Home Contact Us

Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

But valuing over the price of a dollar is a right thing wing thing, so you are on the wrong board. n

Posted By: TS on 2006-12-02
In Reply to: I think it all shows that Christianity is valued with the love of the dollar, not the love of Christ - nm

x

Complete Discussion Below:

marks the location of current message within thread

True meaning of Christmas...sm - Democrat
- My take on it... - Observer
  - I think it all shows that Christianity is valued with the love of the dollar, not the love of Christ - nm
    - But valuing over the price of a dollar is a right thing wing thing, so you are on the wrong board. n - TS
      - Lol, tell that to the Kennedy's and Bill Gates. Gimme a break. nm - Brunson

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

At what price? There's no such thing as a
x

Same thing Bush has to do with the price of eggs.
Nothing! Bush is not controlling the price of eggs or food or anything for that matter. The poster was referring to the OPs message about the "evil Bush regime". I agree with the reply. The OP post was disgusting and if she/he thinks the Bush regime is "evil" she/he should try living in Russia. Or even Cuba for that matter.

And since we don't know what it's going to be like under an Obama regime I think we should all wait. By the looks of the people he is picking for his cabinet well, we might as well live in Russia or Cuba. Let's wait and see if this regime becomes an "evil regime". I've been reading some articles by surviors of WWII and Hitler's reign, and they are all saying just wait, we feel bad for what you will be going through.

Nah, just that 'vast left-wing conspiracy' thing

lot of that going on nowadays!

One thing you have wrong for sure. Liberals are so
nm

Your friend did the wrong thing.
She should have taken responsibiilty for her actions.

Perhaps if she had had a bit of self control and not rooted around with the guy without being married, she wouldn't have put herself in that position.

Your friend's story is disgusting and totally cliche. She found a nice family to adopt the baby she didn't want to be bothered with, but let the 'dirtbag' who banged her (my, she must have great taste in men) talk her into murder.

With friends like that, who needs terrorists?

Women need to close their legs and stop playing the victim.

I thought the same thing but was wrong
Have gotten to finally draw mine after all those longgggg years. One thing that I wish others would do and that is not be so early to retire if healthy to stay on. Think it would be almost impossible for most to retire at my age and then find another job, at least outside of MTing.

If a stereotypical thing like the above had been posted on the C-board
tongue-in-cheek or not we would be castigated to no end and called racist and insensitive to cultures.

GT just exemplified her double standard, and I was calling her on it...

That's the most sensible thing I've read on this board
in a looooong time. Why should somebody who works hard (or inherits) for their money have to pay more taxes than someone who makes (or inherits) less money. Everybody paying the same - that is equality.

Wrong, the thing he regrets most in his life is....sm
what he did to his first wife. By the way, he was not exonerated of any wrongdoing, he was exonerated of any CRIMINAL wrongdoing, although that is questionable in my mind. Both McCain and Palin sing the same tune when accused of unethical behavior, denial, just like Palin still denies ANY wrongdoing with regard to troopergate even though rebuked by the Alaska legislature. Basically it all comes down to poor judgement and thinking you are above the law, something we do not want in another president. We have had way enough of that! Some people just cannot handle power without being corrupted.

"we" did the right thing....no, you're wrong there.....a lot of
people, mostly young, were bamboozled.

"We" did not do the righ thing...

Unless you like total government control, and social medicine, and social economics.....etc......

We may never recover from President Obama and his "change", at least not in my lifetime.

I did not vote for him. I wish him well, but his choices as he is leading up to his inauguration do not bode well for our country on a whole, especially our children and grandchildren, who will be left to foot the bill, and have less rights than we do now.

Libs refuse to call it socialism.

But that's what we're putting into office.

Bush opened the door a crack.

Obama intends to play on our fears and take full advantage of them.

The barn door is wide open, and the winner take all (Obama). "Never let a good crisis go to waste" as his team has recently stated.

He has, and will, take full advantage of our fears, as even he, Obama, was the fear monger today.

Maybe when all your rights are gone, when govt has total control over your healthcare, your mortgage, your loans, your 401K, (and other things I can't even imagine as of yet unveiled b....maybe then, you will understand what is happening right under your nose, and finally see what you have lost.

