Actually I agree about the rules. But don't use the first when you really don't respect it.
Posted By: sm on 2006-01-03
In Reply to: And isn't it ironic that the ones - PK
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
You are right. I will obey the rules from now on. sm
Have a nice holiday.
Sure you don't break the rules
Sure you don't. Your fingerprints are all over the conservative board, but that's neither here or there but I could really care less.
Some of Pelosi's new rules sm
This is from an article before the elections. This sure would be a good start in the right direction.
The act is a tough document, authored by Nancy Pelosi, the San Francisco-area congresswomen who has been the Democratic House leader since 2002. She will likely be the House Speaker if the Democrats win next Tuesday.
Here are some of the new rules Pelosi wants:
No House member may accept any gift of any value from lobbyists, or any firm or association that hires lobbyists.
No free travel, which means an end to the corporate jet line every Friday at Reagan National Airport.
No free tickets to Redskins games; or no meals of any value, even at a McDonalds; no front-row seats at entertainment venues. No, no and no.
Temptations resisted
To reduce temptations to cheat, Pelosi's bill attacks the usefulness of members to richly endowed lobbyists.
House members will no longer be able to slip in special-interest projects on unrelated legislation. Such measures will no longer be allowed on a bill once negotiations between the Senate and House are complete.
Further, all bills will be made available to the public a full 24 hours before a final vote; presumably this gives watchdog groups a chance to flag any skullduggery.
Under the Pelosi rules, lobbyists will no longer be able to use the House gym (you'd be surprised how much gets negotiated in a sauna). Lobbyists will no longer be allowed onto the House floor or to use the cloakrooms just off the floor, preventing last-minute arm-twisting.
What's more, no member or staffer will be able to negotiate for employment in the public sector without disclosing such contacts to the House Ethics Committee, and within three days of such contact being made.
Finally, all of this will be audited and investigated by a new Office of Public Integrity, and that office reports, directly and only, to the U.S. Attorneys Office.
At this point, you'd be entitled to ask, heard this before, what makes you think it will be accepted by Congress?
Can it work?
No doubt there will be attempts to water down some of these new regulations. In fact, many of these proposals have been in other bills that have been defeated in the recent past.
But several key congressional experts tell CBC News that Pelosi means business and might just be able to push this through. They put it this way.
Pelosi and the congressional Democratic leadership are not likely to get much credit simply for gaining control of the House.
Conventional wisdom already sees such a victory, should it happen, first and foremost as a repudiation of the Bush administration and the Republicans.
This Honest Leadership and Open Government Act is a way of hitting the bricks running. Plus, it could be enormously popular with voters of all persuasions.
They point out Pelosi herself has little national profile and wants quickly to paint some bold strokes. She promises the act will be the first legislation tackled if she leads a new Congress.
Also, Pelosi can and will extract promises of support from those getting leadership positions and plush committee chairmanships and the like.
These new rules will apply in the House as soon as they are passed by simple majority.
The Senate has different rules, but for Republicans and Democrats there, the pressure to comply with the Pelosi standards will be huge.
rules, forum
dd
Where does one find the rules? There have been...
many posts that were quite lengthy. Is there a limit on length or just cut and paste?
I understand that is against the rules, but
the only way I can see that actually making a difference is if somebody went in completely undecided, but had prayed for God to show them a sign. 
I sure hope everybody has a clear picture in their mind of who they want to vote for and why before they drive to their polling place and punch that card.
they have not changed the rules yet
Hedge funds are still doing sneak attacks on companies, driving them into the dirt.
Citigroup got hit today, down 23%. It is worth 6 bucks and one year ago was 40. They need to change the rules on these hedge funds. They can pick on any company and kill it in a day.
Okay. Thanks. I understand now. Different rules for different boards.
nm
Majority rules not the minority
as long as someone is given the option not to participate then no one is getting hurt. If they are the only one in the class that does not want to say it then that's life. We can't cower majority traditions and beliefs to make every individual feel included. We'd truly have chaos then, because every one's feelings are different.
Just playing by liberal rules
It doesn't matter if something is supposed to be funny or not. In the liberal world every statement is taken literally. According to GT even thinking something stereotypical or racial should be grounds for dismissal from your job or worse yet a trip to the gallows, but in the next breath she posts a blatantly stereotypical article about our nations regions.
Oh did I take what GT said out of context? Did other people take what GT said out of context? Gee, gosh, sorry...but cccording to the LIBERAL rules nothing is ever taken out of context. If you utter the words like *black* or *abortion* in the same sentence. Then you're a racist...case closed.
