Actually read his blog
Posted By: Long-Time MT-NY on 2009-01-26
In Reply to: Inside is the site to read where this statement came from - Backwards typist
I am not for Obama at all but I try not to just listen to things that I hear and take them as fact. I do my own research. if you actually read his blog he states that 20% of the jobs should go to people needing training; poor, minorities and women. There is nothing wrong with trying to give someone a leg up in life. Now I would be hard pressed to agree if he was saying no jobs go to white males but that is not what he is saying. Please people on both sides read, research and reach your own conclusions...don't take someone else's word as gospel on either side.
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
Of course, the Hillary blog has the all
knowing truth....give me a break. Before or after she stormed Kosovo under sniper fire? LMAO
For those interested.....here is the blog
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/obamas-college.html
Saw this on another blog....the cause in a nutshell....sm
How this meltdown occurred, in a nutshell, point by point.
The link at the bottom is pretty interesting too, for how the government has failed.
The cause, in a nutshell:
1. Congress (under Jimmy Carter) passes a bill making it illegal for banks to “redline” (that is, they can’t ignore poor neighborhoods because that would be discrimination).
2. In 1992, Clinton can’t get elected by saying “Vote for me and I’ll give $250,000 in tax dollars to all poor people so they can buy a house” so he instead says “I feel your pain” to get into office.
3. Clinton changes the rules so that banks are faced with $10,000 fines (or 1% of assets, whichever is less) per-loan-application if they discriminate against the poor. In other words, the government FORCES banks to make bad loans.
4. To soften the load, Clinton reduces the Fannie Mae “reserve requirement” to an astoundingly low 2.5%! (They need to keep only $2.50 in cash for every $100 loaned!) Banks, faced with $10,000 fines, respond by making bad loans and immediately dumping them on Fannie Mae.
5. Clinton rule changes also require banks to count WELFARE CHECKS AND FOOD STAMPS as “income” for loan applications!
6. Senate Democrats demand that Fannie Mae buy more bad loans to “help the poor become homeowners.”
7. Radicals Islamists attack the U.S. on 9/11. To keep the economy from tanking because of the terrorist attack, the Federal Reserve keeps interest rates artifically low - to stimulate the economy. These low interest rates make it even easier for people to get mortgages.
8. Because Fannie Mae is buying up bad loans like candy, banks keep making them.
9. Conservatives see the handwriting on the wall and start complaining.
10. Fannie Mae CEOs James Johnson and Franklin Raines “cook the books” to give themselves, and other former Clinton buddies at Fannie Mae, bigger bonuses.
11. Raines (like, Johnson, later an Obama advisor) is forced to resign and pay back millions.
12. Because many poor people entered the housing market, there are MORE buyers chasing the same number of houses available. That makes prices go up - much faster than the inflation rate. (Duh! If more people want the same house, the seller can charge more!)
13. More conservatives warn Congress of trouble ahead. Barney Frank (D-MA) and other Dems say “Don’t worry, be happy.” Maxine Waters (D-CA) says Republicans are racists for wanting to rein in Fannie Mae to prevent poor blacks from buying houses. Waters praises the crook Franklin Raines.
14. John McCain submits a Fannie Mae reform bill in 2005. Senator Chris Dodd (D-CN) gets his fellow Dems to promptly vote against it; it never leaves his banking committee and thus never gets voted on by the full Senate. Dodd gets a boatload of cash from Fannie Mae for his campaigns, more than any other Senator (Obama is in second place).
15. Everything explodes in 2008.
16. Secretary Paulson (a Democrat) persuades a non-functioning President Bush to go along with a bailout.
17. At a White House meeting, Dems feed their talking points to Obama so he can look good. He screws up, and lambasts the Republicans - angering them enough so that they have no desire to help.
18. Frank, Dodd, Reid, Pelosi blame the Republicans. The media piles on, ignoring the real cause of the crisis, in an effort to elect their socialist pal Obama. They all know the Dems caused the problems, but why burden Americans with the truth?
19. Conservatives in Congress say NO to socialism.
20. Americans say NO to socialism.
21. Democrats say THIS IS CRITICAL, WE MUST ACT! and then take a day off for a Jewish holiday. (Better to risk destroying the economy than lose Jewish votes in November 4.)