Blatent lie is the only thing wrong with this picture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Children's_Health_Insurance_Program

Question. What does the first S in SCHIPS stand for? STATE. OK. So here we have federal funding provided TO STATES for administration under very broad federal guidelines. Age is defined as birth to 18. Income guidelines define chideren in families living between poverty level and up to 200% of poverty level. Beyond that, it is up to the STATES to determine their own guidelines and eligibility criteria.

Care to post a source for your information that disputes this info?

Good thing we have PSYCHIC wisdom on the board
:-(

There is one thing wrong with his claim of going "line by line".....
The O can spout until the day is done that he will go over every item line by line and take out the ear marks and pork, etc. But there is one thing he needs and that the president will never get is something called....

Line item veto. Until the president gets that power (and he never will), he can't cut anything out of the budget.

He can veto until the cows come home, but all it takes is a 2/3 majority of congress to overthrow a presidential veto. End of story.

Until he gets line item power, pork will always abound in any budget or bill that comes across his desk.

I never said it's a bad thing, it is a good thing....nm
nm

Your on the wrong board - you need to preach on the faith board
You just delivered a sermon (or quote). Either way it doesn't belong here. What does this have to do with politics. The democrat and republican party did not start up until after the 1800s. Socialism also wasn't created until the 1800s.

To me your post describes the way humans should treat other humans. This has nothing to do with politics - imho.

Wrong board

Actually, I'm not sure you went to the wrong board at all. If you chose "Politics" in general and you saw the headline of the post and clicked on it, you automatically wind up there and don't necessarily realize that's where you're at. Even Nan and American Girl have done that, and I believe those errors of theirs is still on this page.

If this post of yours is an example of how you post, I can't understand why in the world you would be banned, but then again, I can't understand why three certain posters on that board get AREN'T banned, so I guess I just don't understand much about this place. I note that they kept Nan's post calling someone a "slimy bottom dweller," as well as all their other posts where they attack posters.

My personal opinion is that if you want to be free to think independently and express that opinion without being ganged up on and attacked, then maybe you should continue to post on this board. I personally am interested in what you have to say. Although I just visited the Conservative board, and for the first time in a long time, find it to be a peaceful place where people are starting to debate again without being attacked by those three. Unfortunately, I doubt that will last very long. They will be back if they aren't already, and whatever goodness is there now will be once again destroyed and people won't be allowed to express their opinions without being attacked.

Again, I can't even begin to understand why you've been banned in the past, and if your post is an example of what the monitor had to "put up with," by all means PLEASE keep posting because I think you're definitely a breath of fresh air! Welcome!!

Sorry, wrong board. NM
.

Mad? Wrong board for that
Mad? Not mad about anything in life. Not happy about Bushs America and what he has done to America but not mad. Working to change America, get it back on the right track..you bet..working to show the neocons they once again are wrong in their ideology, you bet.

Sorry about that...wrong board, wrong name
nm

what's wrong with you? This is the Politics Board.
If you cannot make a contribution to discussing politics then move to another board with your ignorance.

Sincere apologies, wrong board. NM
...

Yes, sincere apologies, wrong board. So what? NM

Neocon, I think you are posting on the wrong board
GET OFF THE LIBERAL BOARD, FOOL..we dont want you here.

You're on the wrong board, aren't you?

one other thing though....

Agree with everything you stated, but I am profoundly disgusted also with Rove being able to expose a CIA agent, and nothing is going to be done about it in that I feel he committed treason, as Reagan did with Iran-Contra... Treasonous acts that are let to slide...no big deal huh? Who knows if someone is getting hurt because of his mouth, and yet, nothing... The silence is very annoying...as our country drops into a stinking sea of muck.

One more thing, gt. sm
Of all the people on these boards, YOUR opinion of me is the one I value the least.

Oh, and one more thing, gt. sm
Clnton signed Kyoto in 1997, only because he knew that the Senate would not ratify it. He was right. They voted 95-0 AGAINST Kyoto. Why? Because it would have required signatory nations to significantly cut greenhouse gases resulting from the burning of fosil fuels. Because ratifying the treaty would have required a large reduction in the use of fossil fuels that we use to our our economy. Until there is an alternative fuel source that is better than gold old fashioned coal and oil, restricting our economy's ability to burn these fuels would CRIPPLE US AS A NATION. You are not seeing the total picture here, you simply cannot be seeing it. I know the left's hatred for capitalism has blinded them to the fact that without our economy, we collapse. It really is that simple. We would be reduced to a third world nation in a very short period of time and you and I would not be sitting here writing on our computers because our world as we know it would change. Yes, it really is all about oil. But not the way you think.

and another thing
we aren't controlling anybody. There are several countries in this world where you are controlled, but this ain't one of them.

