*The bill is about when and not now, meaning NOW* HUH??
Posted By: PK on 2006-06-20
In Reply to: It doesn't matter when. sm - CeeCee
Then let's get out of there and let them control their government. Let's take off the *training wheels* (like Murtha has been saying) and let them learn to ride their *bike* while we observe from the periphery, there if they need us to *catch* them. As long as we are there doing it for them, they will never do it on their own. And by agreeing to amnesty, we're publicly telling the world that the lives of our soldiers aren't important, regardless of how you try to spin it.
And, yes, the media is eerily silent about this. The last article I read last week indicated that the Iraqi Prime Minister was AGAINST amnesty for anyone who kills an IRAQI but was in FAVOR of amnesty for anyone who kills AMERICANS. What a wonderful plan. 
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
When Bill Clinton was in office, OHHH you better believe Bill and Carter have had..sm
their day of mudslinging matches, at the pleasure of a many conservatives. So, no there's not a double standard here.
Bill Maher Takes On Bill O'Reilly
BILL O'REILLY, HOST: In the "Personal Story" segment tonight, political humorist Bill Maher (search), he has a new book out called "New Rules: Polite Musings from a Timid Observer." Of course, Mr. Maher is about as polite as I am and as timid as Dracula. He joins us now from Los Angeles.
You know, you've had some celebrities on your HBO show, "Real Time," which begins again on Friday, talking about policy and war on terror and stuff like that. I get the feeling they don't know very much, but you do. So I'd like to make Bill Maher, right now, the terror czar. Bill Maher, the terror czar. Could be a series.
How would you fight this War on Terror? How would you fight it?
BILL MAHER, HOST, HBO'S "REAL TIME": I think the first and most important thing is to get the politics out of the War on Terror. You know, maybe I'm a cockeyed optimist, Bill, maybe I'm naive, but I thought that 9/11 was such a jarring event that nobody would dare return to business as usual on that one subject after that.
But of course, we found out that nothing could be further from the truth. And your president, my president too, but the one you voted for...
O'REILLY: You don't know that. Were you looking over my shoulder there? I could have voted for Nader. I could have voted for Kerry, but Kerry wouldn't come on the program, so I wouldn't vote. But I could have gone for Ralph. Ralph's a friend of mine.
MAHER: Yes. Anyway, I said the guy you voted for, President Bush, you know, how come this guy, who was supposed to be such a kick-and-take- names kind of guy, how come he has not been able to get the politics out of this?
You know, as a guy who's been accused of treason, I'll tell you what real treason is: Treason is when legislators vote against homeland security measures because it goes against the wishes of their political or financial backers. Treason is the fact that, as a terrorist, you could still buy a gun in this country because the NRA (search) lobby is so strong.
O'REILLY: OK. But you're getting into the political, and I agree with you. I think that the country should be united in trying to seek out and kill terrorists, who would kill us.
But I'd like to have some concrete things that you, Bill Maher, the terror czar — and take this seriously, this could be a series — what would you do?
All right, so you've got bin Laden. You've got Al Qaeda (search). You've got a bunch of other lower-level terrorist groups. What do you do to neutralize them?
MAHER: OK. Well, first of all, you discounted my answer, which is get the politics out, but OK.
O'REILLY: Well, assume you can do that. They're gone.
MAHER: We'll let that go. Keep going. I wouldn't worry that much about bin Laden. I mean, capturing bin Laden at this point, it doesn't really matter whether he's dead or alive. He's already Tupac to the people who care about him and work for him. Capturing bin Laden, killing him would be like when Ray Kroc died, how much that affected McDonald's.
O'REILLY: It would be a morale booster. But I understand. You're not going to send...
MAHER: A morale booster, right. Well, we've had plenty of morale boosting. We've had plenty of window dressing. What we need is concrete action.
In the book I wrote before this one about terrorism, I suggested that we have a Secret Service for the people. I said whenever the president goes anywhere, he has very high-level, intelligent detectives who look around at a crowd. They know what they're looking for. They're highly paid. They're highly trained.
We don't have that in this country. We should have that. We should have a cadre of 10,000 highly trained people who would guard all public events, bus stations, train stations, airports — and stop with this nonsense that this robotic sort of window dressing...
O'REILLY: OK, so you would create a homeland security office that was basically a security firm for major targets and things like that. It's not a bad idea. Costs a lot of money. Costs a lot of money. It's not a bad idea.
