Cowards never understand standing up for anything....
Posted By: let alone their country! nm on 2009-04-18
In Reply to: Well...if you would pay attention - Trigger Happy
@
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 post that and call us angry cowards. sm
Alrighty then.
compassion is standing up
for the wronged and the weak. Your constant assaults on the truth deserve no compassion. We are standing up for the truth which will lead us out of the current darkness that has descended upon our country. As soon as the scoundrels are ejected, hopefully the veil will be lifted. Until then, we will yank out the roots of deception before it can take root and grow and spread.
STANDING OVATION!!!!
.
Thank you Kaydie for standing with me.
These obots need a wake up call!
Standing ovation!!!
Take a bow - best post I've read in a while!
Still standing by the original statement.
Google "population trends" using the quotes to get exact phrase matches and voila…2,240,000 hits emerge. Scroll on down through the first couple of pages and notice that the links do not take you to blogs and chat room forums. This is the language of academic research scholarship, government institutions, statistical databases, etc. Maybe they too need to be scolded and sent to the dictionary.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/invasion
1. An act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, esp. by an army
2. The entrance or advent of anything troublesome or harmful, as disease.
3. Entrance as if to take possession or overrun.
4. Infringement by intrusion
Invasion is what we did in Iraq and what Russia did in Georgia. Legal and illegal immigrants alike are not enemies. They do not arrive in armies, nor are they a disease. They do not come here with the express intent to cause trouble, inflict harm, possess, take over, infringe or intrude. These are living, breathing, impoverished human beings who come here looking for work in an attempt to feed themselves and their families.
The underlying causes, conditions and political circumstances have been examined and debated on this forum in excruciating detail and will not be repeated here because that was not the intent of the original post. An opinion was expressed and countered. Some choose to embrace diversity, others choose to fear, still others become outraged and even hateful. The population trend is what it is. The US is a developed country with low birth rates per capita with an aging boomer population. Mexico is a developing country with a much broader youth base with many fertile years in front of them and a much higher per capita birth rate. It is a difference in cultures.
It is quite natural in this circumstance (which also exists in other western developed counties) that the population growth in developing countries like Mexico outpaces that that in the developed countries and, yes, white folks will be outnumbered. It is a simple fact of life and one that we probably should be addressing realistically.
The issue is global, not national. The equalizing affect could be manifested in another "natural" progression…the evolution away from racial division and hatred. I only regret that I will probably not live long enough to see it.
My reasons for not standing behind Obama.......... sm
In no particular order of importance.
1. Lack of qualification, even by his own admission as recently as 2004 when he accepted his Senate seat and stated that he felt he would not be qualified for POTUS.
2. Past associations.
3. Current associations and financial backers.
4. His stance on abortion.
5. His stance on gay marriage.
6. His lack of knowledge of foreign policy. He thinks he can just "sit down and negotiate" with the biggest terrorist nations on earth.
7. Lack of proof of citizenship.
8. Questionable background in terms of religion, which lies deeper than just whether he is Protestant or Catholic or nondenomianational.
9. Issues with many of his campaign "promises" not limited to the Civil Defense Service.
None of my issues with Obama center on anything other than the above. Simply put, I don't trust him.
For me, being patriotic means standing up for your
nm
Not standing up to the liberal Democratic party
That's for starters. Here's my short list:
1) Not a strong enough military operation in Iraq and Afhghanistan.
2) Too soft on immigration.
3) Witholding the known valid/verified intelligence that proves there were WMDs in Iraq. (I'll never for my life figure that out).
4) Not hiring Tony Snow sooner to show what absolute idiots are in the White House press corps.
5) Letting the U.N. change his stance on the Lebanon/Israel conflict.
I could go on, but I'm at work and I already know you will absolutely not agree with my perceived Bush mistakes, so I won't waste anymore of my time or breath.
And re not standing up to the liberal Democratic party:
Stand up to whom and why? The Congress is run by Republicans. Bush does whatever he wants, when he wants, regardless of what Congress or the courts deem to be legal or constitutional.
