
In defense of the original poster...
Although I am not one to cross party lines; I will vote democratic no matter who, I am going to help defend the original posters statement. The only reason I say this is because when it comes down to it, if Hillary gets the nom, we are going to have a very conservative democratic president. She is pretty much at the same level of conservatism as McCain, and I don't see much difference between the two of them. However, if it comes down between Clinton and McCain, vote Hillary. We need to start a trend of more women in high politics and she will break the way for those to come who will be smarter and better than she is. :o)
Why go on and on in defense of the ඁ states"
remark? My God! and.. if it had been McCain making the same mistake, you probably would have been all over him. You want to insult me as if I pay no attention and do no research. I am 45 years old, take the presidency VERY seriously, and I do pay attention. So, "get smart" yourself and wake up! I do not believe that Obama has the experience or policies to lead and defend the United States of America. I do not care what color he is and I don't appreciate it when anyone, including himself, makes race an issue. We should not vote against or for someone because of color, yet it will happen. The way I feel about Obama has nothing to do with race, it has to do with "substance" as I said. You can feel the way you want. You certainly have not changed my mind. We all have a right to decide what WE feel is best.
Why all this defense of the poor downtrodden rich?
You said:
Yes, the rich get the bulk of tax cuts, that's because THEY pay most of the taxes.
I say:
That's because they make most of the MONEY. That's perfectly right. And yes they pay a higher rate which is also perfectly right because they are not paying taxes on WAGES. Capital gains and investment income - i.e. money that was not earned by hard labor - SHOULD be taxed at a higher rate. We know that if we win 20 grand in the lottery the government is going to take up to half of it, right? - we expect that. We expect free money to be taxed at a higher rate than wage income. So why are you fretting about free money for the rich being taxed at a higher rate also?
As far as tax revenues being higher now, the answer to that is ridiculously simple - many more people soared into higher tax brackets during the boom years of the Clinton administration and their new wealth is now generating more free money which then gets taxed and flows into the revenue coffers. Now are you glad about this or not? You can't say both the poor rich are being abused by high tax rates! and at the same time parade around praising Bush for his financial saavy because look, the revenues are overflowing! That's kind of schizophrenic. And besides the glow of joy is going to have to fade a bit when you consider that no matter how high revenues are, the exorbitant and wasteful spending of this administration has caused such huge deficits that your grandchildren will still not be seeing any benefit from those increased revenues.
And in addition, there are MORE people in general now, so of course tax revenues will rise with a rise in population. BushCo uses the same old tired tactic of braying about more people own homes now than ever before in the history of the country! Well duh. That's because there are more PEOPLE. More people = more total homes owned. They aren't talking percentage of the population owing their own homes. Instead they try to take credit for a simple total number that they had nothing to do with increasing.
Have to watch these guys - they know how to spin a statistic, but spin is all it is. Too bad it keeps right on fooling the worshippers.
He needs no defense. 35 years command performance
nm
Only if you call blasting a snake self defense. I do.
x
Ah, the old love it or leave it limp dishrag defense.
This just in from the news desk. We folks who consider and, (God forbid) HOLD those other points of view are just as American as the next. We do not want OUR country associated with this barbaric bloodshed and our citizens desensitized to the point of emotional neuters by the one-sided, Zionist agenda-driven US policies and their media mouthpieces. Like the Palestinians, we are right where we belong and are not going anywhere.
Another piece of breaking news. Not only does the entire Middle East hate Israel (gee, I wonder why?) but this sentiment is shared across Europe and the rest of the globe in HUGE numbers. The bias is NOT with Al-Jazeera. They report what the rest of the world wants to hear and what the so-called free US press NEVER utter....the other side of the story. You might want to ask yourself just what it is your government does not want you to hear, and more importantly, why?
Israel will remain surrounded by enemies and reviled all over the planet until they end their bloody occupation of Palestine. THAT, is the only path to an enduring and lasting cease fire.
Within their own borders? Excuse me. Gaza is NOT Israel and it is the Israelis who are invading THEIR borders. You are completely clueless as to who is the David and who is the Goliath here, occupier versus occupied. Israel is a state-sponsored TERRORIST apartheid state that we bankroll. The shame is Israel's and ours, not Hamas and NOT the Palestinian people.
I dare you to take a good long look at the videos of the civilian slaughter while keeping in mind that it is now 630 dead on the one side and 4 dead on the other in a war waged with sticks, stones and homemade rockets versus an arsenal that includes nukes, chemical and biological weapons and the capacity to conduct their war from OUTER SPACE, for God's sake.