Don't blame us for enforcing your rules. We didn't make them, but you have to play by them too, or we'll call you out...
Have a nice night....
And the monitor obviously has one-sided rules.
All you have done since you showed up here a few days ago is attack me personally. You don't even know me, and it wouldn't matter what I posted, you have already made your mind up that you hate me, and all you want to do is call names and insult.
It started when I posted a response to Democrat's post above. Since then, you've done nothing but attack me.
At least Carla was asking intelligent questions and trying to have a meaningful and informative dialogue on the CON board. Yet, she was reprimanded by the moderator.
All YOU have done is insult and be just generally nasty and rude. In none of your posts have you made an effort to have an intelligent dialogue. All you're about is attacking. Yet, YOUR actions go unreprimanded.
Says a lot about fairness on this board.
And now, knowing how much the truth is appreciated here, I suppose I will be banned, while you will be free to continue on with your rudeness and hateful attacks.
Will you leave? Sure. *RME* As soon as pigs fly or as soon as AG stops *accidentally* posting on this board. Choose one.
To Monitor: A CON says your rules are *stupid*
and refuses to quit coming here (along with a troll named Nina). They both do nothing but insult and cause trouble and make this board an unpleasant place to visit.
Nobody is bothering them on the Conservative Board (as of 11:15 a.m. MT, anyway, though they might quick post some insults to themselves after they read this and then whine about it).
Please ask them to leave.
Posted By: huh? on 2006-03-10,
In Reply to: Oh, she revealed it on the Conservative Board - ??
The stupid rules have made these boards a place where only crickets chirp. Its sad that people are so childish and cannot discuss things like mature adults. This is why these boards will remain a snoozeville, because some people are not capable of mature conversation and get insulted by anyone who does not believe exactly like they do, but if you like it dead here...by all means enjoy the silence.
I already posted the one that said your rules are stupid
in my post to you above. Another example is the post below.
Never mind. Maybe the poster is *right.* I have a feeling if a liberal poster was trolling the conservative board and said your rules were *stupid* you would be telling them to stay on their own board.
There are other sites where the rules are enforced equally, even for liberals.
See ya.
He can't make rules by himself....obviously the rest of the...
legislature must have agreed with him. Again I ask you...if it happened in YOUR family, would you not use every means at your disposal to help your family member get the help they needed?
Seems he likes to make up the rules as he goes along (sm)
You know, like a child playing a board game changes the rules all the way through to make sure he or she will win? If he was going to improve his aquaintances he should have done that a loooong time ago. Not right now before the election, looks kinda....fishy.
Does Palin once again think the rules don't apply to her?
thought this article was interesting.
Does Palin once again think the rules don't apply to her?
Posted on 02 January 2009
By Dan Fagan
How is it possible that the Governor’s soon to be son-in-law is working as an apprentice on the North Slope?
The Governor, in trying to dispel rumors the father of her grandchild is a high school drop out, released this statement this week, “Levi is continuing his online high school work in addition to working as an electrical apprentice on the North Slope."
But federal regulations require any members of apprentice programs, union or otherwise, first obtain a high school diploma, something the Governor’s soon to be son-in-law, Levi Johnston does not have. Some apprentice programs even require the completion of high school level Algebra or the post secondary equivalent.
So how is it that the Governor’s soon to be son-in-law is working in an apprentice program? Is this another case of the Governor believing the law doesn’t apply to her?
Bo Underwood, who heads up ASRC’s electrical apprentice program, confirmed Johnston is indeed enrolled as an apprentice. Underwood claimed not to know whether a high school diploma is needed to be an ASRC apprentice and said he would check on it. But federal regulations clearly state a high school diploma is needed before entering an apprentice program. How is it the man who runs the program does not know that?
Underwood also claimed not to know whether there is a waiting list for the ASRC apprentice program he runs. Imagine that.
Rebecca Logan, executive director of Associated Builders and Contractors, an organization that also has an electrical workers apprentice program, says waiting lists almost always accompany apprenticeship programs. Her organization’s apprentice program has a waiting list of at least 100 people.
Bo Underwood promised to get back with me on how the Governor’s soon to be son-in-law got into the apprentice program.
The Alaska Standard has a call into the Governor’s office as well. We’ll let you know when we hear back from them on this issue.
Does Palin once again think the rules don't apply to her?
thought this article was interesting.
