Define change, please. Both sides.
Posted By: What it means to you. on 2008-09-08
In Reply to:
nm
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
Both sides should have a choice, on both sides, pregnant woman and doctor...nm
bm
Change and Hope: Obama wants your change and hopes you enjoy starving.... sm
...while he's partying like a rock star with the glitterati.
Meanwhile, some little old lady is hoping he doesn't get a dog and sends her the dog food instead.
Yes, they're all nuts. The change they'll get is not the change they thought
I want change. Chump change. I'm voting for Obama as far as the pollsters go.
Obama is change you can believe in until you have to take it to the bank.
Our jobs have been offshored until now because of greed. Under Obama and his taxation of small businesses, they will be offshored not because of greed but because of survival.
You could make a difference for our country by not voting for Obama, but instead, if you vote for him, you are selling out to deception. You are embracing a socialist, a communist, a Marxist, a liar, a cheat, and someone who legally cannot run as President of the U.S., much less the Illinois senate. But, you make your choice. You believe the consumate liar and his lies who sat for 20 years under the teachings of a black racist preacher filled with hatred for the U.S., whose association with Bill Ayers is recent and documented down to the fact that Ayers himself wrote Obama's best-selling book (best-selling in the eyes of far left liberals that is), who is a documented member of the socialist party, whose friends and close allies are extremists who not only bomb innocent people and are unrepenetent but who intend to eliminate (kill) 25 million Americans who they cannot "re-educate" in communist ideaology (gosh dog it, those dreadful capitalists), who refuses to hand over a certified copy of his birth certificate and educational records (my goodness, don't you have to provide your birth certificate to any number of entities who want to know if you are legal, i.e., social security, DMVs, etc., and your educational records would show if you had received aid as a foreigner and in 1963 would have shown you were a negro instead of an African-American which Obama's falsified record shows, please speck up on history), and who thinks Joe the Plumber is so stupid not to realize that if he wants to achieve the American dream, he is going to achieve it only if he lets Obama take what he makes to give to those WHO WILL NOT WORK. I'd like to see you, liberals, give a share of your 7.5 cpl to those who don't work as hard as you, but then with Obama, that's what you will have to do. Don't be fooled by his rhetoric that only those making over $250,00 will be taxed. We will all be taxed, and there will be no incentive to work for any of us because we will all have to give up a piece of our pie so those who do not work can have a piece of our pie.
Here is the dividing line, folks. We are at a crossroads in our history. The Lord Jesus puts it this way, "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction; and there are many who go in by it."
Choose which gate you enter, the wide or the narrow. It not only determines your eternal destination, but it determines the destination of this country. If anyone here calls themself a Christian and can vote for Osambo, I daresay you are a liar and cheat just as he. One cannot be a Christian and vote for a party and a political candidate who is in total rebellion to God's Word. That is a fact, and if you think any differently, then you, too, like the Obamanation, call God a liar. May He have mercy upon your soul. As He makes the rain fall on the just and the unjust because He is no respector of persons, we will all suffer as this country is destroyed and our Constitution that guarantees our freedoms is trampled just as Bill Ayers is pictured standing upon our flag in total disrespect, and we will thank you liberals that we are all in bondage, reduced to third world status, just as the Israelites were in Egypt. Only Obama ain't no Moses but a Muslim and has no favor with God, and there will be no one to lead us to the Promised Land coming from the Democratic party.
Can someone please define *liberal* for me, please?....(sm)
I have asked this question before and did not get any answers, thought I would try again. On another board I got slammed for saying Obama was a liberal. Okay, if he is not, why isn't he? I don't want a dictionary definition, I would like to know, you who post here, how do you define liberal? How do you define yourselves, your political leaning...I am NOT trying to pick a fight, and I will not comment on the answers. I would really, really like to know, and what better place to find out than the liberal board?
Define Liberal
American Heritage Dictionary:
lib·er·al (lĭb'ər-əl, lĭb'rəl) Pronunciation Key
adj.
1. #
1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
3. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
4. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
5. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
6. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
7. Archaic Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman.
8. Obsolete Morally unrestrained; licentious.
n.
1. A person with liberal ideas or opinions.
2. Liberal A member of a Liberal political party.
Define Liberal
That's about it, actually. That would be me. I can echo liberal democrat's sentiments too other than the democrat part. In my opinion only, "Leftist" is a term applied to people who do not agree with all conservative views, and is applied by conservatives. I would consider some of my views conservative, such as my own views on illegal immigration and fiscal responsibility, yet I have been called a leftist. Go figure.... They seem to think it is an insult I suppose.
Define Democrat, please.
Many democrats absolutely despite Fox News and all of its programs. Slanted, biased, misleading and at times, bald-face liars. They NEVER reports on isues important to democrats. NEVER.
