Did ya' ever think the whole reason there is poverty
Posted By: is because of the greed of the good ole' boys. on 2008-10-09
In Reply to: Now how do you come up with that? - sam
I am voting for Obama; we need change, but of course the good ole' boys will never let that happen. It's a shame that greed goes right alongside corrupt.
Furthermore, just because someone is poor does not make them unintelligent. There are some people who have just fell on hard times for many different reasons, one being medical problems or a sick child.
Why doesn't grampa just give it up? Him and his "hootsy" sidekick whatever her name is from nowhere. The pubs throw more mud and find ways to look away from today's troubles, it's almost sickening instead of answering direct questions.
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
Yes, poverty is a problem that will never...
go away until people stop the incessant fatherlessness in our society. You can blame rich people, you can blame whites, you can blame anybody you want, but tossing EVEN MORE money at this problem (records amounts are already spent, and have been for 40 years), but the problem will never go away until the root causes of it are addressed. A young black male being raised in a project by an uneducated, probably too young to be his mother, mother, doesn't stand a chance without some very rare personal gumption. He has no father at home to teach him how to be a man, drops out of school, and the street becomes his family. He listens to Ludacris to learn how to treat women, gets several girls pregnant, and the cycle repeats itself. As Bill Cosby tries to say, the problem and the fix comes from within. It's time to stop the blame.
Global Poverty Act here we come.
Obama has said over and over that if elected he will push through the Global Poverty Act. He says this bill "is a priority."
The GPA requires the American president to "develop and implement" a "specific and measurable" official policy to cut GLOBAL poverty in HALF in six years. Specifically, it would earmark 0.7% of AMERICA'S gross national product for foreign aid ABOVE AND BEYOND the amount America already spends in foreign aid. So in addition to bailing out Wall Street, we get to bail out Bangalor and other poverty sockets to the tune of an extra $845 BILLION dollars, at the mandate of the United Nations.
And the US president would be held accountable to the UN if he failed to fork over the dough, making this nothing more than a TAX on America.
Once you teach a man to fish, you shouldn't have to keep throwing fish at him. At some point, we have to put country first. OUR country.
Yes I can and it's called POVERTY
:
so you'd rather have "Trickle-Up poverty"
yea... that's probably best
Trickle up poverty
I decided to Google this phrase and see what came up. Not suprising the first on the list was from Rush Limbaugh. I did find this too though and I couldn't agree more. I have no idea who wrote it.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Trickle-Up-Poverty-and-the-by-Cameron-Salisbury-080923-947.html
What I posted about poverty was an opinion...
from someone who has worked in the system for several years. And, frankly, I think the people in the trenches are better suited to have those opinions than Washington Bureaucrats who base everything on a census...and frankly, we know how reliable THAT is.
I grew up in extreme poverty myself - I am only 40 - I know (sm)
I know what the world is really like. I am not superficial. You just have no idea what you are talking about. I AM being a resonsible American and this is not nonsense. That is the confusion here.
Ever consider you and your lifestyle is just 1 or 2 layoffs away from poverty?
What if you're laid off, maybe your jobs are sent out of the country and you can't find another job. Would you be too proud to take a handout from the government in the form of unemployment benefits? Maybe food stamps so you could eat. Judge not...............
Not everyone is looking to have you and your cohorts fork over part of your paycheck so they don't have to work. Think overpaid CEOs. Think companies (also MT companies) who send jobs out of the country so they can bloat their bottom line and put more in THEIR paycheck while taking it out of YOUR paycheck. Isn't that what's being done already? Is your MT pay getting better......or worse?
Socialism = Abject Poverty
And no, you couldn't go to the doctor unless you were on a waiting list for four months first. Read up on the history of Russia before you think Socialism is such a great idea.
Katrina Reveals Poverty Reality
It wasn't long ago that I was told by my conservative mtstars buddies that poverty in American was not as bad as we thought. To them poverty only meant you didn't have extra spending money and that the impoverished had color TVs, air conditioning, cars, the whole enchilada. They even went through the spiel of posting articles to support them. It has always been my opinion that poverty is alive and well in America and Katrina has unfortunately revealed this to us all too tragically.
--------------------
Katrina Reveals Poverty Reality |
Thursday, September 08, 2005
By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos 
|
PHOTOS |
|
VIDEO |
|
Stories of the grinding poverty among the survivors of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans vividly illustrate what many say is a forgotten truth of modern American life — that pockets of desperate poverty still exist in a country of unsurpassed wealth and privilege.