Does Palin once again think the rules don't apply to her?
Posted on 02 January 2009
By Dan Fagan
How is it possible that the Governor’s soon to be son-in-law is working as an apprentice on the North Slope?
The Governor, in trying to dispel rumors the father of her grandchild is a high school drop out, released this statement this week, “Levi is continuing his online high school work in addition to working as an electrical apprentice on the North Slope."
But federal regulations require any members of apprentice programs, union or otherwise, first obtain a high school diploma, something the Governor’s soon to be son-in-law, Levi Johnston does not have. Some apprentice programs even require the completion of high school level Algebra or the post secondary equivalent.
So how is it that the Governor’s soon to be son-in-law is working in an apprentice program? Is this another case of the Governor believing the law doesn’t apply to her?
Bo Underwood, who heads up ASRC’s electrical apprentice program, confirmed Johnston is indeed enrolled as an apprentice. Underwood claimed not to know whether a high school diploma is needed to be an ASRC apprentice and said he would check on it. But federal regulations clearly state a high school diploma is needed before entering an apprentice program. How is it the man who runs the program does not know that?
Underwood also claimed not to know whether there is a waiting list for the ASRC apprentice program he runs. Imagine that.
Rebecca Logan, executive director of Associated Builders and Contractors, an organization that also has an electrical workers apprentice program, says waiting lists almost always accompany apprenticeship programs. Her organization’s apprentice program has a waiting list of at least 100 people.
Bo Underwood promised to get back with me on how the Governor’s soon to be son-in-law got into the apprentice program.
The Alaska Standard has a call into the Governor’s office as well. We’ll let you know when we hear back from them on this issue.
Pardon me. Are you saying the rules are not enforced equally? sm
I asked for an example, i.e., a specific post. Which post is it specifically. I do not have time to read every post on this board. Also, you said insults. I asked for examples of that. Again, you did not provide any. I am not quite sure how I am to do something about anything when you are not cooperating. I have, in the past, posted equally on both boards regarding sticking to the boards you belong on. However, I can't assume that simply because someone disagrees with your point of view, that they are of a certain political persuasian. That would be, indeed, labeling and unfair on my part. I will post another reminder about which board to stay on, but I don't appreciate your insinuation that there is favoritism here. As the board owner has said before, if this board is not to your liking, you certainly have options.
Sounds like a petty, cruel god's rules
Actually this sounds like a human's idea of what a god would want. So obsessed with rules and regulations......
We haven't changed the rules at all. To what are you referring?
/
I follow the Old Testament and those rules aren't too
NM
Bush weakens EPA/ESA rules to pave way for
that would be mountain-top mining of the kind that has blown mountain tops off in the Appalchains. Ever seen a picture of this? Is this the kind of drill, baby drill you want?
Prop 8 --- majority rules problem...(sm)
Okay, I've seen several posts on here about how Prop 8 should be upheld because *the majority rules.* Almost every civil rights movement that was successful including the right for women to vote, the right for inter-racial marriage, etc would have never made it if we had gone by the idea that the majority rules. In fact, isn't that the point of civil rights? -- to protect minorities? Also, the constitution says *we the people,* not we the christians. ARRRRGGGGHHH!
My post is in accordance with forum rules.
Apparently, you have not read the moderator's post at the top of the Politics forum, which instructs you to keep religious posts where they belong on the Faith forum. The moderator has indicated that religious posts will be removed from the Politics forum and placed on the Faith forum, as they should be. If you have a problem with this, maybe you should discuss it with the moderator.
I don't make the rules, Sir Percy. The Administrator was. The fact is. sm
I agree with you. But this board has a history and as you can see, on both boards, the minute an opposing point of view comes on board, the moderators are summoned. It's a fact. This used to be a combined board but it was separated because of constant insults and failure to behave as mature adults.
Court rules Bush violated Clean Air Act
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/17/AR2006031701127_pf.html
Looser Emission Rules Rejected
Court Says Changes By EPA Violated Clean Air Act
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, March 18, 2006; A01
A federal appeals court blocked the Bush administration's four-year effort to loosen emission rules for aging coal-fired power plants, unanimously ruling yesterday that the changes violated the Clean Air Act and that only Congress could authorize such revisions.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit sided with officials from 14 states, including New York, California and Maryland, who contended that the rule changes -- allowing older power plants, refineries and factories to upgrade their facilities without having to install the most advanced pollution controls -- were illegal and could increase the amount of health-threatening pollution in the atmosphere.