22. McCain - foolishly - supports the bailout, reprising his role as the “Democrat-lite” candidate.
23. Sarah Palin will hopefully expose the Dems for their part in the mess during her debate with Biden.
24. Americans are screwed, no matter what happens.
The full details at:
http://colony14.net/id46.html
Blog cacca is what it is! LOL
LOL
It is a right-wing blog, sam.
Aren't you the one who always complained about people posting information from blogs? Aren't you the one who dismissed anything posted from blogs as being irrelevant? Can you spell hypocrisy?
demo blog site
http://www.ariannaonline.com/
Also, I reread the post and you did not say that was from another blog.
.
I saw some posts on a blog where someone called him that. sm
It is unfortunate everyone did not get to know his positions better. He is an economics genius and if it is not constitutional he does not vote for it. Personal liberties and freedom appear to be not important to Americans anymore. Perhaps experiencing an economic collapse and maybe martial law will wake them up.
Saw this on a blog, written by a soldier....sm
Apparently written in response to negative posts regarding our country, the election, the republicans, etc. I felt this soldier's viewpoint is very, very important.
I will tell you about America!! I have been a soldier. I have seen American men and women of all RACES and religions that courageously and proudly serve their country. Many of them made the ultimate sacrifice for their country with their lives. I read these comments putting down what these finest of Americans have done It makes me really ANGRY. These people that put our country down have NO appreciation of the freedoms that they have because of the sacrifice of these military heroes!!
I know that in America we have problems and although it has taken along time to fix many of these problems, we still FIX things. That is what Americans do. There have been racial problems but in 1862 there was slavery .A Christian republican president (Lincoln) issued the Emancipation Proclamation that ended the slavery and set our country on the road to racial equality. We are not entirely there yet but we have come a long way. It would have been impossible in years past for a black man like Obama to make 4million dollars a year not to mention actually run for president.
The capitalist system that he is trying to destroy has been really good to him.
I have been around the world and I have seen “civilized” socialist European countries that have a 6o% tax rate on the working class in order to “spread the wealth” and few personal freedoms. I have seen third world countries where one in three babies die due to water born disease. I have also seen American Christian organizations voluntarily drilling wells to help these people survive. I have seen Americans risking their lives to provide medical assistance to people that have no access.
When that enormous tsunami hit Indonesia, Who was there first??? America was there first. American Marines put down their weapons and began digging the out survivors as well as those who didn’t survive. Americans set up water purification units to provide safe drinking water, setting up field hospitals aiding the injured, setting up temporary housing for these victims and food services for the victims. America was there FIRST!!
I have seen countries where the middle class live in filthy squalor, with open sewers and trash in the streets, living under oppressive totalitarian regimes. I have seen communists that plunder, murder, rape and torture the very people that they are supposedly “liberating”.
You people who want to believe that America is so bad really don’t have a realistic view of the world. NOWHERE in the world do people have a higher standard of living due to our capitalist free market system. NOWHERE in the world do people have the personal rights that we have in America. NOBODY in the world puts so much effort in to helping other people, even some that are not very friendly to us. NOBODY matches our humanitarian worldwide efforts. Why do you think that so many people want to get to America????
You people that put America down should really open your eyes and take a good honest look at the rest of the world. You should also question the anti-American rantings of people like Mr. Ayers, Mr. Wright and those associated with them. If these people had spouted this stuff in 90% of
other countries, they would have been thrown in prison or would have wound up in an unmarked shallow grave somewhere. Instead Mr. Wright lives in a 1.2 million dollar home and Mr. Ayers is a professor in a prestigious university.
Again, only in AMERICA…..
WAKE UP AMERICA……WAKE UP!!!!
I COPIED THIS FROM A BLOG, AND APOLOGIZED ONCE. TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT..NM
Short blog from watershed wordpress...sm
Mon 21 Mar 2005
a culture of life?
I don’t know what it is about this Schiavo case that is driving me nuts and pissing me off to no end. It just seems like the epitome of contradictions, hypocrisy and doublespeak. Even beyond the implications for the “sanctity of marriage” and the over 17,000 Iraqis, and over 1500 US soldiers killed in the Iraq War as I ranted about in this post.
There’s a great article in the Washington Post about Bush’s record on life and death here.
Bush on Schiavo: “…we must err on the side of life…”
Bush on Karla Faye Tucker: “Please,” Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, “don’t kill me.”
Let us not forgot Bush oversaw 152 executions while the governor of Texas.