Lawmakers Question O's Missle Defense Cuts
Lawmakers are demanding to know why the president's proposed 2010 defense budget cuts missile defense by $1.2 billion and does not provide any funds for the European missile defense shield as Iran and North Korea defy the international community with missile testing.....
At Fort Greeley in Alaska, the missile defense silos can defend the U.S. from both North Korea and Iran, but the Obama budget would cuts the number of interceptor missiles based there from 44 to 30. And that has both Republicans and Democrats asking, why now?
"Is this being budget-driven?" Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., asked.
"The numbers don't add up to me," said Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., "I think it's just a question of somewhere somebody has decided to cut missile defense substantially, and you're doing the best you can under a difficult circumstance."
Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska said: "With North Korea, it seems since we've made this announcement, as I've said, 40 percent of their testing has occurred, plus an underground nuclear test. I mean, I don't know. That seems risky to me."......
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/16/lawmakers-question-obamas-missile-defense-cuts/
civil war
During the civil war the rich people, who owned slaves, worked up the poor people, who did not own slaves, into a frenzy about how the north was bossing them around, how they should leave the union and it was an ideological war. All the rich people left their plantations and went north until the war was over. The poor people fought out, brother against brother, without shoes, for an idea. The rich people came back after it was over and kicked the freed slaves off their land, right into the laps of the poor people who had to compete with them now for jobs. The rich stayed rich, alive, and healthy, and all of the poor people were slaughtered.
Are all you republicans rich? Don't fight for them, they are on vacation.
Thank you van - and thank you for being civil
Everyone here gave me a headache I shut it down for awhile. Talk about jumping on and attacking. Heaven forbid anyone should ever put their opinions or beliefs up on this board.
You are correct and I did state in one (if not more) that I was incorrect and he did not lie. But even after saying that they kept attacking and attacking. Then bringing up past posts that had nothing to do with this.
Thank you for posting below all the countries in the Middle East. That helps sort things out.
Like I said, they have every civil right I have.....
--
Political civil war that really does sum it up....sm
And it really is a sad state of affairs.
You raise a good point about bin Laden, I never thought of that. He could have died of natural causes and be buried somewhere. It's not like he was the most vigorous being (healthwise). Who knows?
Catching him two years ago would have meant more politically and *antiterror* wise than it would mean today.
I definitely agree with you - we all need to be civil
Sharing one's viewpoints is one thing. There is no need to call people nasty names. Those other bashings you are talking about came after I posted my message, so I didn't see them.
I hate to quote Rodney King but we all do need to get along. Having one viewpoints is important (it's what makes us human beings), but not everyone will agree with us, and as you stated in your message calling you a d-bag (that has got to be so low class) just because you don't agree with someone? I think I called someone that in high school (but that was over 30 years ago). We will all disagree about issues, but I hope people would be nicer and just say "I disagree and this is why", and leave it at that.
I am sorry you were called all those horrible things. I just want you to know that with our disagreements I in no uncertain terms think you are a d-bag or jerk or anything horrible like that. You are a person just like me. Strong in our beliefs, just different in our ways.
You do Civil War re-enactment?
Politics aside, I feel like I'm meeting some new FRIENDS on this board! By any chance are you going to participate in the Prairie Grove, Arkansas re-enactment the 1st weekend in Dec? We're working to get recognition for the Battle of Cane Hill and hopefully in the next few years we'll have a re-enactment here.
Well....civil unions would have
to be something we would do on a country wide basis. I mean...what is the point if you can't leave your state because other states don't accept them. I meant this as a country wide thing. If the whole country recognized civil unions with the same benefits as marriage kind of thing. I guess I wasn't specific enough.
As it goes, same sex marriage is only accepted in the states that allow it. I mean...you have to live in those states to have the rights of marriage...right? Please correct me if I'm wrong on that one because I really don't know.
For someone who "laments" civil debate
you do a fair job of attacking me - it at least feels like one - and I am hardly a Republican... something you obviously hate.
I totally share your disgust of the fascists in power and those who defend them. But if you think for a New York Second the Democrats are much less corrupt you are fooling yourself.
Ask yourself WHY in the face of clear criminal conduct the Democrats have not only successfully challenged bu$h but have HELPED TO ADVANCE THE VAST MAJORITY OF HIS AGENDA (POLICIES).
You do a little real research on this and get back to me. Maybe then you'll hve a better idea why I am a recovering Democrat.
Clinton himself said it best: Fool me once (democratic party), shame on you; fool me twice, shame on ME.