The Environmental Protection Agency's New Source Review policy was formally issued in 2003 but has never taken effect because of legal challenges by state officials and environmental groups. The administration has long argued that the existing standards are too stringent and have discouraged utility plants and other industries from upgrading and expanding their facilities. But opponents have characterized the rule changes as a favor to administration allies in the utility and coal-producing industries that would greatly add to public health problems.
New York Attorney General Eliot L. Spitzer, who led the court fight to block the administration's New Source Review policy, called yesterday's ruling a major victory for clean air and public health and a rejection of a flawed policy.
It will encourage industry to build new and cleaner facilities, instead of prolonging the life of old, dirty plants, Spitzer said.
In a statement, EPA spokesman John Millet said: We are disappointed that the Court did not find in favor of the United States. We are reviewing and analyzing the opinion and cannot comment further at this time.
Some studies have linked pollution from coal-fired power plants to as many as 20,000 premature deaths in the United States every year. Environmental activists have made curbing this type of pollution one of their most pressing legislative and legal priorities, and yesterday they celebrated the ruling.
Irish eyes are surely smiling -- and we all will be breathing easier -- with this green court ruling on St. Patrick's Day, said John Walke, director of the clean-air program at the Natural Resources Defense Council. This is about as thorough a rebuke a court can give.
President Bush took office in 2001 promising to ease regulations on coal-fired power plants as part of a larger energy production initiative. Three successive administrators of the EPA have tried without success to alter the rules and policies adopted during the Clinton administration that cracked down on aging power plants and refineries that were not equipped with modern air pollution equipment when they were upgraded and when their output was expanded.
Under the revised policy that was rejected by the court yesterday, power plants and other industrial polluters would not have to install new pollution technology if they modernized less than 20 percent of their operations.
The central question in the case focused on what constitutes an industrial facility modification, because that is what triggers the federal requirement to cut down on the smog or soot emitted by utilities, oil refineries, incinerators, chemical plants and manufacturing operations. Previous administrations, including Bill Clinton's, had interpreted that phrase to encompass any physical activity that increases pollution from a given facility, with the exception of routine maintenance.
EPA officials in the Bush administration sought to broaden this exemption by asserting that routine maintenance is any activity that amounts to less than 20 percent of a plant's value. But the ruling, written by Judge Judith W. Rogers, rejected that reasoning as illogical.
EPA's approach would ostensibly require that the definition of 'modification' include a phrase such as 'regardless of size, cost, frequency, effect,' or other distinguishing characteristic, Rogers wrote. Only in a Humpty Dumpty world would Congress be required to use superfluous words while an agency could ignore an expansive word that Congress did use. We decline to adopt such a world-view.
The other two judges on the panel were David S. Tatel and Janice Rogers Brown.
The EPA's statement did not indicate whether the administration intends to appeal the ruling. Both Walke and Scott Segal, a lobbyist for the utilities industry, said it would be difficult for the administration to forge ahead in light of the appeals court's strong ruling. Walke said the decision is tantamount to the court burying the rule six feet under, where before it was just in a casket.
Segal said the ruling will make it more costly for plants to operate. This is a missed opportunity for reform that would have made it easier to improve power plant efficiency and workplace safety, and that's bad news for consumers and the environment, he said. We believe it is a step backwards for the protection of air quality in the United States.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
U.S. military violated own rules on mentally ill troops...sm
Updated: 10:04 p.m. ET May 13, 2006
HARTFORD, Conn. - U.S. military troops with severe psychological problems have been sent to Iraq or kept in combat, even when superiors have been aware of signs of mental illness, a newspaper reported for Sunday editions.
The Hartford Courant, citing records obtained under the federal Freedom of Information Act and more than 100 interviews of families and military personnel, reported numerous cases in which the military failed to follow its own regulations in screening, treating and evacuating mentally unfit troops from Iraq.
In 1997, Congress ordered the military to assess the mental health of all deploying troops. The newspaper, citing Pentagon statistics, said fewer than 1 in 300 service members were referred to a mental health professional before shipping out for Iraq as of October 2005.
And: Study the comma rules and capitalize 'European'
You see, every day you learn something new, from me.
Hehehehe!
I guess they figure if Bush doesn't play by the rules,
they don't have to, either. No big surprise here. They want to take over everything, just as Bush does: With Bush, it's the world. With them, it's this message board. I agree with you, though. They should stay on their own board, as the moderator has requested. 