And let’s not forgot about the baby who was taken off of life support against his parent’s wishes, in Texas as a result of a Texas law (passed by none other than our president) that states the hospital can make decisions about the termination of life over the family. (as I post this, Keith Olberman has started talking about the same thing!). You can read about this here (link not in repost).
Wait, I am comparing someone like Terri Schiavo, to a convicted killer like Karla Faye Tucker, to thousands of Iraqis, to US soldiers, and to a little baby? You bet I freakin’ am. Isn’t that what a “culture of life” would be all about?
-------
Nope MT, he has done some things wrong :(
A blog by an Iraqi about his homeland and Democracy. sm
I read this every day until he stopped posting. It's very informative and not something seen in the MSM. There are other links there that are still active.
Linked to a Jewish blog? I assume someone from sm
the conservative board did that. I am opposed to war and weep for all victims of war. My criticism is aimed at the state-nations responsible for them, including my own.
I almost fell off my chair reading that blog. sm
That ad campaign took major cohones to pull off. I have to agree with almost every posting there. I did not vote for it, but then I did not vote for ANY bailout to ANYBODY. So Chrysler basically thumbed their noses at us and there is nothing we can do about it. This emoticon says it all. 
Director's blog at the CBO link inside
http://cboblog.cbo.gov/
Good because I started to copy the blog this morning...sm
And my first instinct told me not to. After reading Lurker's post I thought about the blog, copied it and forgot it had the word in it; it was bad judgement. Will it stop people from judging me - NO. That's the way of the world, so you guys have at it until this is deleted. I'm through.
If you know some good democratic blog sites, please respond to this post with the links. nm
Thanks.
This looks interesting. A long read, so will read it when I get home from work. nm
nm
Obviously u didnt read, I said NONE of them are moral. Read the post before spouting off.
I read on CNN (yes, I do read liberal stuff too..hehe)...sm
...that Karl Rove was actually very disappointed in the McCain campaign for airing negative type ads against Obama.
So I would say that Rove is definitely not in the hip pocket of the McCain campaign.
Good research sam - but a lot to read right now so gotta read it later
I've been goofing off too much from work. I appreciate what you wrote and will read when I'm done with work here.
sorry, should read I did not read post that way.
,
All you have to do is read up on Marxism, read up on...
black liberation theology, and look at what Obama is proposing. All of it a matter of public record, most of it from his own mouth. Your denial of it does not change the facts. If you support socialism, vote for him. Certainly your right. You are already wanting to squelch any kind of dissent...what's up with that? If you seriously consider calling someone a socialist a smear, you really need to read up on your candidate. I did not post a smear, I posted a fact. Redistribution of wealth is socialist and he already said he was going to do it...I heard him say it and it is now a campaign commercial. Sigh.
Some on this board can only read what they want to read (nm)
x
READ THE ARTICLE-READ OTHER
READERS COMMENTS!!!
Nan please read what I have to say
I've read your latest posts. You fit the decription of a troll at times, but I don't really care about that. DOesn't matter. What I do notice is that you incite other posters with calculated insults, condescension and twisted and sometimes cruel logic. Then when the object of your insults becomes angry and lashes back you pretend to be an unfairly accused innocent and the object of someone else's crazy, uncalled-for rage.
This is compatible with borderline personality disorder. My mother had it, a brother-in-law battles it and I am all too familiar with it.
I did read it.
Not posting the whole article puts the quote out of context. It's not really a way to do things on a chat forum, but then maybe you don't post in a lot of other forums. Those I frequent always post the whole article or at least a link. It would give you a lot more credibility. Take it for what it's worth.
Read this...
Pandora's Box
September 22, 2005
By Ken Sanders
You have to hand it to the Bush administration. No matter how bad things might be in Iraq, and no matter how dim the prospects are for Iraq's future, Bush & Co. still manage to look the public straight in the eye, smirk, and insist that the decision to invade Iraq was a good one. Call them determined, even stubborn. Call them dishonest, perhaps delusional. Regardless, the fact is that by invading Iraq, the Bush administration opened a Pandora's Box with global consequences.
Bush and his apologists have frequently promised that the invasion of Iraq will spread democracy and stability throughout the entire Middle East. That naive declaration could not be farther from the truth. Not only is Iraq itself in the clutches of a civil war, the U.S.-led invasion threatens to destabilize the whole of the Middle East, if not the world. It may have irrevocably done so already.