They are the first to invoke their civil liberties. sm
And the first to silence others who do not agree with them. They have attempted to bring the office of the Presidency down to their level...disrespectful, unhallowed, a slip shod Animal House with pizza lovers who trash the house when they leave and steal all the W's from the keyboards. Their beloved Clinton sold the Lincoln Bedroom to people who had no awe of anything, much less respect for all who slept there before. They had sex with young interns and said it wasn't sex. They lied under oath and brought their shady cronyism into the White House. Theyrefused background FBI checks and refused to have their medical records made public, both firsts in any presidency. In other words, THEY HAD NO RESPECT FOR THE OFFICE. This from a man who promised the most ethical presidency ever. And those very same people who continue to support Clinton to this day swear it was all about sex post on this very board about following rules. It boggles the mind.
Lincoln and civil rights
Although you are correct that Lincoln was a Republican, in those days, Republican was not what it is today, nor Democrat, no Tory nor Whig, etc. How could it be, the times they have-a-changed. He called himself a Democrat many times during his career and was extremely anti-slavery but did not fall in with the abolitionists. What with Republicans, Democrats, Whigs, Jacobins, etc. it would be really difficult to say one party abolished slavery.People from all sides supported and opposed it. Lincoln just happened to be president and the **War of Northern Aggression** quelled those who had seceded.
Lincoln was very anti-war, did not like the idea at all so the civil war was distasteful to say the least. He did, however, have no problem enlisting and personally fighting in the European versus Sac Indians war which makes him not my most favorite president...but then, everyone makes mistakes. He did that in his younger years.
The civil rights act I have always believed rests with LBJ. He is not my favorite either. In fact, I did not like him much at all, but he did, in his predecessor's memory, carry the civil rights act to fruition. I remember him saying on the day that he signed it, the south is lost to Democrats as of this day. Here is a link of the timeline. It is pretty straightforward, comes from LBJ for kids site so it is not overly lengthy or boring.
http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/lbjforkids/civil_timeline.shtm
Civil Rights Act voting
Actually in the House 100% of the southern Republicans voted against the Civil Rights Act so it seems you may have skewed the results a bit in order to generalize. Actually the vote went by geography rather than party lines as is obvious below.
As far as the Dems having a lot of catching up to do....politics change over time. Democratic affiliation changed with FDR. Perhaps you have a lot of catching up to do yourself!
CIVIL RIGHTS ACT VOTING
The original House version:
- Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
- Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)
- Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
- Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)
The Senate version:
Not semantics - Law. There was a need for the Civil Rights
movement of the 50s and 60s. That movement did the job and now it is all water under the bridge. Quit whining about slavery and mistreatment. Quit living in the past. That's all African-American's based their votes on in this election, was the past and skin color. It's racism and ignorance pure and simple. The hypocrisy is the democrats/liberals and their message of tolerance. Now it's the whites that are disciminated against and all tolerance is gone.
Currently in Kentucky ther is a civil
trial going on against members of the KKK for beating up someone at one of the county fairs.
You in your view civil rights don't mean anything? (sm)
Civil and political rights are a class of rights ensuring things such as the protection of peoples' physical integrity; procedural fairness in law; protection from discrimination based on gender, religion, race, sexual orientation, etc; individual freedom of belief, speech, association, and the press; and political participation.
So acorrding to you, we should just scrap this whole civil rights thing that would protect those who do not have as large a voice and go for a majority vote?
marriage vs civil union
As a nation, we did not used to spend so much time splitting hairs over words.
What if back when the 19th amendment was enacted, they had said: Women having the right to 'vote' would upset men. So instead of 'voting' we're going to call it 'ballot casting.' That way, women can have the same rights as men, but only men can be 'voters' and won't feel they're losing their special status.
How about if during the civil rights movement, when segregation was eliminated, instead of integration they had called it: 'The right to attend the same schools and go to the same restaurants and ride in the front of the bus'? Calling institutions 'integrated' would upset the southern states.
How about when women began to demand 'equal pay for equal work'? What if they had said: Okay, you can have the money and the responsibility, maybe even the corner office, but only a man can be called VP of Sales. Instead, your title will have to be something else, maybe Sales Coordinator, othewise the men who are VPs will get angry.
I suppose a fair number of women or blacks would have considered this a win, because they were gaining the benefit, if not the exact status of the changes. But a fair number of folks rightly would have said: Huh? Aren't these silly distinctions? A lot of people would have wondered why they didn't just shut up and 'settle.'
If a civil union conveys such benefits as inheritance rights, parental rights, credit rights, insurance rights, the right to make medical decisions for a spouse then, really, what's in a name?
Civil union rights.
"If a civil union conveys such benefits as inheritance rights, parental rights, credit rights, insurance rights, the right to make medical decisions for a spouse then, really, what's in a name?"
I understand your point.