MAHER: Costs a lot of money compared to what? If you paid 10,000 people a salary of $100,000 a year, that would, I think, cost $10 billion or something. That's nothing. There's that much pork in the transportation bill before you get...
O'REILLY: Yes, 10,000 wouldn't do it, but I get your drift.
MAHER: Whatever it costs.
O’REILLY: You would create a super-security apparatus. OK, that's not bad. That's not bad. How about overseas now?
MAHER: What we need to do is what I call get Israeli about this. Because the Israelis are not afraid of profiling. The Israelis are not afraid to bury politics in the greater cause of protecting their nation. We don't act that way. You know, I'm afraid 9/11 really changed nothing.
O'REILLY: Boy, your ACLU (search) pals aren't going to like that. You're going to lose your membership card there.
MAHER: I'm not a member of the ACLU.
O'REILLY: Oh, sure you are, just like I voted for Bush. You're a member of the ACLU. I can see the card right in your pocket there.
MAHER: Bill, I'm not a joiner. I'm not a joiner. I don't like organizations.
O'REILLY: They won't have you, Maher, let's be honest about that. All right, now, in your book, which is very amusing, by the way — if you want a few laughs buy Maher's book.
MAHER: Thank you.
O'REILLY: You take some shots at FOX News, which is your wont, and I just want to know why you think we're so fabulously successful here.
MAHER: Well, I think that question has been answered many times. It's because the conservative viewer in this country, or on radio the conservative listener, is very predictable. They like to hear what they like to hear. They like to hear it over and over again.
O'REILLY: All the surveys show that the viewers are all over the map. They're not conservative in a big bloc. Some of them are moderate. Some of them are Democrats. Some of them are Moroccans. I mean, they're everywhere. That's your analysis? That just the conservatives watch us?
MAHER: Well, I think mostly the conservatives do watch you. That's not to take anything away from what you guys have achieved over there. It's a very well-produced broadcast, and they have excellent personalities like yourself, Bill. Who could resist watching you when you get home from work at night?
O'REILLY: Whoopi Goldberg, maybe? I don't know.
MAHER: Yes.
O'REILLY: Anyone who doesn't watch here is misguided. We identify them as such.
But look, I think there's more to it than — you're in TV. You know the ratings game. I mean, if you don't provide a product that is satisfying people, no matter what your ideology, they tell you to take a hike.
There's a guy over at MSNBC. He's a very conservative guy. He was hired and nobody's watching him. They hire liberals. Nobody watches them. Air America (search). Nobody's listening to it.
I mean, there's got to be a reason why we're No. 1, a punch line for you, and No. 2, you know, becoming the most powerful news network in the world.
MAHER: Well, I think, as I say, it's a well-produced product. You know, your program moves along, always at a clip that never seems to bore. You know, you move along to the next topic, the next guest. It never sort of drags. I don't think a lot of people know how to produce that stuff that way.
O'REILLY: All right. It's bells and whistles and my charming personality. That's what I thought it was.
Last thing: You know, one thing I like about Maher is he's not a hypocrite. He drives a little hybrid vehicle. Right? You putter around there. Does it have training wheels? What's it like?
MAHER: Actually, I had the Prius hybrid for three years. I was one of the first ones to get it right after 9/11. And I traded it in a few months ago for the Lexus hybrid.
O'REILLY: I think we should all cut back on our energy consumption, and I think we should all get these hybrids as fast as we can.
Hey, Bill, always nice to see you. Thanks very much. Good luck with the season on the TV show.
MAHER: Continued success there, Mr. No. 1.
O'REILLY: All right. Thank you.
Watch "The O'Reilly Factor" weeknights at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. ET and listen to the "Radio Factor!"
Content and Programming Copyright 2005 Fox News Network, L.L.C. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2005 eMediaMillWorks, Inc. (f/k/a Federal Document Clearing House, Inc.), which takes sole responsibility for the accuracy of the transcription. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material except for the user's personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon Fox News Network, L.L.C.'s and eMediaMillWorks, Inc.'s copyrights or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.
Bill Clinton and his ties to India (yes, Bill),...
and China (yes, Bill) sent a lot of our jobs their way. Google it some time. Even I was amazed.