By most definitions and standards, Iraq is already in the throes of civil war. Whether defined as an internal conflict resulting in at least 1,000 combat-related fatalities, five percent of which are sustained by government and rebel forces; or as organized violence designed to change the governance of a country; or as a systematic and coordinated sectarian-based conflict; the requirements of civil war have long since been satisfied.
While our television screens are saturated by images of chaos and death in Iraq, the stories beneath the images are even more disturbing. Purely sectarian attacks, largely between Iraq's Sunni and Shiite populations, have been rising dramatically for months. According to Iraqi government statistics, such targeted attacks have doubled over the past twelve months. Police in Iraq are finding scores of bodies littering the streets, bodies of people who were blindfolded or handcuffed, shot or beheaded. The Baghdad morgue is constantly overwhelmed by bodies showing tell-tale signs of torture and gradual, drawn-out, agonizing death.
In Baghdad, Sunni neighborhoods live in fear of Shiite death squads like the Iranian-backed Badr Brigade of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), Iraq's leading Shiite governing coalition. Such death squads operate openly, in full uniform, and with the deliberate ignorance, if not outright sanction, of the Iraqi government. On a single day in August, the bodies of 36 Sunni Arabs were found blindfolded, handcuffed, tortured and executed in a dry riverbed in the Shiite-dominated Wasit province.
At the other end, Shiites face each day burdened by the terror and trauma of being the targets of constant suicide bombings. The army and police recruits killed by suicide bombs are predominantly Shia. In Ramadi, a Sunni stronghold, Shiites are fleeing their homes, driven out by murder and intimidation. On August 17, 43 Shiites were killed by bombings at a bus stop and then at the hospital where the casualties were to be treated.
There are less-violent examples of the deepening rifts between Iraq's Sunnis and Shiites since the U.S.-led invasion. By some estimates, nearly half of the weddings performed in Baghdad before the invasion were of mixed Sunni/Shiite couples. Since the invasion and its resulting instability and strife, such mixed weddings are all but extinct. This new-found reluctance of Sunnis and Shiites to marry each other is just another indication of the increasing isolation and animosity between the two populations.
The recently finalized Iraqi constitution does little to bridge Iraq's growing sectarian divides. The culmination of sectarian feuds passing for political debates, Iraq's constitution only ratifies the sectarian divisions of the nation. In the north are the Kurds who long ago abandoned their Iraqi identity, refusing to even fly the Iraqi flag. In the south is a burgeoning Shiite Islamic state, patterned after and influenced by Iran. Both groups have divvied up Iraq's oil reserves amongst themselves. Left in the nation's oil-free center are the Sunni Arabs, dismissed as obstructionist by the Kurds and Shiites. So unconcerned are the Kurds and Shiites with a unified Iraq that they both maintain their own large and heavily-armed militias.
Of course, the constitution still has to be ratified. If it is ratified, it will likely be by a Shiite/Kurdish minority, effectively maintaining the status quo that motivates, in part, the Sunni-led insurgency. If, on the other hand, the constitution is defeated, there's little reason not to believe that the three major factions in Iraq won't resort to forcibly taking what they want. Either way, in the words of one Iraqi civilian, God help us.
The discord in Iraq is not limited to fighting between Shiites and Sunnis. In Basra, for instance, rival Shiite militia groups constantly fight each other. The notorious Badr Brigade, backed by SCIRI, have repeatedly clashed with dissident cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi militia. The Badr Brigade frequently works in conjunction with Basra police and are suspected of recently kidnapping and killing two journalists. Suspecting that the Basra police have been infiltrated by both the Badr and Mehdi militias, the British military sent in two undercover operatives to make arrests. The British operatives were themselves arrested by the Basra police. When the British went to liberate their men, they found themselves exchanging fire with the Basra police, their heretofore allies, and smashing through the prison walls with armored vehicles.
Iraqis aren't merely growing increasingly alienated from each other, as well as progressively opposed to coalition forces. Iraq's estrangement from the rest of the Middle East and the Arab world is widening as well. Seen more and more as a proxy of the Iranian government, the Shiite/Kurd dominated Iraq finds itself at odds with the Sunni-dominated Middle East. For instance, since the U.S.-led invasion, not a single Middle East nation has sent an ambassador to Baghdad. And, despite promises to do so, the Arab League (of which Iraq was a founder) has yet to open a Baghdad office.
