Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

A lot of politicians on both sides changed their views on the war once the truth came out. nm

Posted By: schwing on 2008-01-20
In Reply to: Hillary has gone from supporting to decrying the war. sm - MT

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

Fox news gives all sides... the truth.
nm
Both sides should have a choice, on both sides, pregnant woman and doctor...nm
bm
I respect your views
eventhough I don't mirror all of them. I am a Republican but I tend to me more libertarian in my views. I think privacy rights are a big issue, but my views part ways with yours when it comes to abortion. I also really disagree with you about the Terri Schiavo case. I don't agree with euthanasia in any form. I don't think feeding Terri was a heroic measure, but that's not the point. When when we as mere humans start judging whether innocent people should live or die or not I think we've crossed a huge moral boundary, and Roe versus Wade was that boundary. The morals in this country have been riding a snowball to hades since that time. I see things from a spiritual perspective. I believe that everything that happens has spiritual consequences, and every decision we make has spiritual consequences...that's just the way I believe, and yes, Libby you have every right to state your views, and I will fight for your right to say them to the death...I hope you would do as much for me.
I respect your views, as well.

That's what makes America so great.  The freedom of all people to have different views, based on different principles (religious or otherwise).  And I would certainly fight to the death for your freedom of speech to say whatever you believe.


I firmly believe in a woman's right to choose as much as I firmly DON'T believe in partial birth abortions.  That's my opinion.  That doesn't make it right, and it doesn't make it wrong.  It just makes it my opinion.


As such, I don't feel I have the right to force my opinion on someone who might feel differently.  I believe this is a privacy issue, based on an individual's religious/spiritual beliefs (or lack thereof if that is the case) and not an issue that should be overturned because one Supreme Court Judge believes her religious views should be imposed on an entire nation.  Harriet Miers answered a questionnaire (I believe) in 1989, wherein not only did she say she's against Roe v. Wade, but she also promised to use the *influence* of her elected office to ban abortion.  If she has, in the past, promised to use the influence of her elected office to effect such a ban, why wouldn't she do the same with an appointed office?  The only solid *qualification* she has is her anti-choice religious views, which happen to coincide with those of Bush's *base.*  America has a lot of brilliant legal scholars and attorneys and judges who have devoted their entire careers specializing on Constitutional issues.  Why wasn't one of THOSE people considered for this appointment?


Regarding euthanasia, I can promise you right now that if I am ever terminally ill with an incurable disease and my pain progresses to the point where I just want to die with some dignity and not endure agonizing pain any longer, I certainly will not permit a bunch of people who have never met me to claim they know what's best for me and force me to obey THEIR religious beliefs and die on THEIR terms.  This notion is so arrogant on its face, it's even hard to write about.  I would hope my physician would be caring and compassionate and assist me in ending my suffering if I were to reach that level of agony.  Why do we show more kindness and compassion to our pets than we do to our humans?  My own spiritual beliefs would not preclude me from doing that, and I refuse to be forced to obey YOUR religious beliefs.  If forced to do so, then MY freedom of religion ceases to exist.


These are definitely privacy issues that, in my opinion, should be left to individuals.  What if the *right* religious belief in this country doesn't believe in contraceptives?  Will they be outlawed, as well?  That's not as far-fetched as it sounds. 


As far as dwindling morals in this country, I agree there are more heinous crimes being committed, particularly against children, than I can ever recall, and I'm outraged that our children are allowed to be raped and murdered, with the perpetrators of those crimes receiving what seem to be minimal prison sentences. 


I also think it's clearly immoral that our ability to live or die is directly related to the number of dollars we have in our wallet.  Healthcare in this country has become a very immoral commodity, along with legal care.  I find it disgustingly immoral that American children are starving to death every day.


Morality has to come from someone's heart.  It can't be forced, and it can't be legislated.  Each of us has our own conscience, our own soul, and our own *creator.*  Mine might not be the same as yours.  It doesn't mean one is right or one is wrong.  Just different.  That's the beauty of America:  Freedom of religion for all.


I can only end this as I started it, by saying that's what makes America so great.  The freedom of all people to have different views, based on different principles (religious or otherwise). 


Thanks for posting.  I appreciate the opportunity to engage in a debate with someone who is friendly and respectful and doesn't resort to calling names.  And I do respect your opinion and especially your right to say it, even though I respectfully disagree. 