Look, it is simple economics. The big bad corporations everyone hates...first of all, it is not 5 or 6 rich guys and that's it. They employee thousands of people just like us...and when the government puts those huge taxes on them, if they want to stay in business, they are forced to move offshore. Higher taxes are responsible for more jobs going overseas than "greed." The DNC has told its members for years that "corporations" and "the rich" are the cause of all their problems and they have bought that Marxist rhetoric hook, line, and sinker. Corporations are not the cause of ill in this country. They are the backbone of the economy in this country. That is simple economics 101. And I am certainly not rich...and I certainly am not on the upper echelon of a corporation, but I do understand reality and I understand how the economy works. Yes, there is wrongdoing by some upper level folks in corporations. There is wrongdoing in the government. Where there is power, there will be wrongdoing. But for every Enron there are thousands of other good, solid companies that employ thousands of Americans, but the DNC does not share the success stories, because it does not promote their agenda. In order to control people they want them beholden to government and hating free enterprise. They want big government, total power, and control. And following Alinksy's program...you have to instill class warfare. You have to make corporations the enemy. You have to make classes envy the next rung up. Classic Marxist socialism. It is being played out in this country every day.
It is just that some of us have not bought the myth and jumped on the socialism train.
Did you read the bill? It was a regulatory reform bill...
asking them to regulate, not de-regulate. But Democrats blocked it...no wonder. Fannie was greasing a lot of Democratic palms...and Frederick Raines, the Dem CEO at the time...was in the Clinton administration. They were taking care of their own...and we are paying for it.
Meaning what?
is this a veiled suggestion I move to France?
If so, I got a hot news bulletin for ya, pal: THE FRENCH WERE RIGHT!
Vive la France!
The meaning -
the woman said it was the shadow of death behind Obama...
Is there a meaning in there somewhere? nm
nm
if abe is on the $5 bill & george is on the $1 bill, what is Obama on?
****censored****
I said *over there* meaning the C board
and you all definitely need to grow some skin. We we question you about ANYTHING you accuse us of stalking and attacking. We are talking with adult liberals over there (the C-board) who understand that true debate is about giving opposite opinions and hashing things out.. a concept which is evidently lost on most of you here.
There is more than one meaning for jihad...nm
I didn't come away with that meaning......sm
I read it to mean that if a woman wants an abortion and goes to a doctor or hospital to have it performed, the doctor or hospital cannot not refuse to perform it based on their own religious beliefs.
Very hypocritical, if you ask me (and not direted at you in particular), to say "keep the government out of my uterus because I can do with my body what I want" and then demand a doctor who does not believe in abortion to perform an abortion on you, in essence dragging him into your uterus where he does not want to be doing something he does not want to do.
If this is truly the meaning of the whole thing
fine. I could never have an abortion because I personally believe it is wrong. However, if people are bound and determined to terminate their pregnancy, I'd much rather it be done by a professional instead of these girls having babies in bathrooms and throwing them away, going to some whack job who does permanent damage or have some girl take poisonous things into their body to try and get rid of the pregnancy.
There are pros and cons to abortion whether people want to see it or not. Abortion will not be stopped and so I have to look at it like population control and just go on about my business.
I think it's the meaning of "more" that evades you. SM
*No more of a radical than Jesus* IS a comparison.
True meaning of Christmas...sm
I have been watching the discussion on the conservative board about Christmas, it's origin and how it is celebrated. While there are a lot of charitable things that go on during the holiday season that are commendable, like Toys for Tots and food drives, I think it is sad how materialistic this season is. If you have kids it is hard to explain to them why one of their classmates got a Playstation 3 (600 dollars), games for the PS3 (200 dollars), laptop (1300 dollars), namebrand shoes and clothes (500 dollars), jewelry (200 dollars), etc, etc, when you can not, or have better sense than to spoil your child (and finances) like this.
My children know the value of a dollar. They also know that this season is about the birth of Christ, the spirit of giving, whether that be love or gifts.
I said all of that to ask this question. Do you think the majority of people who celebrate Christmas know the true meaning of Christmas or are they caught up in the hype of the latest best technology, the best decorations, the most expensive tree?
"present", meaning he showed up, but could not
nm
Hate to say it, but they aren't well-meaning at all s/m
They're blatantly peddling socialism..."spreading the wealth around?" So if you make more than I do, Obtama will take from you & give some to me. How can people NOT see this?
As far asa I'm concerned, these Obama fanatics can move to Canada, Cuba, etc. Look how well that's workin' for them.