He has already stood up to them by spreading propaganda that anyone who doesn't agree with him is either on the terrorist's side or a fascist. If he gets really mad, he swiftboats them.
This is the reason people want him to get warrants before spying on Americans. A President with such a history of personal revenge can't be trusted to just go after the terrorists. He can't be trusted not to spy on innocent Americans who don't agree with his policies. He can't be trusted to have a good reason to spy. He just can't be trusted, period.
Perfect definition! I'm standing up & cheering...
In applause. Excellent.
I hope you are right, that someone is standing up for the middle class (sm)
But I think what is more likely to happen is that we will ALL be taxed more and we will ALL have less money and it will be spread throughout the world. What you see as wealth and middle class will no longer be the same. Wealth will be being able to afford to feed your family. The jobs will go overseas alright, even more so than they are now. I wish I believed that you are right. That would be great! Unfortunately, I think it is a dream, far from the reality of the nightmare that is coming.
Eligibility case finds standing...
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=84966
I'm standing outside with my basket. Will it fall soon, I hope? sm
...and please, if you wish to be understood by the widest viewership, confine yourself to smaller words. I believe "irony" has three of them syllerbubble thingies, which is two over the limit.
Russo's film gets standing ovation in Cannes.sm
Cannes Premiere Gets Standing Ovation
Aaron Russo’s AMERICA: FREEDOM TO FASCISM
To Open Across America July 28
CANNES, FRANCE – Aaron Russo’s incendiary political documentary which exposes many of the governmental organizations and entities that have abridged the freedoms of U.S. citizens had its international premiere at Cannes and won a standing ovation. The event, which was held on the beach and filled to capacity, was open to the public and drew a crowd of people who stood along the boardwalk to watch the film.
Through interviews with U.S. Congressmen, as well the former IRS Commissioner, former IRS and FBI agents, tax attorneys and authors, Russo proves conclusively that there is no law requiring citizens to pay a direct tax on their labor. His film connects the dots between money creation, federal income tax, voter fraud, the national identity card (which becomes law in May 2008) and the implementation of Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) technology to track citizens. Neither left nor right-wing in perspective, the film concludes that the U.S. government is taking on the characteristics of a police state. Doc will open on multiple screens in cities across the U.S. beginning July 28.
The international audience at Cannes as well as the European media has been fascinated by Russo’s fiery diatribe against the direction America is heading. The discussion that followed the preview lasted for thirty minutes. Actor Nick Nolte, in Cannes for the premiere of “Over The Hedge,” joined Russo during the event. “The information in this film is something everybody has to know”, said Nolte, who was the lead actor in “Teachers,” a film produced by Russo.
Russo, who is best known as the producer of feature films including “The Rose” with Bette Midler and “Trading Places” with Eddie Murphy and Dan Aykroyd, wrote, produced, and directed the doc. “I am disgusted by the direction America was heading,” says Russo. “I made this movie because I want to live in a free country and I want my kids and grandkids to live in a free country. The American people must abandon the myth that America is still the land of liberty that it once was.”
Russo’s doc already has a tremendous grass root groundswell behind it. The film has previewed in over twenty-five cities with sold out theatres and standing ovations. The website, www.freedomtofascism.com has been had over five hundred thousand (500,000) streams of the video trailer. Additionally, through the website and from grassroots screenings, over $100,000 in non-deductible donations has been collected to help with the theatrical release.
EDITORS AND PRODUCERS:
For Press Inquiries contact press@cinemalibrestudio.com
****************************************************************
Primary Objectives
* Stop the polarization of America
* Stop the domination of the Democratic and Republican parties over our political system
* Shut down the Federal Reserve system
* Return America's gold to Fort Knox and have it audited
* Have Congress and the IRS, in a public forum, reveal the law that requires Americans to pay a direct, unapportioned tax on their labor.