Define morals.......
Your definition might not match mine.......That's why God gave us free will.
So one more time...please define
Bush's policies for which he should not be blamed.
Apparently you do define yourself that way.
By your own description, sex is determined by gender. Therefore, by your definition, describing yourself as female describes your sex life. So quit talking about your sex life with us. We don't want to hear it, and, if your postings are any indication, it's either really really boring or, more likely, probably kinkier than I could stomach.
Please define the "change" you expected
Did you expect complete newcomers to Washington to take top cabinet posts at a time when the country is imploding? Is change about the people who lead or the rules they play by? Doesn't NEW POLICY count for anything? In terms of the economy, do you want experiments or experience? Remember the economy under Clinton years as opposed to W? It is a cabinet, not a regime. Please read the OP about where Obama is supposed to look for appointees and then share your ideas with us, if you don't mind.
Could you please define "rub burn" so that
we can get to the substance of your comment?
Could you please define "rub burn" so that
we can get to the insightful substance of your comment?
you wanna go there? Define protect
We arbitrarily attacked a country that had no solid links to the attack. That has been proven. To say it was not known then is not an arguable point because it was not known then, so again, we attacked a country without probable cause.
Since our current President has been in power, no attacks have occurred. The only attack on US soil since WW II (by a known attacker, the Japanese) has been under the power of George W. Bush, and according to you, he would be the least strongest president in the present day.
To 'protect' does not translate into an aggressive attack, especially if the attacker is not a known entity.
Interesting....and I suppose Obama will define
xx
I agree with change....change to socialism...
NO THANKS.
Exactly....and that happens on both sides...
in all seriousness...without the jibes...I have two big issues with the Dem candidates, that being the abortion issue and the endless tax and spend for social programs. I am not against social programs, I am just against the waste associated with it and the constant assault on the paycheck. The average in the US is 30-35% of your paycheck off the top in taxes. Can't we all agree that is enough? Why create more programs or throw more money at programs that aren't working? Why not look at the programs and cut the waste. Look to helping people better themselves instead of pushing assistance higher up the income ladder. Because it is we in the middle class who suffer the most. Pretty soon there will not be any middle class at all, because they will then be the working poor on the assistance that goes higher up the ladder.
There is such a thing as a conservative Democrat...who believes in fiscal responsibility.
And I will be the first one to say that the Bush Adminstration has strayed way away from that...fiscal responsibility. While I agree with him on some things...I sure don't agree with him on that.
I fear Hillary's national health plan because I know Canada's is not working the way it should...and it is horribly expensive to the taxpayer. Up there, their median is 50-55% of their taxes off the top, and the #1 place for that money to go is the universal health care. And even if you have the money to pay for an operation, you can't jump the waiting list. Hence, they come here for it.
I would just hope that whoever wins will look at the long-reaching ramifications before just jumping in. Be that Hillary or a Republican....because I do think Hillary will get the nomination. I can't see it go any other way...unless something drastic happens between now and the primary. Of course, we won't see all the ugliness (on both sides) until a little later. I guess the proof will be in the pudding.
What do you have against 2 sides
su
Yes, they can be - on BOTH sides.
Someone makes a wise crack about it being nice to have someone with a triple digit IQ - when in FACT they don't know what Bush's IQ is OR the possible that Barack has a higher OR lower IQ score. The problem is the people who post don't know. They have just an outright hatred and loathing for the republicans. Well how would they feel if I went and said Obama has an IQ of 68 or something so absurd. They wouldn't. You know what, having a high IQ doesn't mean squat. I know a lot of people with degrees and high IQs and they are more of imbs than people without degrees. Just another put down for Bush they they think is cute and funny. It's not! We get it already. They don't like Bush, they hate him, and some of them like my MIL will come right out and say what they want to happen to Bush (i.e. the same thing Hillary said would happen to BO and that is why she is staying in).
I'm really getting tired of the utter hatred and disdain for Bush, and the constant Bush bashing I see on this board. Calling him stoopid, etc, etc. when there are no facts to back it up (unless they are sitting with his school transcipts on their desk). You know I like Obama. I think he's an okay guy. I don't care for Bush. Never have, but this utter hatred and lies get to be a bit too much. Then of course they find websites to try to "validate" what they are saying, yet they won't post websites that go against what they are saying. I'm just sick of the whole thing. The next 4 years should be interesting. Not going to say O is going to fail, but I'm also not putting him up on a pedistal and praising him while I dance around in circles chanting his name like most on this board are doing. Then again if he does fail I expect no comments from the libs on that one. For him it will be okay.
Uh...that isn't what I said. I said it happens all the time and both sides do it.
Are you sure you read MY post? Just wondering because it didn't sound like it from your response. Man, you guys are trigger happy!