Some believe O stated 57 states meaning
x
I'm not understanding the meaning of your post
Actually it almost sounds like something Hemmingway would write. HA HA. Anyway...just confused by the post. Are you talking about the record breaking snowfalls and bone chilling cold spells all over the world (oh so not global warming), or are you refering to the incoming president, and the last part of the post just lost me. Please explain.
Do you understand the meaning of the word...(sm)
racisim? Dictionaries are printed for a reason.
Do you understand the meaning of the word...(sm)
racisim? Dictionaries are printed for a reason.
Kruschev said they (meaning, their philosophy) would take us over from within.
One only has to imagine: Would Kruschev be laughing or crying over the direction the current administration is taking?
Not a tough question to answer, so there's no prize offered.
The real meaning of happy holidays.
Ever since I can remember, and I am 50, everyone said Merry Christmas AND/OR Happy Holidays and no one gave a flip either way. However, in my youthful naivete, little did I realize what happy holidays REALLY means. It is a code. It means that anyone who says it is really saying, I want to take Christ out of Christmas, and by the way, I hate America and I want the communists/terrorists to win. So if you hear someone say happy holidays and the other person answers back happy holidays you know you have 2 people of interest who require, at the very least, a wiretap or two and surveillance for an indeterminate amount of time. They should be reported immediately to the FBI. Happy Holidays is a serious threat and a Code Orange.
God save us from well-meaning people as my mother
.
Plus - does the Republican party understand the meaning of MAVERICK?
Agree with you - what did they expect with her zero experience (in foreign policy) AND the fact that she's under investigation?
Re: maverick. There are subtle variations of this word like "eccentric" that could apply to just about anyone, but the central meaning is 'nonconformist'
When you look at someone who has VOTED WITH GEORGE BUSH 90% OF THE time, where do you see 'nonconformist'?
And this from a man who was hammered by Bush when they went toe to toe. Please sir can I have another?
I see REPACKAGED MATERIAL, not 'maverick.'
That said, I have TONS of respect for his POW experience - all the MORE reason for him to NEVER ALLOW AMERICA TO ENGAGE IN WARS BASED ON LIES!!!
What's nonconformist about his support for our current fake war?
He should under the banner of HYPOCRITE, not maverick.
Meaning, I read and try to find informative sites
xx
Taking it to a new level meaning posting a whole new thread
I still say no response is the best response.
A 9-letter word meaning "Thinking 'Everyone's out to get me'" 'Paranoiac.'? Nop
The security aid package the United States has refused to give Israel for the past few months out of concern that Israel would use it to attack nuclear facilities in Iran included a large number of “bunker-buster” bombs, permission to use an air corridor to Iran, an advanced technological system and refueling planes.
Officials from both countries have been discussing the Israeli requests over the past few months. Their rejection would make it very difficult for Israel to attack Iran, if such a decision is made.
About a month ago, Haaretz reported that the Bush administration had turned down an Israeli request for certain security items that could upgrade Israel’s capability to attack Iran. The U.S. administration reportedly saw the request as a sign preparations were moving ahead for an Israeli attack on Iran.
Advertisement
Diplomatic and security sources indicated to Haaretz that the list of components Israel included:
Bunker-buster GBU-28 bombs: In 2005, the U.S. said it was supplying these bombs to Israel. In August 2006, The New York Times reported that the U.S. had expedited the dispatch of additional bombs at the height of the Second Lebanon War. The bombs, which weigh 2.2 tons each, can penetrate six meters of reinforced concrete. Israel appears to have asked for a relatively large number of additional bunker-busters, and was turned down.
Air-space authorization: An attack on Iran would apparently require passage through Iraqi air space. For this to occur, an air corridor would be needed that Israeli fighter jets could cross without being targeted by American planes or anti-aircraft missiles. The Americans also turned down this request. According to one account, to avoid the issue, the Americans told the Israelis to ask Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki for permission, along the lines of “If you want, coordinate with him.”
Refueling planes. An air attack on Iran would require refueling of fighter jets on the way back. According to a report on Channel 10 a few weeks ago, the U.S. rejected an Israeli request for more advanced refueling tankers, of the Boeing 767 model.
The refueling craft the Israel Air Force now uses are very outmoded, something that make it difficult to operate at long distances from Israel. Even if the Americans were to respond favorably to such a request, the process could take a few years.