Pelosi Erases Gingrich's Long-Standing Fairness Rules....sm
Pelosi Erases Gingrich's Long-Standing Fairness Rules
by Connie Hair
01/05/2009
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi plans to re-write House rules today to ensure that the Republican minority is unable to have any influence on legislation. Pelosi’s proposals are so draconian, and will so polarize the Capitol, that any thought President-elect Obama has of bipartisan cooperation will be rendered impossible before he even takes office.
Pelosi’s rule changes -- which may be voted on today -- will reverse the fairness rules that were written around Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America.”
In reaction, the House Republican leadership is sending a letter today to Pelosi to object to changes to House Rules this week that would bar Republicans from offering alternative bills, amendments to Democrat bills or even the guarantee of open debate accessible by motions to recommit for any piece of legislation during the entire 111th Congress. These procedural abuses, as outlined in the below letter obtained by HUMAN EVENTS, would also include the repeal of six-year limit for committee chairmen and other House Rules reform measures enacted in 1995 as part of the Contract with America.
After decades of Democrat control of the House of Representatives, gross abuses to the legislative process and several high-profile scandals contributed to an overwhelming Republican House Congressional landslide victory in 1994. Reforms to the House Rules as part of the Contract with America were designed to open up to public scrutiny what had become under this decades-long Democrat majority a dangerously secretive House legislative process. The Republican reform of the way the House did business included opening committee meetings to the public and media, making Congress actually subject to federal law, term limits for committee chairmen ending decades-long committee fiefdoms, truth in budgeting, elimination of the committee proxy vote, authorization of a House audit, specific requirements for blanket rules waivers, and guarantees to the then-Democrat minority party to offer amendments to pieces of legislation.
Pelosi’s proposed repeal of decades-long House accountability reforms exposes a tyrannical Democrat leadership poised to assemble legislation in secret, then goose-step it through Congress by the elimination of debate and amendment procedures as part of America’s governing legislative process.
Below is the text of the letter on which the House Republican leadership has signed off.
January 5, 2009
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker of the House
H-232, U.S. Capitol
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Madame Speaker,
We hope you and your family had a joyful holiday season, and as we begin a new year and a new Congress, we look forward to working with you, our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and President-elect Obama in tackling the many challenges facing our nation.
President Obama has pledged to lead a government that is open and transparent. With that in mind, we are deeply troubled by media reports indicating that the Democratic leadership is poised to repeal reforms put in place in 1995 that were intended to help restore Americans’ trust and confidence in the People’s House. Specifically, these reports note that the Majority, as part of its rules package governing the new Congress, will end six-year term limits for Committee chairs and further restrict the opportunity for all members to offer alternative legislation. This does not represent change; it is reverting back to the undemocratic one-party rule and backroom deals that the American people rejected more than a decade ago. And it has grave implications for the American people and their freedom, coming at a time when an unprecedented expansion of federal power and spending is being hastily planned by a single party behind closed doors. Republicans will vigorously oppose repealing these reforms if they are brought to a vote on the House floor.
As you know, after Republicans gained the majority in the House in 1995, our chamber adopted rules to limit the terms of all committee chairs to three terms in order to reward new ideas, innovation, and merit rather than the strict longevity that determined chairmanships in the past. This reform was intended to help restore the faith and trust of the American people in their government – a theme central to President-elect Obama’s campaign last year. He promoted a message of “change,” but Madame Speaker, abolishing term limit reform is the opposite of “change.” Instead, it will entrench a handful of Members of the House in positions of permanent power, with little regard for its impact on the American people.
The American people also stand to pay a price if the Majority further shuts down free and open debate on the House floor by refusing to allow all members the opportunity to offer substantive alternatives to important legislation -- the same opportunities that Republicans guaranteed to Democrats as motions to recommit during their 12 years in the Minority. The Majority’s record in the last Congress was the worst in history when it came to having a free and open debate on the issues.
This proposed change also would prevent Members from exposing and offering proposals to eliminate tax increases hidden by the Democratic Majority in larger pieces of legislation. This is not the kind of openness and transparency that President-elect Obama promised. This change would deprive tens of millions of Americans the opportunity to have a voice in the most important policy decisions facing our country.
Madame Speaker, we urge you to reconsider the decision to repeal these reforms, which could come up for a vote as early as tomorrow. Just as a new year brings fresh feelings of optimism and renewal for the American people, so too should a new Congress. Changing the House rules in the manner highlighted by recent media reports would have the opposite effect: further breaching the trust between our nation’s elected representatives and the men and women who send them to Washington to serve their interests and protect their freedom.