Is good, but not see here. Sad for all both sides.
x
Could it be possible there are 2 sides to the story? sm
The US, UK, and Israel also have a long and colorful history of 'creating incidents' to further their own agendas. I would say control of the Middle East is something at the top of the list. Hezbollah is wrong to send rockets into Israel. In fact, they are all wrong, but what do you expect them to do just wait there and be incinerated by Israel?
I'm sure both sides are represented.
There are soldiers for the war and those against. It's all there if you look hard enough. Absolutely....both sides are well represented.
Both sides say things like that
Obviously, living up someone's rear-end is not something that is to be taken literally - that is why I called it a joke - maybe not the best terminology.
My problem is when people say things about certain groups of people and they mean it literally - hence the reason that I specifically mentioned Anne Coulter's discussion and did not add anyone else mentioned in the OP's message.
This kind of crass talk happens on both sides of the fence. Do you have anyone in your family that is a registered Democrat? Do you lump them in with your comments about liberals? (also in comments on the conservative board) I have close family members that are registered Republicans. That is why I do not make sweeping remarks about all Republicans or conservatives. I'm trying to be very specific in my comments because everyone is obviously different.
Racism is on both sides......not just one
xx
Both sides of this issue.....sm
The emotional part of me, that loves wildlife, absolutely and completely hates this practice. The governor before Gov. Palin did this, as well.
Intellectually, however, my husband and I talked about this last night. I have to realize that things are different in the state of Alaska, and we down here in the lower 48 can't judge them for this, as we don't understand all the facts. Sam posted them down below. It's a different mindset, when it comes to predator control versus the herd availability for the people of Alaska who are subsistence hunters, and need that caribou to make it through the winter.
I would much rather to let nature take its course, and let the predator and prey take each other out, the way nature intended it. However, throw humans in the mix, and it does change things.
All that taken into account, I still don't have to like it. But I can respect Alaska's decision to do this, even if I disagree.
Yep. there are two sides to every story....
you just have to choose the side that fits your view for your country. Godspeed in your search. :)
On ALL sides--does not necessarily mean sm
this fiasco is partisan--only that the current administration (GOP) allowed all entities to run amok. It's the financial world versus the common man, now vice versa. As one pundit said tonight, The public shouldn't have to pick up the broken chairs when they weren't invited to the party.
Hey, the hate has come from both sides.
It's so extreme now.
There are SMs from both sides of the fence
Take the above posts, for example:
Fitzgerald renews interest in Rezko-Obama deal
If you read anything on here, read this.
This should disturb every honorable citizen
Your stereotypes are inaccurate and pretty boring.
I can see both sides of the argument
Yes, many people are getting threatened and businesses getting picketed for supporting Prop 8. You cannot deny that (what was the pink taliban or whatever that disrupted church service a month or so ago?)
But on the other hand, if they want these donations anonymous, than that means Obama and other politicians can make their donations anonymous, and I think it's the publics right to know who is financing the next leaders of the country.
I just find it interesting that the homosexuals are assaulting and threatening supporters of the Prop 8 for what they believe in when they themselves are asking for fair treatment for what they believe in.
I am patriotic. I look at both sides.
It's certain people that refuse to look at the PRESENT ISSUES, not the PAST. I am all for O doing the right things, but right now, it looks like business as usual with the exception of his cabinet picks and this stimulus package.
Sticking to the issues is one thing. Calling some unpatriotic just because they don't agree with you is another.
nasty on all sides
Can't we just state our opinions without calling each other "idiots" and "children?" Does that really enhance the argument? Ever?
There is ignorance on both sides here.
As a Christian, I would appreciate it if people would leave this type of subject out of our children's education. It is not unreasonable to ask since we have given up God and prayer in the schools to accommodate those who do not believe.
There are some people who will ridicule the act as well as the person as you can clearly see when we get on the subject of homosexuality. But you cannot group all of us into this category. I do not agree with that lifestyle but having no reason to treat them poorly. That is what I want to teach my children. We may not agree but we cannot be mean to them.
However, I cannot stand by and allow the teaching that homosexuality is okay. It is too controversial of a topic for that to be taught in schools.....just like religion. I can teach my children acceptance of people without teaching acceptance of a lifestyle we don't agree with and I would appreciate it if schools wouldn't undermine my authority on that subject.
You don't see me going around forcing religion on children who I know has parents who don't believe in God and don't want their kids hearing about God.
I was merely stating there are TWO sides....
to every story. I have not taken sides, as apparently you have. That is all I am saying. The Palestinians are not without fault either, and their present governing body are on the terror watch list. That should mean something....?
Right! Definitely hate from BOTH sides. The OP
nm
From looking on both boards, both sides are guilty.