The IDF recently reported that it is overhauling a Boeing 707 that previously served as the prime minister’s plane to serve as a refueling aircraft.
Advanced technological systems. The Israeli sources declined to give any details on this point.
The Israeli requests were discussed during President George W. Bush’s visit to Israel in May, as well as during Defense Minister Ehud Barak’s visit to Washington in July. In a series of meetings at a very senior level, following Bush’s visit, the Americans made clear to the Israelis that for now they are sticking to the diplomatic option to halt the Iranian nuclear project and that Jerusalem does not have a green light from Washington for an attack on Iran.
However, it appears that in compensation for turning down Israel’s “offensive” requests, the U.S. has agreed to strengthen its defensive systems.
During the Barak visit, it was agreed that an advanced U.S. radar system would be stationed in the Negev, and the order to send it was made at that time. The system would double to 2,000 kilometers the range of identification of missiles launched from the direction of Iran, and would be connected to an American early warning system.
The system is to be operated by American civilians as well as two American soldiers. This would be the first permanent U.S. force on Israeli soil.
A senior security official said the Americans were preparing “with the greatest speed” to make good on their promise, and the systems could be installed within a month.
The Israeli security source said he believed Washington was moving ahead quickly on the request because it considered it very important to restrain Israel at this time.
At the beginning of the year, the Israeli leadership still considered it a reasonable possibility that Bush would decide to attack Iran before the end of his term.
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, in private discussions, even raised the possibility that the U.S. was considering an attack in the transition period between the election in November and the inauguration of the new president in January 2009.
However, Jerusalem now assumes that likelihood of this possibility is close to nil, and that Bush will use the rest of his time in office to strengthen what he defines as the Iraqi achievement, following the relative success of American efforts there over the past year and a half.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1019989.html
Hmmm...Gives new meaning to "He's an empty suit", doesn't it?
x
meaning=history repeats...the PRESIDENTIAL OFFICE will be tested...no matter which one wins...nm
=)
oh no Mr Bill
The communists are coming!!!!!!
Can you say BILL C-L-I-N-T-O-N???? He
xx
I will try this once more....this is a bill
put forth by a VERY unpopular REPUBLICAN president. All we hear ad nauseam from the Obama campaign is McCain is another Bush, we can't afford more Bush, heck, Pelosi said the same darned thing in her little speech before the vote blew up. The Democrats do NOT want to be identified as voting in the majority, against the Republicans, WITH Bush, to pass the bill because if they did, and it does not work, they will be forever identified with voting WITH Bush. Political suicide. Surely you can see that.
What I am saying is, Obama is a far left socialist and the party has become the majority far left socialist. So they will SUPPORT his agenda, and they have the majority in congress to back it up. Surely you can see that they will vote FOR Obama's agenda. You cannot honestly sit there and tell me that you think enough Democrats would vote against him to stop something he wants? You really think that??
I second that bill!
 
There was a bill that they both
worked on together. John McCain's people called Obama's people. It was not the other way around.
But you know something, Bill still came out
smelling like a rose, after all that, didn’t he? A much admired man, makes $$$$ for speeches, welcomed here at home and around the world. Oh, the 2nd Mr. Bush could only wish for so much.
This bill
is a slippery slope and doesn't deserve the slightest considersation. All people should be protected from criminal or harmful behavior. If a homosexual or pedophile deserves protection from someone, doesn't the child or even an adult who may be raped because of a deviants "sexual orientation" deserve the same protection? Having a so-called "sexual orientation" does not give you the right to act on that "orientation" simply because you can't control your "urges." This bill gives deviants free range to imbibe in their "deviant urges" without consequences. Why any president would consider such an atrocity is beyond me. If Obama signs this bill, the damage done will be on his loony head.
bill maher.com
Hey, if any of you want to post on another board, I mean when this one gets overloaded with conservative attacks, Bill Maher.com. It is pretty cool and you can post away however you want, whatever you want. In order to post, you must pick a handle and password and register and log in each time..Check it out.
WHATever and thank you, Bill Clinton
with a thriving economy, an honest attempt at protecting our environment, and peace.
I'm a friend of Bill!
from the uber-liberal state of Massachusetts. I was just responding to previous post of why Observer posts on this forum.