* Make computerized voting illegal in all 50 states
* Keep the internet free and out of the control of large institutions
* Rescind the law called the Real ID Act so Americans never have to carry a National ID Card
* Make it illegal to implant RFID chips in human beings
* Educate juries to the fact that they have the right to determine the law as well as the facts of a case
* Educate juries to the fact that they are not obligated to follow the instructions of a judge
* Stop Globalization because it is the path to a one world government
* Protect our borders
* Restore the environment
* Put an end to the Patriot Act
* Sign up millions of Americans so we can accomplish our objectives
There is a difference between courts agreeing and denying based on standing...
I no more understand it than I understand the extremely poor taste and blasphemous sm
post with pictures on the other board. Are we clear now?
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.)
Also can understand...
I was also accused of being the notorious gt also. Not sure what their obsession is with this, perhaps they are hoping that all the posters who do not agree with are one in the same.
What I understand you to be saying....
What I hear you saying is that this board's posts need to reflect your personal ideology and that it is your role to call our attention to posts that you consider too liberal.
In looking back at your protests on this board, particularly a post where you have repeated the word hate over and over, combined with your delusions of grandeur that this board should operate according to your political agenda, I think you are mentally unbalanced. As a result of mental illness I doubt you will be able to comprehend any reasonable explanation of why what you are doing is misguided.
I suggest that if you want full control of a political board and the ability to censor each post that you create your own website.
Also, I am not sure why you have been allowed to run amuck on this particular board.
You know what I don't understand?
If we are so wacko, why do they keep coming here to read *liberal* posts and then slither back to insult us on their board?
PK,you're very welcome. Have yourself a lovely afternoon/evening wherever you are.
I don't understand....
How does one person's possibly tactless comments excuse another person's comments? This line of thinking doesn't make sense. So you're saying it's okay for Ann Coulter to be a brutal witch with her comments because if you look hard enough you can find comments from the opposing side that were also of questionable moral character? So what? LIke I always told my kids when they were little, just because other people are doing it doesn't make it right.
Besides, Ann quibbles that the widows are using their grief to promote their political agenda, well, my thought is that every time some family member of a war casualty goes on the local news saying how proud they are of what the military is doing in Iraq, etc., isn't that ALSO promoting a political agenda?
I do not understand why anyone would believe there were WMD....sm
IF there were any thread of truth this administration would have announced it at first notice to redeem themselves from the *unjust war* criticism. Unless they are holding on to this tad bit of information until closer to electoins, which I doubt. I would not be so quick to jump on board with Santorum with his *classified document.*
What I think I do understand.
After much research, I feel I can comment on this. Embryonic stem cell research has more than one goal. There is the harvesting of aborted babies stem cells, but there is also the stipulation in small writing that embryos can be cloned in the lab and those stem cells used for research. There is also this article, not released for general knowledge. I am sure that Michael Fox, as young as he is, and being the father of small children, would like to believe that embryonic stell research is going to be the be all and end all for Parkinson disease. I would want the same thing. But it just isn't and there are sinister forces at work just waiting for this bill to pass and for all heck to break loose. If it sounds dramatic, I don't think it is dire enough warning. An informed public is a forewarned and armed public. Here is the article I mentioned above.
Stem cells might cause brain tumors, study finds
Injecting human embryonic stem cells into the brains of Parkinson's disease patients may cause tumors to form, U.S. researchers reported on Sunday.
Steven Goldman and colleagues at the University of Rochester Medical Center in New York said human stem cells injected into rat brains turned into cells that looked like early tumors.
Writing in the journal Nature Medicine, the researchers said the transplants clearly helped the rats, but some of the cells started growing in a way that could eventually lead to a tumor.
Various types of cell transplants are being tried to treat Parkinson's disease, caused when dopamine-releasing cells die in the brain.
This key neurotransmitter, or message-carrying chemical, is involved in movement and Parkinson's patients suffer muscle dysfunction that can often lead to paralysis. Drugs can slow the process for a while but there is no cure.
The idea behind brain cell transplants is to replace the dead cells. Stem cells are considered particularly promising as they can be directed to form the precise desired tissue and do not trigger an immune response.