One more thing:

I apologize for the length of my post, but so far, I still have freedom of speech.

Guess I just feel the need to get it all out before that freedom suddenly disappears, as well. The majority of Americans don't agree with Bush, and we all know how he/his thugs handle people who dare to disagree with him. If you don't believe me, just ask John McCain and/or Valerie Plame.

I'd like to add one more thing.

If these alleged WMDs are so widespread and so easily accessible in Iraq, why aren't any of them being used on our soldiers?

Honestly, that's one of the very first fears I had when I heard we were going to war with Iraq (when I still believed the reasons given by the president and supported the invasion based on those reasons). I had visions of massive troop deaths at the hands of Iraqis and these WMDs.

Did that happen?

OK. Here's the thing...sm
Because we've been through this before and I feel a repeat coming on. I'm respectful and nice to everyone on these boards 99% of the time. People come over to the liberal board and pretend they are moderates or just want to *debate.* When all the time they are anti-everything liberal and have no intention of seeing the liberal point of view. In the end, they end up *insulted* off of the board and run to the other board and have a sling fest. Yawn. They have revelations over there contrary to the beliefs they portrayed on this board. So really I'm skeptical about debating with the like. You may be 100% different worldfan, but from your posts on the Conservative and News boards it would appear you would be more at home on the conservative board giving them a high five about what's going on over here. Just my observation.

I used to post on the conservative board but I left because they were getting too extreme for my liking. It's that simple. There are some topics over there that I would reply too, but I don't b/c of past comments made over there, which have made me stick to the liberal page. However, on quite a few issues I am far from liberal like abortion and fiscal spending.

I hope you get my points. If not, we don't have anything more to discuss.

Sorry. Here's the whole thing.

I was trying to avoid this but the link is not working for some reason.

Tuesday, July 04, 2006

Headlines

Printer Friendly Version

E-Mail This Article

Published on Monday, July 3, 2006 by Agence France Presse

Britons Tire of Cruel, Vulgar US: Poll

People in Britain view the United States as a vulgar, crime-ridden society obsessed with money and led by an incompetent president whose Iraq policy is failing, according to a newspaper poll.

The United States is no longer a symbol of hope to Britain and the British no longer have confidence in their transatlantic cousins to lead global affairs, according to the poll published in The Daily Telegraph.

...a majority of the Britons described Americans as uncaring, divided by class, awash in violent crime, vulgar, preoccupied with money, ignorant of the outside world, racially divided, uncultured and in the most overwhelming result (90 percent of respondents) dominated by big business.

The YouGov poll found that 77 percent of respondents disagreed with the statement that the US is a beacon of hope for the world.

As Americans prepared to celebrate the 230th anniversary of their independence on Tuesday, the poll found that only 12 percent of Britons trust them to act wisely on the global stage. This is half the number who had faith in the Vietnam-scarred White House of 1975.

A massive 83 percent of those questioned said that the United States doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks.

With much of the worst criticism aimed at the US adminstration, the poll showed that 70 percent of Britons like Americans a lot or a little.

US President George W. Bush fared significantly worse, with just one percent rating him a great leader against 77 percent who deemed him a pretty poor or terrible leader.

More than two-thirds who offered an opinion said America is essentially an imperial power seeking world domination. And 81 per cent of those who took a view said President George W Bush hypocritically championed democracy as a cover for the pursuit of American self-interests.

US policy in Iraq was similarly derided, with only 24 percent saying they felt that the US military action there was helping to bring democracy to the country.

A spokesman for the American embassy said that the poll's findings were contradicted by its own surveys.

We question the judgment of anyone who asserts the world would be a better place with Saddam still terrorizing his own nation and threatening people well beyond Iraq's borders, the paper quoted the unnamed spokesman as saying.

With respect to the poll's assertions about American society, we bear some of the blame for not successfully communicating America's extraordinary dynamism.