Why insult my views?
I assure you my views aren't warped. They are my own personal views just as you have theirs. Your view of reality is not mine. I realize that the war on terror is going to be an ongoing war with it's inevitable ebbs and flows. I'll admit that I don't know if Bin Laden is alive or dead, but my gut feeling is that he is dead of natural causes. You are right, if we had caught Bin Laden the world would know it, although I don't know if it would be for purely political gain like you would think it would be. I'm sorry that you have to turn discussion of a topic into a personal insult towards me and my views, but I believe you hold a very polarized view of what is going on in the war on terror. I guess history will have to pan out what exactly is going on in this country, but I believe we are in a political civil war.
Why not put your partisan views aside and tell us this: Do YOU think sm
that Gore deserved the Nobel Peace Prize? I am neither a conservative nor a democrat, and I do not think he deserved to win it. I'm with the Observer on this one. Anyone with a molecule of sense knows that the two just don't go together - global warming and peace.
The Nobel Prizes were established in the will of Nobel, a Swedish industrialist who died in 1896. The only framework he set for the peace prize was that it should honor people who have promoted "fraternity between nations," peace conferences or the "abolition or reduction of standing armies."

Hmmmmmmmm
You do not seriously consider yourself tolerant of other views, do you?
what a joke.
Sam, I think you are letting your views of
Obama and the media cloud things. I saw that interview and I do not think Couric was looking down her nose at her. I think it doesn't matter what anyone asks, if you are for McCain and Palin then you are going to see things going that way. I have seen some interviews with Biden and he has not come off looking great. I don't think Palin did a pathetic job either, I just think that whenever she gets asked a tough question, regardless of how she answers it the interviewer is going to painted in this all for Obama light. I think it is a no-win situation all around. Yes, the press needs to get tought with all of candidates. End of story. Will it happen, most likely not but it is what it is.

And, before you go accusing me for being all about Obama, I am not. I am a Republican who has no plans to cross party lines to vote, but believe that Palin better get out there and start answering questions, taking questions, doing press conferences, anything for God's sake but stand back. So yes, she needs to be asked whatever stupid question the interviewer gives her because for one, I want to hear what she has to say and two, I want to see how she handles herself. Maybe Biden is not getting asked the same questions becuase we alreay know where he stands. I have seen a number of interviews, sit-downs, etc, with him already.
I don't share her views but no need to ban her. nm

It's just another of their racist views
In fact, welfare makes up a very small portion of our national budget. It's just a convenient scapegoat for the ignorant.

Guess we don't have to ask you your views on
//
I truly feel sorry for you and your views
Apparently you did not have a good upbringing because if you had you would never think racist like you do. Obama did everything in his power not to mention race or do any race baiting during the election. Your ideas are very warped. You are to be pitied.
The truth sounds rude when put bluntly but still is the truth. nm
!!!! hahaha
Thanks. Very much looking forward to reading more of your views.

Republicans Views on Impeachment

(This, of course, pertained to CLINTON.  You can break the law, fake reasons to start a war and illegally spy on Americans, but don't you DARE have sex!!!!  I wonder how many of these holier-than-thou people have the courage or ethics to repeat these words today, pertaining to BUSH.)


 


Rep. Marge Roukema (R-N.J.):
And we all share in the emotional trauma getting back to our subject of this constitutional crisis in which we are ensnared. But this cup cannot pass us by, we can't avoid it, we took an oath of office, Mr. Speaker, to uphold the Constitution under our democratic system of government, separation of powers, and checks and balances.

And we must fulfill that oath and send the articles of impeachment to the Senate for a trial. Now I say personally, and all of you who know me, and a lot of you do, I've been around a long time; I bear no personal animosity towards the president. But we in the House did not seek this constitutional confrontation.

Rep. J.C. Watts (R-Okla.):
How can we expect a Boy Scout to honor his oath if elected officials don't honor theirs? How can we expect a business executive to honor a promise when the chief executive abandons his or hers?

Rep. Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.):
How did this great nation of the 1990s come to be? It all happened Mr. Speaker, because freedom works. . . . But freedom, Mr. Speaker, freedom depends upon something. The rule of law. And that's why this solemn occasion is so important. For today we are here to defend the rule of law. According to the evidence presented by our fine Judiciary Committee, the president of the United States has committed serious transgressions.