But why, then, is so important for same-sex couples to use the word "marriage" if - as you pointed out - it's just a word.
Why aren't people fighting to have all the rights of marriage applied to civil unions? Seems to me that, while most Americans are against gay marriage, most Americans are actually FOR civil unions.
Civil marriages don't just involve
Lots of people are married by JPs. Have for years. And a church might decide that they would not hire a heterosexual on the basis that they "weren't married in the church". Granted, most don't even inquire, but it could happen, if we accept the governor's ridiculous statement. And he suggests that if they did, it would be hunky-dory. Churches aren't required to recognize "civil marriages" by his pronouncement. This would obviously have to include homosexual and heterosexual marriages or now we have a THIRD type of marriage.
My point is that there is no legal differentiation between a "civil marriage" and one that is performed in a church and never has been. If the governor is now suggesting that there is such a difference, he is nuts.
This is what I found on the civil rights vote.
House Debate and Passage
The House of Representatives debated the bill for nine days and rejected nearly one hundred amendments designed to weaken the bill before passing H.R .7152 on February 10, 1964. Of the 420 members who voted, 290 supported the civil rights bill and 130 opposed it. Republicans favored the bill 138 to 34; Democrats supported it 152-96. It is interesting to note that Democrats from northern states voted overwhelmingly for the bill, 141 to 4, while Democrats from southern states voted overwhelmingly against the bill, 92 to 11. A bipartisan coalition of Republicans and northern Democrats was the key to the bill's success. This same arrangement would prove crucial later to the Senate's approval of the bill.
I thought after reading your post that there was something wrong with that statement, Republicans passed the civil rights act; Huh?? Then I remembered at that time the south was predominantly Democratic and I believe those elected officials were voting more on their constituents' demands than on the platform of the Democratic party. That also explains why Johnson said, **As of today, Democrats have lost the south.** and he was right. It looks to me like a bipartisan deal. I got the above information from the Everett Dirksen Library Archives.
This also demonstrates to me how a party can change or evolve its platforms. The Democratic south was once **the little people, the working class, the most good for the most people party.** After the civil rights act the south became predominantly Republican and remains so. In 1964 the south did not want equal rights for women, blacks, religions. They wanted things to stay the way they were. I think the Republicans provided that for them. In 1964 I think it safe to say that WASP was pretty much the bulk of the Republican party and that appealed to the south who were being forced at gunpoint to change.
I don't know about the suffrage movement but I always wonder if they caught the same flack then that NOW gets now. I am going to look that up though.
don'forget civil rights lawyer
and constitutional law professor. Yep, I think he think on his feet with the best of em.
We are heading toward a civil war of a magnitude we cannot foresee
Never in my lifetime have issues gotten so ugly/hateful. This will be the first illegal election in history if Sen. Obama is elected. People do not care that he does not meet the requirements to be President. They will go against the constitution just to get him elected. Why? I know there are a lot of people who would like Arnold Schwarzenegger to run for President. If Obama who is not a native born, and is possibly not even a US Citizen can be elected and have the constitution violated for him, then we should be able to do it for Gov. Schwarzenegger. There are so many people who will say we have to protect the constitution, yet they’ll turn a blind eye when it comes to electing someone who is not an American born, and who is possibly still a citizen of Indonesia (forget that he is Muslin, I don’t care about his religion, he may possibly be a citizen of another country). We have a candidate who is so busy running around like a chicken with his head cut off suppressing the truth from Americans, and there are Americans attacking others (no that that girl with a B in her face – I hope she is prosecuted for what she has done), but others who attack (verbally and physically) anyone who is not allowing this lie to proceed. Mr. Obama was supposed to be checked out thoroughly before he could run and the DNC failed to do that. Mr. Obama is calling for the health records of all candidates, yet he won’t release his own. Sorry but a one-page statement from his doctor saying Mr. Obama is healthy, that's all you need to know, with no details whatsoever (and from someone whose parents died at a young age and he smoked his whole life and took drugs and drank) the American people have a right to know this – especially since their side is pushing to have Palin & McCains “full” records be known to the public and people are screaming and shouting its their right to know the full health records of the republicans, shouldn’t that go for Obama too? Then there is the issue of his school records. Why is he desperately trying to suppress those. Most likely it will show he is a citizen of Indonesia and never became a US Citizen. You know if a democrat president is elected fine, just let it be a legal one. Follow the constitution and not this love-fest everyone is sharing towards Obama. Some good democrats that would make fine presidnets are Richardson & Kucinich. I'd even be okay with Edwards.