Sincerely,
Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio), Republican Leader
Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), Republican Whip
Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), Conference Chairman
Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.), Policy Committee Chairman
Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wyo.), Conference Vice-Chair
Rep. John Carter (R-Texas), Conference Secretary
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas), NRCC Chairman
Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), Chief Deputy Whip
Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.), Rules Committee Ranking Republican
(Click here for a pdf copy of the letter with signatures.)
With all due respect,
all the posts I've seen you post have come across to me as very confrontational. You seem to be limited to posting only posts that defend these three, and I haven't seen you post anything on any political issue -- just confronting posters and complaining about their behavior, sympathizing with poor AG, Nan and MT. That's ALL you've posted on this board, and to say it was YOU who was attacked shows, at the very least, the very same mindset that precludes you from seeing things objectively. Afraid I have to agree with GT above. I, too, smell a conservative in liberal clothing, and it also wouldn't surprise me if you were either one of those three or one who is very closely allied with them.
But I will take you at your word that this is your last post. In addition, I will make this my last post to you. I'm happy that at least temporarily we're free of all the intolerance and hatred and rage and battles that ensue when those three are around. I refuse to get back into that, and I feel that you're trying to take me down that path, and I'm not buying it.
Have a blessed day.
With all due respect.
One source is a personal blog. Those are strictly opinion pieces and carry no weight on either side. The Chicago Sun piece is more interesting, but merely makes vague statements without a single name of anyone who is bashing. Now don't get me wrong, I have serious concerns with President Bush, stem cell research not being one of them. I am alarmed at the big government policies and also at the illegal alien fiasco (which I am reading has some surprises in store). At any rate, this really is a nonstory. Remember when Lieberman gave the speech on the Senate floor criticizing Clinton. It happens. I feel no connection to the country club wing of the republican party (any more than the country club wing of the democratic party). They certainly don't speak for me.
With all due respect..
... it doesn't say very much about an Army mom who would use his service -- his putting his life on the line -- in order to try to bully, shame and coerce people who would rather see her son home with his family and safe.
It doesn't say very much about an Army mom who would sacrifice her own flesh and blood because she's too busy worshiping a very false idol in Bush.
But most of all it doesn't say very much about a president who couldn't care less about her son, a president who has recklessly, negligently and uncaringly tossed America's young people into harm's way for an unnecessary, very possible illegal war.
I honor her son, and I respect his courage very much. I thank him for putting his life on the line in service to his country. And I profusely apologize to him for the way his life has been devalued by Bush. Maybe if Bush had the integrity and courage to actually serve in a war himself, he wouldn't be so hasty about killing our young people. Her son, by virtue of having the courage to serve, is way, way, WAY above George Bush in the integrity and courage categories. Wouldn't we be fortunate if someday her son went on to become president? He's already more fit to serve than Bush is.
I hope and pray that he can return home to his family (where he belongs) and that his return is safe and without injury. I'm just very, very sorry that his mother can't see that just because we don't worship an idiot like she does, that doesn't mean we don't support our troops because we want them safe and home with their families instead of fighting an unnecessary, immoral war.
No respect
No respect for the owners of this board who have requested republicans/conservatives to not post here..Do I have to report you?
With all due respect...yes you did...
you posted that you loved to find the errors and do the research. That certainly implies that you enjoy trying to prove people wrong. And that is fine, if that is what trips your trigger. Again, what I said was we had more social programs, and again, the comparison to other nations, I would like to know what other nations and their population in relation to ours before I put a lot of stock in the data. Respectfully.
With all due respect...sm
*Civil debate* has not gotten us anywhere. In order for there to be debate BOTH sides would have to listen to each other, and meet somewhere in the middle.
With all due respect, I
disagree. I have read the words Dems and lefties and socialists used interchangeably. Look through the archives and I did not say it was you.
Respect
Well, I find the posts title a bit disrespectful. I mean, I wouldn't come to the conservative board and post with a title "Glad to not be a republican." Seems to me like "Me" was looking to stir the pot with that title.
With all due respect...
the moderator has posted several times that we can cross post. Apparently the moderator does believe in freedom of expression.
If "most of you" want to speak among yourselves, don't answer my posts, don't pile on with the crass remarks that are totally unnecessary. To coin your own words, ignore me. Quash dissent. Be intolerant of other views. To each his/her own.