,
exploring situation from both sides? What?
Exploring the situation from both sides? What two sides? The man stated crime would go down if we aborted black babies. What is the side you are referring to? It is a racist remark, a dumb remark and insensitive hateful remark. No two ways about it..PERIOD..
It happens on both sides of the political spectrum. It happens sm
in every day life to people who are not political at all. Why try and make it a party line thing. That's just silly and WRONG. Good grief. Do you know the political parties of everyone just this year caught embezzling? I sure don't. Nor do I care. Stop labeling people. By the way, yes, he is a crook. But he is also a Vietnam fighter pilot. He went the wrong path. But let's now throw the baby out with the bath water. Here is where the Christian part kicks in...you know..forgiveness.
Both sides on this issue are doing this for money
The 9/11 widows (money), Hillary (political hay) and Ann (money are both wanting money, power, and fame. They all need to shut up and sit down, because they all are coming out looking like idiots on this.
Failure at so many levels on both sides.
I guess I just don't see how placing blame is going to help. And I think it is sad that because Condi is a Republican (and former Democrat), her accomplishments are diminished in the African-American community.
Talking out of both sides of his mouth
No, this is the latest info he wants put out. This comes after he stood on his little podium at the debates and said point blank, he would increase taxes to help pay for more social programs. Now, I don't know how you get around that, but it came out of his own mouth and his true motives are already out there. I have watched that man sway with whatever way the political breeze is blowing, whichever he thinks sounds best for him at the time. Anyone that wishy washy cannot run a country. He is being run....that is the problem!!
It might be nice if we could hear both sides...sm
Of course there are 2 sides to every story. There is nothing new about republicans being obstructive on this issue. Pelosi's reasons for her own obstruction are also understandable. These guys are politicians being politicians. The problem I am having with this is the media blackout. It is impossible to get "both sides of the story" if the story is not out there. This is only the latest example of why many democrats perceive Fox and CNN as being conservative, right of center, etc… Fox, because of the way they report and CNN for what they do not report.
Impeachment is not exactly a fringe issue. A 2007 poll cited in Wikipedia showed 46% in favor and 55% opposed (figures for 2008 not given). Since this adds up to 101%, one might wonder which figure is inaccurate. With the margin of error inherent in polls, at the very least, it would be accurate to say that support for impeachment is "near" 50%. So why, pray tell, is this story missing in action?
For those "near" 50%, whether or not it is called an impeachment hearing is not nearly as relevant as the issues being raised during the process and the fact that there is a media blackout. Were that not the case, how likely do you think it is that those percentages would stay the same? Censorship, whether by the government or in the media, undermines the foundation of democratic process. Protecting that process is in the best interest of both political parties, no matter how divided we may be on the issues at hand.
Interesting summation of both sides....
...I saw on another website:
Best comment of the morning: “Which would you rather have:
A Lawyer with zip experience and his wife who never heard anything negative in Rev. Wrong’s church for 20 years and another Lawyer who likes to hear himself talk and both rich and both campaigning on undefined promises of change plus higher taxes (remember Obama’s bill for $800 billion for the UN)
VERSUS
A war hero with plenty of experience who married the American male dream (good looking, smart, rich, owns her own beer company and actually works to help the helpless) and an experienced tough State Governor who is a conservative Christian, cleans up corruption, husband card carrying union man, hocky mom, hunts, wins politically as an outsider, real middle class background who did not get rich in office and is about to live another American female dream: first to become Vice President of the USA and both campaigning on issues?
A NO BRAINER FOR ALL AMERICANS!
Explains what? That there are 2 sides to a story?
nm
I worry about the children on both sides sm
Obama's and Palin's. They are young and this is a different world now than it was when JFK was in and Carter too.
Though, I would think being a mother to very young children and being a VP is going to be a whole different situation than being the Governor. I would think there is going to be a lot more travel involved with a VP than Gov., but I might be wrong. Never having done either job, I can't really say. 
I'm not saying that Obama's kids are going to be better off if he is elected either. I just don't know how used to their mom being away that Palin's kids are as opposed to Obama's kids. They've had a little more time to adjust. And, as sexist as it is, most people still believe that the primary parenting duty is on the mother. I am not saying that is what I think (it's 50/50 IMO), but I do believe the majority feel that way.
You are right, both sides have beautiful families sm
Obamas/Biden's and McCain/Palin.
Though, I don't know how real Cindy McCain is.
Anyone switching sides this election?
I am interested to know if anyone is switching sides this election? For example, registered democrat and voting for McCain, or registered republican and voting for Obama? Just curious.
Obviously, brainwashing occurs on all sides of the
javascript:editor_insertHTML('text','');
that should read "showing both sides." sorry. nm
nm
|