Did Bush actually say he was against this bill
Do you have a link to an article or anything where he states that? I agree with you to some extent on that point. My only issue is that within the 6 months it takes to get a different bill ready to go kids in middle-income and lower-middle-income families with be spending another 1/2 year without health insurance, and what if the new bill gets held up for some reason - then it's just more waiting for something I think we should have had long ago - access to affordable heath insurance for America's kids. Poor people are already receiving free healthcare on Medicaid, obviously, but many middle-class children are slipping through the cracks. I just didn't see any articles where Bush said the illegal immigrants were part of the reason he was vetoing the bill. He always seems to be saying positive things about the hispanic community in generaly because he seems to want the hispanic vote (for his party).
I think all presidents are given too much power. Hundreds of representatives that we took the time and effort to vote for can have their bill vetoed by 1 guy with entirely too much power. A decent number of Republicans voted for the expansion to the SCHIP bill as well, and I definitely applaud their courage to go against their leader. If the plan is so seriously flawed, then why did those Republicans feel so passionate about voting for it and trying to talk the President into signing it? If the bill is allowing tons of immigrants onto it, then that is an issue, but aren't illegals getting hoards of free healthcare already just because they are poor? I don't want them to get free healthcare, but it seems like they are already, so is this issue really the best battleground to fight the illegals, or is this just a symptom of a far greater problem that needs to be dealt with on a greater scale? I just don't want the fact that illegals are sneaking onto the SCHIP program to be the only reason we don't pass the bill. If illegals receive a free hospital stay should we close down the whole hospital? Of course not. Maybe not the greatest analogy, but I think you get what I'm saying. If you do have a link to an article I would be happy to read it, as I want to know as much about this issue as possible.
They need to write a better bill
This is a mute point now, because the bill was vetoed by the Pres.and for good reason. Why do we have to accept bad bills? This was a poorly written bill, and that's the reason it was vetoed. Why all the vagueness? $83,000 per year is hardly poverty level. If this bill was truly going to help poor kids then write it that way. I don't understand why it has to be so vague. To me it reeks of dishonesty and pork.
Write a good understandable bill...what's the problem with that?
Bill Maher
Great show last night! Loved David Frost. Couldn't get over West Clark saying that Middle Eastern women are content being forced to cover themselves from head to toe!
Live in San Francisco area so really want to get to LA for the taping of his show.
Does that mean you believe that Bill and Hillary were....
sincere?
Bill Clinton
Any party that could celebrate the presence of Bill Clinton at their convention like he was the second coming has their priorities wrong as far as I am concerned...bizarre!
Brother Bill
Apparently people have forgotten their outrage over Clinton's zipper problem in the White House and now he's revered regardless of the fact that he made us the laughing stock of the world. So why the outrage about Edwards? I'm outraged that he would do this to his gravely ill wife. As for Clinton, I lost all respect for Hillary for "standing by her man."
BILL - I LOVE YOU SO
fire in the hole!!!
Here's another one: Bill Clinton....sm
I don't know how valid this story is, as I have read it too, and don't know the details.
I do know, and you probably do too, that Bill Clinton did this, and I'm sure countless others. But we didn't and don't hear about it because they weren't/aren't SP.
Seems kind of hypocritical to condemn Gov. Palin for this practice, when it's been going on for decades in the good ol' boy system, don't you agree?
Bill Clinton
let this Country down with his behavior. That doesn't mean I don't think he did good things for this Country. Certainly, he did not harm the Country like the present administration has. There are many reasons I don't think John McCain should be the next president. I believe that anyone who is going to cast their vote in November should find out the facts about both candidates and make an educated decision, taking everything into consideration. This is an important election. We are facing many serious problems and we need the best person in there to do the best he can.
senate bill
this is all way over my head... anyone make any sense of it who is willing to share?
I hate the bill as it is, just s you do....
but I think it is too late not to do something to stabilize things. If we don't, and just let nature take its course, I am afraid we will go from recession to depression and nobody wants that. In defense of both Obama and McCain (can't believe I am saying that), they are just 2 votes and they could not make that much difference. It would have passed the senate without either of them, no matter which way they voted. I wish that Congress had stepped up, though, and kept the bill to stabilization ONLY and it should have been a lot less than 700 billion. sigh.
Yes, he did. And it was in the original bill as well...
don't know if it is still in the 850 billion one. I would imagine it is. Because the Dems want to hold onto their voting base.
|