Goldman's team used human embryonic stem cells. Taken from days-old embryos, these cells can form any kind of cell in the body. This batch had been cultured in substances aimed at making them become brain cells.
Previous groups have tried to coax stem cells into becoming dopamine-releasing cells.
Goldman's team apparently succeeded and transplanted them into the rats with an equivalent of Parkinson's damage. The animals did get better.
But the grafted cells started to show areas that no longer consisted of dopamine-releasing neurons, but of dividing cells that had the potential to give rise to tumors.
The researchers killed the animals before they could know for sure, and said any experiments in humans would have to be done very cautiously.
Scientists have long feared that human embryonic stem cells could turn into tumors, because of their pliability.
Opponents of embryonic stem cell research cite such threats. Many opponents, including President George W. Bush and some members of Congress, believe it is immoral to destroy human embryos to obtain their stem cells.
*****
Finally, I will close with President Bush's words about embryonic cell research because I agree with him 400%. I suppose the division lies between conservative and liberal in defining the meaning of life.
(quote) believe America must pursue the tremendous possibilities of science, and I believe we can do so while still fostering and encouraging respect for human life in all its stages. (Applause.) In the complex debate over embryonic stem cell research, we must remember that real human lives are involved --both the lives of those with diseases that might find cures from this research, and the lives of the embryos that will be destroyed in the process. The children here today are reminders that every human life is a precious gift of matchless value.(unquote)
Amen, President Bush, Amen.
Okay....although I still do not understand...
but as you said, I don't have to. It seemed a very simple observation that if you found fault with Bush showing up at VA Tech and not at a soldier's funeral...I could not attribute that to anything but a strong dislike (I will not use word hate) of Bush. And no, I do not hate any of the people you mentioned. And had any one of them shown up at VA Tech, I would not have criticized them for being there because they had not gone somewhere else I might have felt they should have gone. I would have been glad they showed up to try to help those kids heal. I suppose you might call me naive, but I took it at face value, just like I did when Bill Clinton came to OKC after the Murrah bombing. As I said, he is not a person I like, respect or admire, but he was the President and he did come and I was very, very glad to see him there, he seemed sincere and I took it at face value. And, as I have said many times, there are a lot of things I do not like about this administration, I do not agree with everything Bush has done. However, on that same note, I was appalled at the pork the Dems wanted to hang on the troop funding bill, so I am not a big fan of the Democratically controlled Congress either. Nancy Pelosi broke the law by her Lone Ranger visit to Syria, and Harry Reid...I think he is a coward, I think to publically announce the war is lost when men are still on the ground fighting is at the last ill-advised, at the most tantamount to treason, emboldens the enemy and was from a personal standpoint hateful and very, very mean-spirited. I think when I see him, please do not tell me you support the troops and in the same breath tell them the war is lost. I think that is supremely arrogant, like he had a clue whether or not the war was lost. I am ashamed of him, and I have not been that ashamed of a politician since Bill Clinton's shenanigans. All that being said, as a person, I still like George Bush. I believe he is sincere and I believe his heart is in the right place. I think he is genuinely a good person, and that is probably why he is not a good politician, because there are very FEW who, in my estimation, are both. But that is just me. I think this war has taken a toll on him, and I think people who say he couldn't care less about the soldiers dying do not know what they are talking about. I have seen him shed tears on numerous occasions talking to families and talking to soldiers in the hospitals. The last President I remember shedding a real tear was Ronald Reagan. I think it is a sign of strength when a man shows his emotion like that. Again, you may perceive that as naive.
Basically I am looking for a hero this round. A man (or woman) with the courage of their convictions who will administer not to get rel-elected, but for what is good for the country. If such a person exists, now would be the time. I frankly have not seen that person in the running right now.
Yikes! Too much information.
God bless!
I really don't understand that, either....