But I say we are heading toward a civil war because we have people already threatening that if Obama does not win there will be “riots in the streets like we haven’t seen”, but if he is elected and it is illegal there will be riots of another kind. You are going to have so many Americans angry and disenfranchised with the government that if you thought the Boston Tea Party was ugly this will be worse.
Then we have the issue of the every day American citizens. We are suffering. There’s no doubt about it. We are heading into a depression (do not blame Bush for the whole thing as it started its downward spiral under the Carter administration and continued through the Clinton administration, and yes some republicans are to blame), but Americans are suffering. We are losing our jobs, our homes, cannot afford to send our kids to college, let alone buy gas and groceries or go to the doctor. More and more people’s savings are being wiped out and their retirement plans are worthless. Yet the politicians (both republican AND democrat) are getting richer and richer. The latest saying in the Washington political scene is “if you were not a millionaire before you came in you will be one when you leave”. Politicians are no longer working for the American people; they are working for themselves and their rich friends and against us. They don’t care about us - they don’t care one iota. They have made so many loopholes to protect themselves and have lied so many times they are covering their lies with lies and saying exactly what they think we want to hear.
All I say is if Sen. Obama is elected, the election will be a fraud, the office of President will be a fraud, and with the three branches of office (house, senate, and president) ALL being democrat, he will not be impeached for fraud and they will continue on with their illegal activities. And the country will see a civil distress. Why should we abide by laws when our government doesn’t.
People need to wake up. The constitution is being violated and they are all okay with that. It’s all very sickening. I just think its disgraceful that people would rather see our country destroyed than to elect Senator McCain. Sure I wish it was someone else (R. Paul, M. Romney, D. Hunter or any of the others, but its not). If McCain gets in don’t worry, it will only be four years and then another election will be held and maybe this time a candidate will be chosen on the democratic side that is legal. That is of course if the Mayan calendar is wrong.
First of all, blacks received the right to vote after the civil war,
try 140 years ago (NOT 40) when the Reconstruction Ammendments were passed between 1865 and 1870. Women received the right vote with the 19th Ammendment in 1920 (88 years ago).
I think history has established that slavery is wrong. I refuse to believe that I, as a white person, must continually apologize to the black man or woman for slavery that happened to their ancestors centuries ago! I personally have never codoned or owned slaves and they personally have never been slaves. So I ask you, what does slavery have to do with Obama being elected president? What does slavery have to do with his compaign and this election? Who is making race an issue here? I'll answer the last one, YOU are by insinuating that Obama and all African-Americans deserve special accolades just because they are black. They did not suffer as slaves. They did not have to overcome slavery. And today's African-Americans receive more rights and more governmental assistant, then any white person I know. Just look at affirmative action for crying out loud!
You already posted this question. Civil unions are
*
Rahm Emanuel wants forced civil service
Listen to the link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfV8iXiB9Xg
DH said its disgusting that he's laughing about it.
Jeez - is JTBB the only civil person on this board
Believing that the whole thing is one intermingled war in the middle east is not spin. Those are my beliefs. When I talk to my friend and she talks about her husband in Iraq and she says the middle east, then she talks about her son in Afghanistan and she refers that to the middle east, that is why I always believed both countries are in the middle east. That is not spin???? And for pete's sake don't call me ignorant!!!! Like I said I always believed both Iraq and Afghanistan were in the middle east. I'm not trying to incite war against Obama - sheesh! Get a grip. I read a news story and posted it here about Obama sending troops to Afghanistan. The article said 17,000 troops are going to Afghanistan. That is not spin, that is citing a news article I read. He lied - Okay I'm wrong about that. He did not lie about the sending troops to Afghanistan thing (I don't remember him saying he would send them, but I've heard they are on youtube and if they are on youtube then I believe JTBB (she's the one who pointed me in the right direction).
You know I could say a lot of negative and nasty words to you like you did to me, but I'd probably be banned, so I'd appreciate it if you keep your closed minded opinions to yourself. Your whole post to me sounds like BS in itself and your just too eager to attack.
we'd be better off without illegals..he deserves a commendation, not a civil suit...
++
Civil Liberty Effects - Police State Pizza
http://www.adcritic.com/interactive/view.php?id=5927
National security? Civil liberties? Must be socialist conspiracy
This is an amazing article that not too suprisingly will probably go unaddressed, right along with Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae corporate bailout story. The're too busy getting ready for the coronation ball. However, I just wanted to thank you for passing this along. The links and other articles also lead to some insightful and interesting reads on stories that will probably end up thrown under the royal coach. Let them eat cake!
CIA, Dept of Defense, Homeland Security, State Dept, et al.
x
Community service and CIVIL service - not the same thing nm
x
|