There are, clearly, many reasons other than sectarianism for Iraq's estrangement from the Middle East and Arab nations, security being the foremost. However, Iraqi diplomacy, or lack thereof, is also to blame. From chiding Qatar for sending aid to Katrina victims but not to Iraq, to arguing with Kuwait over border issues, to blaming Syria for the insurgency, Iraq's fledgling government seems to have taken diplomacy lessons from the Bush administration. In fact, with the exception of Iran, Iraq has butted heads recently with nearly every Middle East nation.
Iraq's constitution hasn't won it any friends in the Arab world, either. For instance, Iraq drew strong condemnation from the Arab world when a draft of its constitution read that just its Arab people are part of the Arab nation. Only after the outcry from the Arab League and numerous Arab nations, did Iraq change its constitution's offending language. (The argument by Bush's apologists that the Iraqi constitution's alleged enshrinement of democratic principles threatens neighboring countries is unconvincing. Syria and Egypt both have constitutions that guarantee political and individual freedoms. In practice, however, such guarantees have proven meaningless. Why, then, should they feel threatened?)
Iraq's varied relationships with Middle Eastern nations will be immeasurably significant should Iraq descend further into civil war. For example, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Jordan would most likely come to the support of Iraq's Sunnis. (There are already signs that the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq has impacted Saudi Arabia's Sunni population. According to a recent study, the invasion of Iraq has radicalized previously non-militant Saudis, sickened by the occupation of an Arab nation by non-Arabs.) Iran would only increase its already staunch support for Iraq's Shiites. Turkey would also likely be drawn in, hoping to prevent any Kurdish success in Iraq from spilling across its border. Moreover, Iraq's violent Sunni-Shiite discord could easily spark similar strife in Middle East countries like Bahrain, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia.
In such a worst-case scenario, Iraq's instability would spread and infect an already unstable region. If the Gulf region were to further destabilize, so too would the global economy as oil prices would skyrocket, plunging the U.S. and so many others into recession.
Put another way, Bush's illegal, ill-conceived, short-sighted, and naive venture in Iraq could reasonably result in total chaos in not just Iraq and the Middle East, but the world over.
A Pandora's Box, if there ever was one.
Sorry, but can you read?
pizza. Don't you think they've thought of moving? It isn't always practical to simply uproot. In this case, there is an elderly family member and children. Again, from the throne passing judgement.
This makes no sense: I'm talking about a certain segment of our society who refuse to learn, refuse to work, and who YOU wish to bring up to an equal place as the rest of society who works hard and earns what they have. Huh? You still missed the point...good grief.
I read that. And then MT goes on
to criticize you for suggesting that posters visit eXtremely Political and is aghast at the post that calls for shooting someone who doesn't agree...... she just FAILS to mention that it's a NEOCON who wants to shoot LIBERALS!!!
This is what she wrote:
Sorry, had to answer this one. There have a Whine to Management option. That is PERFECT for gt. Talking about shooting other posters, atheism and porno. Yeah, that's a great place alright. And now they have THE gt as a member. Does it get any better than that. Although, my thoughts are they won't suffer her long. Those people are pirrhanas.
Well, if that ain't the pirrhana calling the shark hungry!
Perhaps you need to read
No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor... otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief... All men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of religion, and... the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities. --Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. ME 2:302, Papers 2:546
Our civil rights have no dependence upon our religious opinions more than our opinions in physics or geometry. --Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. ME 2:301, Papers 2:545
We have no right to prejudice another in his civil enjoyments because he is of another church. --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776. Papers 1:546
I am for freedom of religion, and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendency of one sect over another. --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799. ME 10:78
Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved. I have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle. --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Rush, 1813.
I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance or admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others. --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Dowse, 1803. ME 10:378
Our particular principles of religion are a subject of accountability to God alone. I inquire after no man's, and trouble none with mine. --Thomas Jefferson to Miles King, 1814. ME 14:198
and many more: http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm
You need to read that again.
Yes, it is US law, according to the Constitution.
The United States signed the UN Charter -- which is a treaty. Let me repeat:
Article VI of the U.S. Constitution makes treaties into which the U.S. has entered the supreme Law of the Land.
In other words, we made a treaty with a bunch of other countries to abide by certain rules, including the use of force. Since we entered into this treaty with the UN, that makes it the supreme Law of the Land -- US Law.
Sure, you can say, So what? Nobody's going to take us to court. We can do anything we want. But if we as a country aren't going to respect our agreements with other countries and our own laws, why should anybody else? Nobody is above the law, right?
By the way, I think we were fully justified in invading Afghanistan.
I have read this...