There are those on the liberal board who do not mind a discussion and are actually able to do so in true liberal fashion without the personal gotchas. And as far as the gotchas...I only gave as I got. At least there were those true liberals who did not mind...but I believe you quashers have run them all off too.
So, if you do not wish to have a discussion, certainly your right. Don't answer my posts.
And...just a side note...liberal posters cross over too, and I have yet to ask them to get on back to their "own" board or stay on their own board. You see...I don't just say I believe in freedom of speech and freedom of expression...I act on it...unlike you.
With all due respect....
Your quote of:
"What is wrong with this picture? First, it should be obvious that it is not the job of the U.S. government to tell people what version of Islam to embrace on pain of permanent incarceration. As long as people are not committing or fomenting acts of violence, it is not our role to pressure them into changing their faith. When did it become acceptable to set religious conversion of any kind as the price that frightened people must pay for their freedom?"
These kids at Camp Cropper were committing acts of violence..setting roadside combs, firing at soldiers, etc. Your quote came from a different article about a different program dealing with adults...not with children. Two different programs I think. No one is asking them to change their faith. Are you saying that all Islam is radial jihadist? Of course it is not. These children are being taught by Iraqi teachers, not Americans. The article I posted describes it more clearly.
If it can turn a few away from jihad to what most Muslims call "true Islam," that is a good thing, right? If it can get sunni and shiite teens talking with one another, listening to one another, interacting with one another...is that not where change begins? Like you rightfully said, it was the young people in Venezuela who helped turn the tide in that country. Perhaps the same can happen in Iraq. Are you saying it is a bad thing to present these kids with a different view of Islam, that perhaps killing other Muslims is not a good thing to do? When it is presented to them by other Muslims, not by Americans? How can that be a bad thing by any stretch?
Again...we are there, piglet. Whether we leave now, next week, next month, or next year, we are there. Why should we not try to help while we are there? Like the soldier said...it is a positive thing and he is proud of what he was able to accomplish. If it turns one kid, two kids...they may be the future of Iraq. Someone had to start teaching kids in Venezuela another way...why can't we show those kids another way while we are there? If we can stop one from strapping a bomb to himself or getting his arms and legs blown off trying to set a roadside bomb...is that not a good thing? I don't see the down side to this. Honestly.
I have a lot of respect
for any man or woman in the armed forces. I think that their opinion in our next president is very important. However, even with military personnel, there are still going to be some of them who vote strictly because of race or political party.
If our votes don't really count....this is pointless, but you can't screen people and question their motives for voting and who they choose to vote for and why before you let them vote.
with all due respect...
the only one WITHOUT a voice here is the child. We are speaking for the child. If that chaps you so severely, I'm sorry. No one is judging anyone. When Scott Peterson killed laci and connor, 12 people judged him and he is in jail for the rest of his life. It is somehow different because Scott chose to kill the baby instead of Laci? Please tell me how that makes sense. If it is wrong to kill, it is wrong to kill, and it certainly wrong to let one person have the choice to arbitrarily kill another. It is the act and the procedure that is being judged here...or that is what should be judged here.
Moral wrongs are judged by people every day. Stealing is wrong. Murder is wrong. Killing someone is murder. Cutting a defenseless baby to pieces with no one to defend it and nowhere to run to is horrific. At least admit it. If you want to give a person a right to murder another person, at least call it what it is.
With all due respect...
I don't think making it through an ivy league school on student loans indicates character. But to each his own and you are entitled to think so.
Yes, this is a democracy, and frankly I don't think there should be any parties. I don't think there should be an electoral college. I think it should really be up to the people. But that is just me.
I beg to differ...majority may rule but majority is not always right. I refer you to the Carter years.
Again, with all due respect, Obama's speech last night, was nothing new. It was the same thing Democrats always promise. The same things Bill Clinton promised. He had the country for 8 years and none of the promises happened. That happens on both sides, I realize. But it is politics. It is give them what they want to hear and when we get elected we do what we want. No matter which man is elected, that is what is going to happen. The only thing that makes Barack Obama different from any other Democrat who has run is that he is African American. And yes, he did make history last night, and he should be commended for having the will to work his way up to where he is. That should tell him he should be backing off social programs and figure out a way to instill that ambition in other folks, instead of rewarding people by keeping them dependent on the government for everything. If he can do it, why not others? But that is not the Democrat way.