Among other things, he took an oath to God, to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. And then he failed to do so. Not once, but several times. If we ignore this evidence, I believe we undermine the rule of law that is so important that all America is. Mr. Speaker, a nation of laws cannot be ruled by a person who breaks the law. Otherwise, it would be as if we had one set of rules for the leaders and another for the governed. We would have one standard for the powerful, the popular and the wealthy, and another for everyone else.

This would belie our ideal that we have equal justice under the law. That would weaken the rule of law and leave our children and grandchildren with a very poor legacy. I don't know what challenges they will face in their time, but I do know they need to face those challenges with the greatest constitutional security and the soundest rule of fair and equal law available in the history of the world. And I don't want us to risk their losing that....

Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI):
The framers of the Constitution devised an elaborate system of checks and balances to ensure our liberty by making sure that no person, institution or branch of government became so powerful that a tyranny could be established in the United States of America. Impeachment is one of the checks the framers gave the Congress to prevent the executive or judicial branches from becoming corrupt or tyrannical.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas):
When someone is elected president, they receive the greatest gift possible from the American people, their trust. To violate that trust is to raise questions about fitness for office. My constituents often remind me that if anyone else in a position of authority -- for example, a business executive, a military officer of a professional educator -- had acted as the evidence indicates the president did, their career would be over. The rules under which President Nixon would have been tried for impeachment had he not resigned contain this statement: The office of the president is such that it calls for a higher level of conduct than the average citizen in the United States.

Rep. Charles Canady (R-Fla.):
Many have asked why we are even here in these impeachment proceedings. They have asked why we can't just rebuke the president and move on. That's a reasonable question. And I certainly understand the emotions behind that question. I want to move on. Every member of this committee wants to move on. We all agree with that.

But the critical question is this: Do we move on under the Constitution, or do we move on by turning aside from the Constitution? Do we move on in faithfulness to our own oath to support and defend the Constitution, or do we go outside the Constitution because it seems more convenient and expedient?

Why are we here? We are here because we have a system of government based on the rule of law, a system of government in which no one -- no one -- is above the law. We are here because we have a constitution.

A constitution is often a most inconvenient thing. A constitution limits us when we would not be limited. It compels us to act when we would not act. But our Constitution, as all of us in this room acknowledge, is the heart and soul of the American experiment. It is the glory of the political world. And we are here today because the Constitution requires that we be here. We are here because the Constitution grants the House of Representatives the sole power of impeachment. We are here because the impeachment power is the sole constitutional means granted to Congress to deal with the misconduct of the chief executive of the United States.

In many other countries, a matter such as this involving the head of government would have been quietly swept under the rug. There would, of course, be some advantages to that approach. We would all be spared embarrassment, indignity and discomfort. But there would be a high cost if we followed that course of action. Something would be lost. Respect for the law would be subverted, and the foundation of our Constitution would be eroded.

The impeachment power is designed to deal with exactly such threats to our system of government. Conduct which undermines the integrity of the president's office, conduct by the chief executive which sets a pernicious example of lawlessness and corruption is exactly the sort of conduct that should subject a president to the impeachment power.

Rep. Bob Ingliss (R-S.C.):
I think is important to point out here is that we have a constitutional obligation, a constitutional obligation to act. And there are lots of folks who would counsel, Listen, let's just move along. It's sort of the Clinton so-what defense. So what? I committed perjury. So what? I broke the law. Let's just move along. I believe we've got a constitutional obligation to act.

Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.):

Mr. Chairman, this is a somber occasion. I am here because it is my constitutional duty, as it is the constitutional duty of every member of this committee, to follow the truth wherever it may lead. Our Founding Fathers established this nation on a fundamental yet at the time untested idea that a nation should be governed not by the whims of any man but by the rule of law. Implicit in that idea is the principle that no one is above the law, including the chief executive

Since it is the rule of law that guides us, we must ask ourselves what happens to our nation if the rule of law is ignored, cheapened or violated, especially at the highest level of government. Consider the words of former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, who was particularly insightful on this point. In a government of laws, the existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. If government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law. It invites every man to become a law unto himself.

Mr. Chairman, we must ask ourselves what our failure to uphold the rule of law will say to the nation, and most especially to our children, who must trust us to leave them a civilized nation where justice is respected.