But frankly, so do you (the British press).

In answer to other questions, a majority of the Britons questions described Americans as uncaring, divided by class, awash in violent crime, vulgar, preoccupied with money, ignorant of the outside world, racially divided, uncultured and in the most overwhelming result (90 percent of respondents) dominated by big business.

###

Printer Friendly Version

E-Mail This Article

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

� Copyrighted 1997-2006
www.commondreams.org

I would like to know the same thing.nm
12

The thing that got me was this...sm
This totally counts out everyday Joes. And those with a couple million to run. A half a billion dollars is a lot of money.

One last thing.....
Your argument might hold more water if I thought for one minute liberals understood that it was Michael Moore's OPINION and not the truth (but why should they, because he frames as the truth). I think, if you truly understand that, you are in the minority.

One more thing...
I asked the last poster to bring me one example of a Democrat who, when caught in wrongdoing, has resigned. Just one. She has not come back with one, even though I named several who should have. As I stated, the only Democrat I know of who resigned from anything resigned because he was coming out of the closet, and I find that ludicrous. The man should not have resigned because he was gay. For felony perjury, yes. For obstruction of justice, yes. Remember please the congressman who actually had a homosexual affair with an underage page (male). No Democratic outrage. He stood right up and said he was an adult and it was consensual and that had nothing to do with his job as a Congressman. No Democratic outrage. In fact, he was re-elected. Yes, that was several years ago, but all that proves is that the Democratic moral compass went wonky several years ago. It is not a recent thing, it is just getting worse and worse and worse. Stop please dancing around the subject, and please to bring forth one or two Democrats who have actually resigned and admitted wrongdoing? And while you are at it, Republicans who were caught and still hold office? I would be very willing to read and re-assess. Try for one minute to take off the liberal hat and look at it objectively. It is case after case after case...Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Alcee Hastings, William Jefferson, and on and on the list goes....in fact, Alcee Hastings was removed as a Federal Judge for bribery and perjury..see below.

In 1988, the Democratic-controlled U.S. House of Representatives took up the case, and Hastings was impeached for bribery and perjury by a vote of 413-3. Voters to impeach included Reps. Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, John Conyers and Charles Rangel. He was then convicted in 1989 by the United States Senate, becoming only the sixth federal judge in the history of the United States to be removed from office by the Senate. The Senate had the option to forbid Hastings from ever seeking federal office again, but did not do so. Alleged co-conspirator William Borders went to jail again for refusing to testify in the impeachment proceedings, but was later given a full pardon by Bill Clinton on his last day in office.

Ain't that special?? And just proves the point.

How did I get into this thing..

I have not said anything about regime change for months, years. I said Iraq was on the table before 9/11 solely to illuminate the fact that 9/11 set the stage for what some had been wanting to do for a long time. My intent was to emphasize that this administration used 9/11 as a way to garner support from Congress and the American people for the switch from Afghanistan to Iraq. If 9/11 had not happened, there would never have been support for a preemptive war in Iraq nor do I believe we would have supported going after bin Laden. It took something monumental for the American people to be willing to go to war.

How do you know Clinton is my favorite president?? I think he was a good president and I was doing a lot better when he was in office but you assume much here. In my lifetime I think maybe JFK was my favorite president (I was about 10 years old and I remember him as bigger than life) and one of the reasons for that was that he inspired us. I don't think anyone has really done that since, made us think and feel like we could do anything. It really has been downhill since Watergate.

I will cease and desist from regime change rhetoric if I never have to hear the words spew or ooze again.

How did I get in this thing....

My point was that it is not only *this* administration. Clinton felt strongly enough about Iraq and regime change, as did the Congress at that time, to enact a LAW calling for regime change. So Iraq was on the table then. The articles posted would lead you to believe that liberals/Democrats never called for regime change. They are the instigating part of the *some* you speak of. And if you will read Clinton's speech at the time, if you did not know he gave it, you would think Bush might have, because the content is eerily similar. It is just odd to me that liberals were on board for WMD, on board for regime change, on board for force, on board for ALL of it when Clinton was calling for it. How do liberals manage that massive flip flop? I remember Clinton's speech well. It was one of the few times that I agreed with what he was doing and saying.