I have been coming to these boards for a very long time and I have never seen a conservative post that liberals should stick to their own board. But they are really quick on this board to say things like "neocons need not apply" and "this board is for liberals." All that says to me is that they don't want to debate, they want only one viewpoint, theirs, and want validation from everyone for their viewpoint. The moderator has said that we could post on either board as long as we kept it respectful. This is America for Pete's sake. Each is entitled to his opinion and to support it. Sigh.
I understand
That is a whole lot more than I make, too! I live in an area where I have to pay $1,000 a month to rent a studio apartment. I thought this was outrageous! Then, my mother started a traveling job and has been telling me how much it costs to live in D.C. and some places in California. Even Vermont (sorry, don't remember what town) was more expensive! In these cases, a lot of that 88,000 would be eaten up by rent/mortage payments alone. Don't get me wrong, I do NOT think that someone living in a 3,000 sq foot house with a huge mortgage should get assistance - obviously their priorities would be out of whack. But for those in areas when it costs way more to live, that may not be unreasonable. Anyway, that was just my thought. On the site that I found, it does not mention that cap, it only says that states would set their own cap. If I recall, the 88,000 was mentioned by New York, who wanted that as their cap. I would imagine living in NY would be insanely expensive (anyone know #s?). I'm not sure how they would work out a maximum allowable cap - that doesn't seem to be written into the proposal.
I was just curious for reasons. Thank you for sharing!! :)
I understand what you are saying...
my experience totally different. My husband served in Somalia fighting AL Qaeda there..before 9-11...when Clinton was President. We have been in the military for many years. So, of course, we know soldiers...my husband was a member of the 10th Mountain Division. He was retired by the time Iraq came around (he still works for the Army in civilian capacity), but the 10th Mountain was instrumental in Afghanistan...he knew many of those who were deployed and he knows many who have ben to Iraq...needless to say our roots in the service run deep. And all the young/older servicemen we have come in contact with hold the opposite view...they understand the need to fight the enemy there so we don't have to fight them here. They believe, as do I, that keeping Al Qaeda busy in Iraq is one reason we have not been hit here again in a big way. The surge is working; casualties are down dramatically for both civilians and soldiers...the data is there if you look. Still, we will not get into a war debate but I will say this...no one WANTS war. I would like to have them home today too, but what I don't want is for America to become like Israel with car bombs and human bombs in malls, schools...I don't want to hear about something like that every day. I believe our being in Iraq helps keep that kind of thing at bay, and if we can leave a free Iraq we will be one step closer to keeping Al Qaeda at bay.
I saw a man on TV a few nights ago...a man who has interviewed several jihadists, including Al Qaeda...I wish I could remember his name. Will have to Google for that too. He said that most Americans really did not understand the threat. He said that there was a common thread in interviewing all of them, whether it be Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad...they said themselves that we did not understand. They are in this for the long haul. They intend that the world be converted to Islam, and those who do not convert will die. They will not stop until it is done. They intend to start in Europe and extend it to the US. When asked why could we not have a dialogue, they all said in essence: "There is no dialogue. There is nothing to discuss."
That should tell us what we are up against. And it should chill us all.
Have a good night!
I understand what you are saying but..
It seems that over time the majority of politicians who are supposed to be looking out for the people of this country have decided it is more profitable to concentrate on a certain constituency - those who have wealth and connections, no matter which party they represent. I'm just kinda tired of always seeing Obama slammed - if he blinks wrong, does not say the 'right' thing, carry himself in a certain way - people are all over him negatively. He cannot be any worse than what we have had in office the past eight years, and I am willing to see what he does without maliciously tearing him apart.
I understand everything you said
There is no way to deal with these people. Everything we do is a catch-22. We go to war - we are intolerant murderers. We don't go to war - we are weak. My personal opinion on this is that we need to bring as many troops back as we can and do everything humanly possible to keep this country safe. I am afraid that with so many troops in Iraq, we are not safe. Other countries recognize this. Look at Iran. What would we do if we HAD (and I say had because I would hope that we would exhaust every other option) to invade Iran? Our poor troops are exhausted and weary. Who would fight any other threats? I think it is important to gain strength here at home. Secure our borders. Thoroughly investigate anyone coming into our country. I think that is the best we can do because fighting really doesn't get us anywhere in the grand scheme of things.
what I can;t understand
If repubs are the minority being attacked by the all-powerful liberal media, why can't we have a liberal talk radio network? You got yer Hanninity, Limbaug, shrieking harpie Laura whats her name, Michael Savage, etc. You can't be a minority and still have all the radio programs . ... don't make no sense.