We are up to our eyeballs in China because of Bill Clinton, not a Republican. If the truth really matters to you, check it out. Bill forged alliances and trade with China during his administration. You don't remember the big flap about the contributions gotten for Clinton by the Chinese. And I don't look for Obama to change anything about how we trade with the Chinese. Have not heard anything about him doing that, and I have listened to most of his speeches. Didn't see anything about it on the website either...but I could have missed it.
Please...the Democratic party is as corrupt as the Republican party. They are both corrupt. That is the nature of the beast, because they are controlled by money people who all have agendas and while they pay lip service to the little people, they do whatever they want, including trashing their own, as was so eloquently demonstrated in Denver this week.
I say this to your party...STOP TRYING TO MAKE the US A SOCIALIST STATE and destroy the greatest nation on earth.
Like I said....I don't want your respect nor do I need it.
Your posts prove constantly that what I say is right. Keep piling it on.
With all due respect....
if providing birth control to teenagers would stop teen pregnancies we would not have 1.2 million abortions every year. I do not want to start an abortion thread...just making a point.
I respect you even more - your the first....
to say anything of substance that is positive about Obama without cutting down McCain.
I do agree with you 100% I can't afford to pay any more taxes. Food, gas, and cost of living expenses are skyrocketing but my pay isn't. Do you think we paid so much in taxes the last time we had a democratic president (Clinton) because of congress. It was absolutely horrible during his pregnancy. We were being taxed over 40% of our pay (we didn't own our own place, we drove a used car, could only afford to live in a 1-bedroom apartment, so it was not like we were living high off the hog), but we were getting taxed so much when Clinton was in that we could hardly afford to do anything. When Bush became president our taxes went down and we started getting rebates, so wondering if it has anything to do with a different congress/senate (the real people who vote). The presidents in my opinion are a bunch of talking mouths but don't make any real decisions. They are told what they will do. They are there just to look pretty (ooh, is that a sexist remark HA HA).
I totally agree that corporations are not paying their fare share and jobs keep going overseas - that absolutely has to stop or we'll be forced to move overseas just so we can get a job.
I'm just scared all round because in the past both democrat and republican have always said on their campaign trail it will be better, yet it just seems to get worse and no president ever keeps the promise they made during their campaign trail.
I like the idea of new ideas, but I also like for people to be truthful too. I think why I'm starting to fall away from supporting Obama is because he keeps changing his mind and that's starting to scare me. Now I hear he's not bringing the troops home. He said he plans to keep them there for at least 5 years, and, he said he's for the draft. When will our tax money start coming back to the US to be used to rebuild the US, not support military in countries we don't belong in and a war we should not have started in the first place.
Thank you again for your opinions on Barack Obama without being cutting down John McCain. One of them will be president and I just hope whoever gets in will make America a better place than it's been. I'm open to everything.
Respect
I respect your opinion even though we disagree. What I am looking for in a leader is a moral man or woman with a HUGE dose of common sense and honesty. I don't think we have that in any of the candidates. That's just my opinion and I thank God every day that we have the right to express and differ in our opinions. I have to wonder how long we will have that freedom. I don't think many of us realize just how much freedom we actually lost with the Patriot Act.
So, in the same respect,
do you admire Sarah Palin for standing up against her own party in Alaska for the good of her state?
Probably not, I would guess. Double standard.
With all due respect,
I care what she thinks. That is different than I don't care for what you think.
I had a lot more respect for him
before I watched the video of him being VERY ugly to the lady who was testifying before the senate committee wanting to know what happened to her SON who is still MIA!!!. He had absolutely no compassion for her whatsoever. I also had more respect for him before he started every other sentence "I was a POW and have the scars to prove it." He is no more deserving of credit for his military service than the many POWs and MIAs. His military service is no greater than the lowest boot in the military, many who have and are continuing to make the ultimate sacrifice. If you want to think I'm "cheapening" his service, go ahead and think what you will With his "experience" one would not think he would have been so quick to side with Bush to send our young men and women into harm's way in this ridiculous Iraq war, many of them have made a much greater sacrifice than he and he promises to keep it going for "100 years if necessary." How many more will die? I would think being a POW would be preferable to being DOA!!!
Respect...........sm
is something that is totally lacking in our society today, Kendra, and not just in displays of drunkeness and the likely ensuing brawling and revelry such as what sounds like is the plan for the inauguration, but also in our families and work and practically every area of society. It's time we started showing a little less "me-me-me" and started thinking of what we can do to help each other and how we can show honor for those in positions of leadership at all levels.
|