My intent was to emphasize that this administration used 9/11 as a way to garner support from Congress and the American people for the switch from Afghanistan to Iraq. If 9/11 had not happened, there would never have been support for a preemptive war in Iraq nor do I believe we would have supported going after bin Laden. It took something monumental for the American people to be willing to go to war. Okay. I get it. 3000 people dying here was not enough to make liberals willing to go to war. What, in the name of the Almighty, is, I am wondering.

How do you know Clinton is my favorite president?? I think he was a good president and I was doing a lot better when he was in office but you assume much here. I was being facetious...he seems to be the posterboy for liberals. I apologize. I will not refer to him as YOUR favorite President anymore. Glad though that you validated what I have said on numerous occasions, that liberals are about what is good for them individually...I am glad you personally were doing better when he was President.

In my lifetime I think maybe JFK was my favorite president (I was about 10 years old and I remember him as bigger than life) and one of the reasons for that was that he inspired us. I don't think anyone has really done that since, made us think and feel like we could do anything. It really has been downhill since Watergate. Maybe it has gone downhill for you since watergate. Personally I think it started downhill then, and made a huge massive slide with Monicagate and a sitting President committing felony perjury. However, I do not hold the country responsible for that as you seem to. I hold the individuals...Nixon and Clinton...responsible. At least Nixon had a modicum of grace to say he was wrong and resign when caught. Clinton has done neither and his party has not expected him to and has in fact defended him. You will never hear me defend either of them.

I will cease and desist from regime change rhetoric if I never have to hear the words spew or ooze again. I believe it was one on the liberal board who started the *spew* and *ooze* and the only time I have used those words was again, being facetious, in reply to the ones who used them. I personally did not start the use of those. In fact, I think her words were *spew venom* (ick). As to cease and desist, go ahead with the regime change rhetoric if you like. We know it did not originate with Bush, not opinion, matter of law. No spin, hard fact.

Have a good day.

The right thing to do is...
allow everyone to vote. No one needs to step down. And I do not support either of them. I supported Ron Paul when he was in the race.

One more thing
He keeps flashing a pic of himself when he was a young guy in the military. Almost every commercial of him shows him when he was younger, and in fact one of his ads on this website shows him a young guy in the military. He's now old and he should have a current picture. What's next, Barack putting up adds with his high school senior pic? How about Hillary running with a picture of her in grade school. The guy is old and if he's so confident in himself he should have a current pic of him. He's no longer younger and he doesn't have the mind of someone younger.

You did no such thing since he never said that.
I did do my research and so did the author of "comparative drug use." above. FYI: Crack/free-base cocaine and cocaine hydrochloride are not the same. One is pure, the other a compound. The addition of hydrochloride gives the intranasal compound a completely different chemical make-up that does not have the same effect. It is slower on the uptake and clears the system much faster than the cocaine base (giving it less of an addictive potential) . The pure free base/crack cocaine DOES NOT WORK when it is snorted, since the absorption is obstructed when it is attacked by enzymes via the nasal route. Method of delivery does matter, in terms of drug effect, absorption, drug life and addiction potential. If you are an MT, you know where to go to verify this information.

I am aware of what he said and did not say in his book. I have nothing to add to the "comparative drug use" post in that regard. Furthermore, there is nothing inaccurate in my original post. There is a pervert on a right-wing fringe blog who made these unsubstantiated claims about his witnessed account of "sharing" cocaine with Obama and having homosexual sex with him. He has also been discredited and has a wrap sheet a mile long. Does not seem like a credible observation from a credible source. That's all I said. I did not deny, nor did I acknowledge whether or not Obama used cocaine. My comments referred to how information is extracted from legitimate sources (in this case, straight from the horse's mouth), twisted and manipulated by perverts and right-wing blogsters in desperate efforts to smear somebody's character when they are unable to engage themselves directly in legitimate policy issues. The "character" card, whether played by one party or the other, is really a lame strategy that prevents productive, progressive approaches to issues and solutions to problems of dire importance to us AS A NATION, not as party affiliates.

That is the best thing you

can come up with? Let us forget Obama's association with Ayers or his 20-year membership to a church that preached hate messages......let's just focus on McCain calling his wife a C unt shall we. Sheesh......If he thought so little of women, he would never have chose one to run as his VP.