Rep. Steve Buyer (R-Ind.):
You know, there are people out all across America every day that help define the nation's character, and they exercise common-sense virtues, whether it's honesty, integrity, promise-keeping, loyalty, respect, accountability, they pursue excellence, they exercise self-discipline. There is honor in a hard day's work. There's duty to country. Those are things that we take very seriously.

So those are things that the founders also took seriously. Yet every time I reflect upon the wisdom of the founding fathers, I think their wisdom was truly amazing. They pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to escape the tyranny of a king. They understood the nature of the human heart struggles between good and evil.

So the founders created a system of checks and balances and accountability. If corruption invaded the political system, a means was available to address it. The founders felt impeachment was so important it was included in six different places in the Constitution. The founders set the standard for impeachment of the president and other civil officers as treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors.

The House of Representatives must use this standard in circumstances and facts of the president's conduct to determine if the occupant of the Oval Office is fit to continue holding the highest executive office of this great country.

Rep. Asa Hutchinson (R-Ark.):
In the next few days I will cast some of the most important votes of my career. Some believe these votes could result in a backlash and have serious political repercussions. They may be right. But I will leave the analysis to others. My preeminent concern is that the Constitution be followed and that all Americans, regardless of their position in society, receive equal and unbiased treatment in our courts of law. The fate of no president, no political party, and no member of Congress merits a slow unraveling of the fabric of our constitutional structure. As John Adams said, we are a nation of laws, not of men.

Our nation has survived the failings of its leaders before, but it cannot survive exceptions to the rule of law in our system of equal justice for all. There will always be differences between the powerful and the powerless. But imagine a country where a Congress agrees the strong are treated differently than the weak, where mercy is the only refuge for the powerless, where the power of our positions govern all of our decisions. Such a country cannot long endure. God help us to do what is right, not just for today, but for the future of this nation and for those generations that must succeed us.

Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.):

I suggest impeachment is like beauty: apparently in the eye of the beholder. But I hold a different view. And it's not a vengeful one, it's not vindictive, and it's not craven. It's just a concern for the Constitution and a high respect for the rule of law. ... as a lawyer and a legislator for most of my very long life, I have a particular reverence for our legal system. It protects the innocent, it punishes the guilty, it defends the powerless, it guards freedom, it summons the noblest instincts of the human spirit.

The rule of law protects you and it protects me from the midnight fire on our roof or the 3 a.m. knock on our door. It challenges abuse of authority. It's a shame Darkness at Noon is forgotten, or The Gulag Archipelago, but there is such a thing lurking out in the world called abuse of authority, and the rule of law is what protects you from it. And so it's a matter of considerable concern to me when our legal system is assaulted by our nation's chief law enforcement officer, the only person obliged to take care that the laws are faithfully executed.

AND LAST, BUT NOT LEAST: 



Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.):
I believe that this nation sits at a crossroads. One direction points to the higher road of the rule of law. Sometimes hard, sometimes unpleasant, this path relies on truth, justice and the rigorous application of the principle that no man is above the law.

Now, the other road is the path of least resistance. This is where we start making exceptions to our laws based on poll numbers and spin control. This is when we pitch the law completely overboard when the mood fits us, when we ignore the facts in order to cover up the truth.

Shall we follow the rule of law and do our constitutional duty no matter unpleasant, or shall we follow the path of least resistance, close our eyes to the potential lawbreaking, forgive and forget, move on and tear an unfixable hole in our legal system? No man is above the law, and no man is below the law. That's the principle that we all hold very dear in this country.


 


I can tell you some of Barack Obama's views on this

I agree that this is a huge issue.  We have the technology to be virtually independent energy wise, but too many crooked politicians have too much money invested in the oil companies and have no interest in seeing alternative energy sources take away any of their profit.  That, in my opinion, is a huge source of our problem.  Below I will post a portion of what Obama plans to do about the energy crisis (from his website - barackobama.com).  He has a much more detailed plan listed on his website.  I'm posting a link if anyone would like to read more.


"Barack Obama believes we have a moral, environmental, economic, and security imperative to address our dependence on foreign oil and tackle climate change in a serious, sustainable manner.




  • Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to the level recommended by top scientists to avoid calamitous impacts.
  • Invest $150 billion over the next ten years to develop and deploy climate friendly energy supplies, protect our existing manufacturing base and create millions of new jobs.
  • Dramatically improve energy efficiency to reduce energy intensity of our economy by 50 percent by 2030.
  • Reduce our dependence on foreign oil and reduce oil consumption overall by at least 35 percent, or 10 million barrels of oil, by 2030.
  • Make the U.S. a leader in the global effort to combat climate change by leading a new international global warming partnership."

Good for you for stating your views on the war then...
I find it ultra annoying when people start calling others unpatriotic when they don't agree with the war or something else the government is doing.  Isn't being passionate about what you feel is best for the country the epitome of patriotism!?  I think so.
BTDT. Please address views of the
nm
Views on illegal immigrants and which ...sm

presidential candidate do you think MAY do something more about it.  I am sure a lot of you realize we have illegal immigrants (mostly in large number Mexican immigrants) who have swarmed into the country illegally. 


I have an Mexian illegal immigrant who lives near me.  She is nice enough.  She doesn't speak really good english.  I know she got pregnant and was actually able to go to our neighboring state and apply for Medicaid to pay for her prenatal care and the child after it was born.  And do you know she got Medicaid and I know for a fact she is an illegal immigrant because she told me herself.  I asked and she told me.  When it is possible for someone who is not even in our country legally to obtain government assistance, that is just insane.  What is wrong with our country? 


extremist views of HATE
nm
Politicians will dig up anything

negative they can about anyone running against them.  I'm sure we all remember the things said back and forth between Hill and Messiah Obama before they finally picked Master Obama.  It is all dirt flinging and back stabbing and promises they don't intend to keep.  I truly wish they would invent a BS monitor that would let us know when these politicians are really telling us the truth or whether they are, once again, feeding us a line of BS.


We always fall for the promises made during the campaign and then we see no results when that politician actually gets in office.  This is with all political parties and frankly I'm sick of it all. They waste all this money campaigning and smearing the other candidate as best as they can and in the end.....whoever wins still sticks it to the American people and those promises that were made are soon forgotten.


They are all politicians, they only know
how to talk like that, whatever party they are.
And why are all of you not politicians?
You people recite what you read! 
Like most politicians. LOL n/m
x
not only the politicians,
people in general, especially when it comes to the Middle East.
yeah, and our ol' sal is very, very free with her vulgar views...sm
don't feed the troll, she's the gift that keeps on giving if you do
Yeah, I'd love to know your views on Israel, please tell us. nm
x
Politicians - I don't trust ANY of them
Especially ones who will have anything to do with Clintons (both of them) or any of Clintons cabinet people.
they were as sincere as most politicians are ever - not
I have a very jaded view of our political system .. sorry

everything is calculated
everything is conniving
every move is planned and orchestrated by the "back room"

I've seen it ..

The Clintons did what they had to do to stay in the "power" positions in the Democratic party ... simple as that..

sorry ... JMHO

It's not just liberal politicians.
It's politicians in general. They're all so crooked they have to be screwed into the ground when they die. It's wrong to call prostitution the oldest profession because it's actually politicians that hold that title, although they are similar fields - they both screw people for money.
All politicians lie to get elected.

We are all fooling ourselves if we thing otherwise.  It is literally picking the lesser of two evils.  The one thing that I can say is that at least McCain makes decisions.  He votes instead of just voting present like Obama and when Obama actually has voted yes or no.....he has consistently said one thing and voted the exact opposite.  I just do not think he has the experience or the ability to make executive decisions.  I do not trust his associations and I do not have the same values as he does. 


All politicians are liars!
.
All politicians are liars.
.
Backwards politicians nm
nm
Greedy politicians/CEO's

 


As always, good to see you here...I remember reading when I was a kid that John F. Kennedy did not accept hjs salary as President; that he gave it back to the U.S. Guess since he was wealthy, he felt there was no need to take it.  Too bad we don't have that kind of individual in office now..


Since when do politicians support

a group or say they do and then turn around and crap on that group or break promises they made to that group.  I think that kind of goes hand in hand with politics.  LOL! 