So what. At one point you say he was involved with AIM and had a lackey break someone's arm. Now you are providing us with an article that disavows any connection with AIM at all. Which is it? Could it be that some folks who were involved with AIM in the late 60s early 70s are no longer involved, or are dead or have had major disagreements along the way about what should be done. Banks, Russell Means and Peltier don't even speak to each other any more. That is sad, in my opinion. Trudell, on the other hand, is still around. (I had the pleasure of meeting him last Saturday in Hollywood Florida at the Native American Music Awards) and still fights the good fight although his wife and children were burned to death in an FBI arson. There is a video, called simply Trudell. It has aired on PBS stations. It is also available from Trudell's web site. It you get a chance, see it. There is so much information out there that no one seems to care much about as regards the American Indian from Columbus to today. The history is always written by the victor and the American Indian history is distorted.
You can read whatever you want...
into what people say. Some are not very tactful and some, like our president, just can't get a syntax together to save their souls. I still think the sentiment was not that these Americans do not want democracy. I still think they thought we **deserved** to be surprised because we have ignored Middle East history, the British colonization, the politics, the culture, the nature of Islam when, in reality, bearing in mind our support for Israel and our dismissal of the Arab states, it should not have been a surprise. This has been brewing for quite some time. That is not the same thing. I really don't know what those 2 had in their hearts but I truly believe that one saying the US has treated the Arab states badly in the past does not make one a **terrorist** or a communist or a democracy hater. These people attempt to see all sides of things, in all colors, not just black and white. Those are the people who will ultimately garner peace if it is at all possible. It will not come at the barrel of a gun, no matter what has happened in the past.
Yep, I know, I can read. NM
Well, I don't read the
leftist blogs or any other blogs for that matter, too much like talk radio. I also don't need to plagerize anything; I can think for myself, thank you very much.
I have read this one over and over...s/m
What has happened in this country over the years? Why the almost blind acceptance of things, almost anything that is done? Where are the idealistic youth? Their future is at stake, so many, many issues, yet, where are they? Why the banket of almost deafening silence? It scares me.
have you read...
anything written by Michelle Obama? she is truly a racist. Your remarks about her scare me. Make sure you are truly informed. John McCain is a down-to-earth person who would do well in office, but the reality is no president can make the changes outlined above. It takes all the members of the house and senate to begin to make change, not just one man.
Where can we read about this? TIA - nm
can't read and can't
recognize inappropriate behavior in temprament. Oy.
Read it before....
....Opinion section can state anything they want to, and so can you.
So can I.
Seems to me, though, are those three tiny words by Gov. Palin, that are given very little credence here:
"Hold me accountable."
I kinda have the feeling that she doesn't have much to hide here, having read other parts of this story before too.
So bring it on.
I have the feeling that Gov. Palin will come out on top.
And you believe everything you read on the net?
XO
Have you read it? nm
nm
We both must have read something different....sm
Quotes from the first article:
Charity's Political Divide
Republicans give a bigger share of their incomes to charity, says a prominent economist
In Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism (Basic Books), Arthur C. Brooks finds that religious conservatives are far more charitable than secular liberals, and that those who support the idea that government should redistribute income are among the least likely to dig into their own wallets to help others.
Mr. Brooks agreed that he needed to tackle politics. He writes that households headed by a conservative give roughly 30 percent more to charity each year than households headed by a liberal, despite the fact that the liberal families on average earn slightly more.
Most of the difference in giving among conservatives and liberals gets back to religion. Religious liberals give nearly as much as religious conservatives, Mr. Brooks found. And secular conservatives are even less generous than secular liberals.
Well if you read, why do we have to? nm
nm
Then you don't read enough.
nm
Should read 8 above - nm
x
when I read the first one
I was flying to Arizona to visit my daughter. In the book the setting is on an airplane (one of the main characters is the pilot). Suddenly half the people on the plane are gone and all that is left is a little pile of their clothing on the seat when they had been sitting before being raptured. I had to take a quick look around to make sure all the passengers were still on board! But do try to read at least some of it. I think there are now like 10 books in the series but within the first couple you will know when I am talking about. I believe they have a web site and I know the first 2 were made into movies.
Not what I said. Read it again. am
I said/meant collectively, the hardworking/undereducated/less intelligent/mentally or physically disabled/, any of the above, the poor and middle class.
Did you even read what I said?
A. Lincoln: " It is better to be silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt."
Is there anybody here that can't read?
nm
|