Understand what exactly?
Are you looking for justification for leaning toward conservatism? Your prose is rhetorical and exhausting. Can we get some fair liberals, aka, fellow Democrats who would like to discuss issues, candidates, etc, on this site?
I understand what you are saying...
I am just not sure universal health care is the answer. In every country I can find who have it, the cost is catching up and they are contemplating cutting services or raising taxes out of sight...many Canadians now pay 50-55% of their paycheck in taxes. I do not want to see this country go down that road. That will only force more and more people onto assistance, and that is going backward, in my opinion. Bottom line is, we need to figure out a way to get health care costs down, or it does not matter what kind of plan whether private or government-provided...we will not be able to afford it. Gotta get costs in control and keep them down. That is what I want to hear a candidate talk about...now throwing more money and raising taxes for yet another entitlement. Look at the money coming in now and prioritize. If free health care for everyone is what is most important, fund that first. It might mean cutting some other services or entitlements, but sometimes choices have to be made. What is most important? Do we really need to drive up everyone's taxes yet again? And how come no one is stating what universal health care will cost? Because the figure would scare us to death is my guess.
I understand what you are saying....
but what is the worst that could happen? Some of them go back to being jihadists. But if we can turn one heart, one life...who then might turn another...isn't that worth it?
We cannot change anything that has been done in the past. We can, however, learn from it, and hopefully give these kids hope. That is what they need desperately...hope for a better time, a better life. And if we can help with that...we should.
I don't understand........
if you are currently living in the United States, George W. Bush is YOUR President. You may not like him, you may enjoy calling him names, but he is my President and yours.
George W. Bush is not retarded, George W. Bush is not retarded, George W. Bush is not retarded.
Thank you.
I understand what you mean
I think voting because its your right and if you feel really strongly about voting because its our right as a citizen then that's kind of different, for me though because I know my vote doesn't count, I feel like I'm not giving up my rights, I'm "exercising" my right to not vote. Sounds a little quirky I guess, but it beats joining a bunch of protestors. Besides I've got so much more stuff to do than go stand in a crowd, punch a ticket or whatever the means of voting and then watch whoever I don't vote for get picked. Our next president has already been chosen, so I figured why waste my time.
I understand that but I still don't think its right
I don't think its right for someone who wins over another to ask their supporters to help pay off the debts of the person they were voting against. These politicians bring in enough money that their debt would be paid off within a few months. What they want (and its not just Hillary, its others too), but they want everything and they don't want to pay for anything. If I'm donating money (which I didn't) but if I'm donating money to Barack's campaign because I want him to win, why in the world would I give any money to his competitor (wether it be Clinton, Edwards or anyone else who ran against him). So that they can keep all of their money free and clear. Heck, all Clinton has to do is give a couple speaches, write another book and their debt will be paid off. They're just greedy and want it all. So just because it's been done before doesn't make it right. Also, I don't remember hearing about this in past elections. I can't ever remember hearing the winning candidate openly campaign for funds to pay off the debts of the people who tried to knock them out of the race. Maybe it was done, but I never did hear anything about it.
I understand everything you are saying...
and I did not mean that 5 years in a POW camp alone qualifies him...but it does build the character, integrity, selflessness, and patriotism that I think are essential. We know this about McCain. I don't know that about Barack Obama. There is nothing in his history or his resume that gives me that feeling about him. McCain also commanded men in war time. McCain has been a senator many more years than Obama has. If you put there experience side by side...absolute evidence of integrity, patriotism, selflessness, the willingness to buck the "party" if they feel the party is not correct...all those things make me feel that McCain is better qualified for the job, and the 5 years in a POW camp, the fact that he never caved and endured horrible torture because of it...is definitely part of that qualification.