Honestly, do you really think Barrack Obama is crapping on the homosexual community because he asked Rick Warren to do this?  It isn't changing any laws.  To me it looks like a liberal reaching his hand across the aisle to a conservative.  To me this shows that even though they may not have the exact same opinions, they can still do something together.  Isn't that what we are all about.  Reaching across the aisle to show that even though we don't agree, we can still work together.  Yet all people can see is this being a bashing session against gay people.


I don't agree with homosexuality.  However, if they want some kind of legal union.....whatever.  That is about as equal rights as I am going to lean for the gay community.  I have gay friends who have no problem leaving the definition of marriage between a man and woman.....as long as they can be joined together legally...that is all that matters to them.   I just feel that the ones who are trying to redefine marriage is dead wrong.  Leave marriage between a man and woman and give homosexuals some sort of legal union. 


This changing every tradition to accommodate every single minority group is what, in my opinion, is hurting our country.  All these minority groups want equal rights but in doing that.....they take away from the majority.  How much more should the majority have to sacrifice?


The idiots were the politicians!
!!
I know all politicians lie to get voted in.

However, this is not the time to be playing games with us.  A lot more people are watching what government is doing because of what happened last term.  Obama really smooth talked a lot of people.  I think a lot of people are starting to worry like some of the rest of us about his real intentions.  Too bad we couldn't get the rest of the kool-aid drinkers to get a clue.


I say that next election we vote someone in who is neither a pub or a dem.  Shake up the parties a bit and let them know that we are fed up with both parties!!!!!


And politicians have the audacity...
to tell bankers and CEOs of the big three how to spend their profits! At least they're using their own money, that they worked for!

It's absolutly disgusting that those politicians in DC think that they can have all these expenses at our expense! I love how they have parties and go off on weekend getaways that we pay for - I haven't had a vacation in years!!!

And the politicians talk about certain groups having a sense of entitlement - give me a break! They have the world's largest case of entitlement disease I've ever seen, starting with voting themselves an automatic raise every year! I thought raises were supposed to be for employees that were doing a good job!
It's not a crime to state your religious views in public.

We don't have to keep it in our homes or our churches.  Freedom of religion covers that too!


Yep, that is real healthy...ignore opposing views.
very UNlike the name you your party took...*democratic.* Very UNlike what your put yourselves off as, that being tolerant of ALL views (that is laughable), champion of the little guy (as long as that little guy is not a conservative)....and you prove it on this board every day. Thank you. If one ever has a doubt about the liberal agenda, one only need read your posts. Again...thank you for the reassurance to keep fighting the good fight. Have a good night now.
Your views are so narrow. Blind religious fanatacism
Sad.
I find most politicians on these shows

respond with rehearsed speech, or just do not answer the question. On Hardball, Chris will say answer the question, yes or no, over and over and over and whoever just goes off on whatever tangent.


 


Insurance companies and the politicians they buy..

Doesn't anybody in DC have a conscience?  The system as it stands now is disgusting.  They are literally making billions by killing of thousands upon thousands (maybe millions?) of Americans.  Anyone with half a brain should recognize profit-driven health insurance only serves the best interest of the CEOs of the insurance companies - not healthcare recipients! This needs to change NOW!


I saw my first AMA commercial last night urging people to vote with the millions of uninsured Americans in mind.  I loved it!  It is at least a step in the right direction.  Vote with the healthcare crisis in mind people!


You're right about both parties being politicians
and I guess it just boils down to a lesser of the two evils! This is such a simple thing, I just don't understand why you wouldn't just prove it to shut everyone up.
Very few politicians care about the people either.
nm
The Difference between Fish and Politicians

Some of you don't like Glenn Beck, but this video is really funny.


 


http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/m/22798848/show-and-tell.htm


Politicians and their love lives
aren't really important to me.  This guy didn't lie under oath about his affair.  Clinton did but I still really don't care.  There peckers and/or cigars aren't my concern.  I'm more concerned about how our country is being run and the money being spent, etc.  Affairs are things that happen too often.  I don't condone that type of behavior but they will have to pay the consequences for their actions.  More important issues to discuss than this.
Of course, this was all before 9/11, which, of course, changed everything. nm

He must have really changed
since the last time I watched his show then.  Hmmm.
What has changed? sm
Obama stated after a landslide victory in 2004 in his bid for Illinois senator that he didn't feel he had the experience to run on a national ticket in 2008. 

What has changed? 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gexyfVpFMU