In all seriousness though, why is c unt such an offensive word? Who dictates words and which ones are bad? Who decided that the F bomb was bad? Who determined what words were considered swear words? If I called someone a poop head and then called someone a c unt, they are both supposed to insult...are they not.....so why is one worse than the other and who determined that?

At least she is doing the right thing
She is going to have the baby and not kill it

well, the one thing that the VP has is...
the deciding vote if there is a tie in Congress, and with a majority dem congress that is not a bad thing.. :)

Yep, I agree with the "gimme" attitude. I call it being all about me, me, me. Don't get me wrong, I believe some social programs are necessary because there are people who, through no fault of their own whether mental disability or physical disability, cannot work. And I think we should take care of our fellow man to that extent. However, those who are fully capable of working and choose not to, and we have to subsidize their housing, their groceries, and give them a check every month...that needs to stop.

Have a wonderful day!

yes, SP did the right thing!!
x

One more thing....sm
McCain isn't "my hero" per se.... -- my first choice was Romney, and we all know where that went....lol....

But John McCain is this country's hero, whether you agree or admit it. He simply is, and was. Period. You can't take that away from him.

And I'll tell you who "sat around and watch a city drown." I think that pretty much covers what the entire nation did, as the nonstop coverage of that event was depicted...actually, I think the whole world watched, not just us. One of our tragedies, but you can't lay that completely at McCain or Bush's feet. It's been covered before her ad nauseum, and I think most agree, if the dem gov and dem mayor would have acted preemptively, as happened this weekend in both LA and TX, a lot of that would have been averted. No need to cover this ground again, really. I get your point of view though, so no need to expound.

Bummer....now I betcha won't answer my other question on SNL....rats, I really wanted to know too....lol....I used to love SNL with the first crew was on there with Chevy, Belushi, Gilda Radner, and all those first not ready for prime time players.

LOL! I can add one more thing to that -
To paraphrase the Beach Boys:

'and she had fun, fun, fun,
'til her mommy took her condom a-wayyyyyy!!!'

Is that a bad thing?
Should he have just attacked, attacked, attacked? Doesn't matter what he does, it is wrong, I guess. I would rather have somebody who can say Yeah, we disagree on some things, but here is where we agree. Isn't that what bipartisanship is about?

Whatever they do there is one thing for sure
It will not benefit "we the people." This bail-out is absurd. Our local bank president is a personal friend. Talking to her the other day she said there are no problems there and it's business as usual, loans being made just the same. Now that doesn't add up to the scare tactics we hear from the jerk-off politicians. JMO but I think this is G.W.'s last great assist to his Wall Street buddies. One party is as bad as the other and they all benefit from what goes on on Wall Street. They'll pass some kind of bail-out and this country will be bankrupted. No money, no jobs. Their bail-out is not going to help the situation any more than the rebates did. Just borrow more money and throw it away. I hope eventually enough people will get totally disgusted and then maybe we can take back our government. Everyone wants "help." Well, those who bit off mortgages they couldn't afford, tough toenails, suffer the consequences. We may as well start learning to spell GREATER DEPRESSION, worse than the 30s because, folks, that is what is coming.

The Republicans will keep on blaming the Democrats and the Democrats will keep on blaming the Republicans. ALL of our elected politicians ought to be tried and hung for treason!! The best I know to do is vote against EVERY incumbent. I am far from excited about Obama but I will vote for him because he is not a Republican. Any Democrat running for anything I will vote for the Republican. That's the best I can think of at the moment to try to change. We all need to quit bickering about "Republican" and "Democrat" and start thinking as AMERICANS! If someone can build a better mousetrap than what I plan to do I'll be first in line to buy it. Something HAS to be done and we don't need to start in arguing about who should get a free handout. The truth is NO ONE should get a free handout, other than the aged and infirm!

One other thing to think about . . .

Also need to think about the what if . . .? What happens if Obama is elected and all these crazy radicals/extremists/racists in this country take him out, or GOD FORBID, if McCain is elected, (and I don't think an 80-year-old man is going to make it through 4 years), then that thing he picked as runny mate would step in as president? Let's see, Palin or Biden? There's a no brainer!!! Mark my words, Palin beliefs would regress his country 30-50 years. We don't need a self-righteous religious fanatic in the White House. What ever happened to separation of church and state??