I don't agree that McCain is 4 more years of Bush. The two are nothing alike. Bush has caved to the Repub hierarchy when I think he should not have. Anyway...that's just my take on it.
I do understand yours, and you SHOULD vote for who you believe will be the President. That is what America is all about. I know I AM! :)
I understand what you are saying....
but choice does have a lot to do with debt. No all, but in the majority of cases. Part of the reform McCain/Palin will be looking at is predatory lending. A main reason Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae collapsed is the so-called "reform bill" the democrats wrote and passed this year...forcing them to offer mortgages to low income and middle income people whether they were creditworthy or not...using those adjustable interest rates. When the bottom started falling out, interest rates went up, the people were in over their heads and defaulted. Who is picking up the tab? You and me, for people taking on a mortgage they could not afford, ignoring the fact that if the interest rate went up (and they almost always do in adjustable rate mortgages) they could not pay the mortgage. That is what I am talking about. Yes, I know the American dream is own your own home. I had to wait until I was middle-aged to be able to afford it.
Same way with those high-rate credit cards to people with less than stellar credit. I don't think most credit cards are maxed because of using them to live on. I do not say that none of them are...but I would venture a guess that they are not.
Respectfully, if we want jobs to stop going offshore we need to stop taxing our businesses at an astronomical rate. Our business taxes are at least 10% higher than anywhere else in the world. That makes it very difficult for our businesses to compete, and it sometimes forces businesses to go offshore to get out from under the huge tax burden. That is economics 101. Now Obama wants to hit small business owners not only by keeping the business taxes at all-time high, but taxing the business owners' personal income even more, taxing capital gains even more, and raising the death tax even more (which forces the closure of many businesses when the principal owner passes away). In my opinion, the death tax should be stopped, period. All the money in the business has already been taxed, and the government wants to tax it AGAIN when the owner dies. Talk about piling on.
The government needs to learn to live within its means. Find out what programs are not working and stop them. Monitor spending programs better...the waste is astronomical. Attach a job to a welfare check. Make the objective getting the people back to work, not dependent on the government and taxpayers to support. That being said, those truly disabled physically or mentally, we should take care of. But someone physically and mentally able to work should have a job or job training attached to that check, and it should not be open-ended. JMO.
I understand....however....
while I think Bush is great on the war on terror, and I think he is a good man and his heart is in the right place....I don't agree with some decisions he has made...being realistic. Same with any President. He was President in 2005 and I think he should have listened a little closer to McCain at that point. I stop short of saying, tho, that it is all his fault. It's not. It's the Dems in COngress who blocked what McCain wanted to do.
Obama is up to his eyeballs in the Fannie/Freddie thing...as is CHris Dodd... and Biden has gotten all kinds of failures from MBNA.
And isn't it funny about Charlie Rangel and Pelosi refusing to remove him from chairman of ways and means committee while he is under investigation for improprieties? If he was a Republican they would be calling for his head on a platter. LOL. Amazing.
Well I can understand they want to win, so do we
But we don't chew up Obama and Biden like they do Gov. Palin. Just all worthless.
Thanks for the post. I have to read it when I get back later. Just was checking to see if anyone answered. It's been up all day and I see lots of people read it but none that will admit that absolutely hate her - and for no good reason.
Here is what I understand
I will try to find links to validate what I say, but this is what I have read and heard.
Palin did not fired people to give their jobs to her friends. I believe that was proved incorrect (again I will try and find the link). That's about as accurate as the story about her banning books from the library. Everyone seems to think she banned books from the library (because it was put out by the liberal media) and Harry Potter was one of the books listed. The problem with that story was Harry Potter hadn't even been written yet when they claimed she banned it.
If your talking about people firing and hiring people I would look directly at the Clintons. When Bill was President and Hillary was first lady I'm sure you remember what they called Travelgate. They fired people who worked in the White House Travel Office (for no reason) so they could hire on their friends.
I will try and find the links later (won't be back on til tomorrow), but I would just say if your reading a story and it comes from the liberals I would definitely research it more and read both sides (liberal and conservative) with an open mind and a grain of salt because 99% of the garbage the liberals have been putting out there is just that, garbage (i.e. - Palins daughter is the real mother of Sarah's baby, Todd Palin had sex with his daughter, and the list of lies goes on and on).
They should also understand....
he was not convicted of anything and his involvement was minimal. But you did not post that. It is also not a felony, which our friend Bill Clinton committed. And Bill CLinton continued as President anyway, and on most Democtats' estimation, he did just fine. I would hope anyone reviewing this issue would take both into account.
Sure I understand it. sm
Bush may be a soft dictator, but he is a dictator. McCain is no different. Are you telling me we do not have those things in the US?
14 points of fascism.
http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm
I understand that
that's why I am making a point of trying to study different versions and in questionable areas I look up the Hebrew words and what not. I do know that humans make mistakes (duh, lol) but I honestly believe that God has control over the Bible, and he wouldn't let it get as widespread as it is in the condition it is if it wasn't acceptable. Kind of like if someone wrote a book about everything you said and then changed it, you would get rid of that changed version real quick. I'm without a doubt that God has the power to do that.
So do you believe that you still go to Heaven when you die? Or do you still go to Paradise because the Messiah hasn't come yet? (I'm not sure if that is a Christian or Jewish teaching, I'm pretty sure it's old testament but if our OT and Jewish OT are different, then that might be too)
I am firm in my beliefs, but I still want to learn about others. I think it's closed minded not to. Just because you know what you believe doesn't mean you shouldn't learn what others believe, right?
I think that is where tolerance gets misconstrued. People say tolerance is believing that everyone's beliefs are correct. But tolerance is accepting that other people have other beliefs, not accepting that they are just as correct as you (that was to anyone in general, not you.)
Thanks for clearing it up though, I have been curious about it but I don't know many (or any really) Jews here in our little town. Everyone is pretty much Baptist or Methodist. But doctrine is a whole 'nother thing. I always tell everyone I'm only Southern Baptist by marriage! (My father-in-law is a preacher, yes, I married "the son of a preacher man")and they are every bit as bad as everyone jokes. Fortunately God reeled him back in and me along with him! :)
what I can't understand is...
Why do people take time to argue here rather than getting out and making calls or something else that would be more profitable for the candidate of their choice. (This is my very 1st time to ever post on this site.)
I understand that they do but they don't like being
@@
then maybe we'd would be able to understand
'Mmbbblfflrbmrormmmm'!
I don't understand why
people have no problem receiving money that they didn't earn and that was earned by someone else. I don't understand why you CNN and MSNBC cronies don't see that Obama's plans will hurt this economy and add to our deficit. There is nothing wrong with being a conservative person. I'm not dead set republican but I do lean to the conservative side. This whole economic crisis goes back to bad decision that were made by presidents even before G.W. Bush. This has been a long time coming and the blame goes to all politicians who didn't try to stop this. Clinton was the one who made banks give subprime loans. Yes that was great for our economy for a while but the long term didn't end up so well and we are now where we are. You can't place this on all republicans and Bush.
I don't understand???
The big corporations just helped themselves out with our hard money - and that's okay, just don't help the poor people who even if they are trying to help themselves cannot get by?
I will never understand how
an unrepentant terrorist could have obtained a job as a college professor anyway. To me....that is just insane. I don't care if what he did was 40 years ago....he still did it, he admitted it, doesn't apologize, and said they didn't do enough. When interviewed Ayers stated, "I don't regret setting bombs" and "I feel we didn't do enough", and, when asked if he would "do it all again," as saying "I don't want to discount the possibility."
No person like that should be able to educate anyone in our country. Who would want this man speaking at any event or educating anyone. I sure as heck don't.
|