Underscoring that reality, a report by the U.S. Census Bureau (search) released the same week Katrina hit the nation's southeast announced that the national poverty rate rose for the fourth straight year despite continuing growth in production and political rhetoric that the nation's economy is on the upswing.
Click here to read the U.S. Census Bureau's report.
According to that report, the number of Americans living under the poverty line grew by 1.1 million in 2004 for a total of 37 million people nationwide. That equals 12.7 percent of the total U.S. population. It is the fourth annual increase.
[Poverty] is a problem in America that hasn't gone away — it just went underground for a while, and it shouldn't have, said Sheila Zedlewski, director of the Urban Institute's Income and Benefits Policy Center.
Through images of the predominantly black residents of New Orleans pleading for help, leaving destroyed homes with nothing but the clothes on their backs, America got a wake-up call according to Sheldon Danziger at the National Poverty Center at the University of Michigan.
People are putting these things together, and it will be interesting to see if the attention of the public stays on this, he said. As a country we'd like to think we moved beyond it, but in reality, [poverty] is still a substantial problem.
Others caution against putting too much weight into the new numbers, pointing out that they do not reflect the public assistance low-income individuals and families receive, like Medicaid (search) and welfare, and do not distinguished between truly impoverished individuals and those who are temporarily poor.
The poverty rate began to climb in 2000, the year it hit a 26-year low of 11.3 percent of Americans living under the poverty level, according to U.S Census Bureau figures. That was the lowest point since 1974, when the number was 11.2 percent. The highest point of poverty in recent times was in 1993 at 15.1 percent. Before that, was in 1983, at 15.2 percent.
In 2004, according to the latest study, the poverty rate among African Americans remained the same — at 24.7 percent. Hispanics also saw no change in their poverty rate at 21.9, while whites saw an increase, from 8.2 percent to 8.6 percent. Asian Americans experienced the only decrease, from 11.8 percent to 9.8 percent.
The poverty rate among American families remained at 10.2 percent of the population in 2004. The Office of Budget and Management (search) defines a family of two adults and two children with a median household income of $19,157 or less as living in poverty; or a family of two with no children, making $12,649 a year.
Median household income went unchanged in 2004, according to the census bureau, at $44,389. Blacks continue to have the lowest median income among all ethnic and racial groups, making $30,134 annually.
Wages earned among Americans, however, declined in 2004. For men over 15 working full-time, year round, the real median earnings declined 2.3 percent from 2003, to $40,798. For women with similar work experiences, wages declined by 1 percent to $31,223.
And while unemployment has gone down from 5.5 percent in August 2004 to 4.9 percent in August this year, unemployment among blacks is still the highest in the country, at 9.6 percent in August compared to 4.2 percent for whites and 5.8 for Hispanics.
In New Orleans, where blacks make up 67 percent of the population, 27 percent of the residents are living below poverty level according to a recent study by Total Community Action, Inc. (search), a public advocacy group based in New Orleans.
Click here to read that study.
But some warn that the new census bureau figures may not be an ideal measure, given that they do not take into account the impact of public assistance on a household, or recent tax cuts and child tax credits. Others say the poverty rate had been in steady decline since the early 1990's and see the recent increases as the tail end of the 2000 recession.
It's a bit unfortunate to link the hurricane with the issue of poverty in this country, as though there has been no reduction in poverty since the 1980's, said Rey Hederman, senior policy analyst for the Heritage Foundation.
Since a high point in 1983 the poverty rate for the U.S has been on a decline, aside from the four years following the brief recession in 1989 and the most recent hike, according to the Census Bureau.
Like other economic analysts, Hederman believes the growth in productivity in the U.S economy will eventually produce more jobs and higher incomes for workers.
But so far, Hederman admits, that hasn't happened.
We've got strong productive growth but wages have been relatively stagnant. It's a bit of a paradox as to why it hasn't happened sooner, said Phillip Swagel of the American Enterprise Institute, who blames, in part, the Internet bust six years ago.
Nonetheless, he calls today's economy the most golden era for productivity growth in more than 50 years.
In the short term, it means that firms have been able to produce more without hiring more people, Swagel continued. But in the long term, it will mean that wages and income will go up. It takes time for that relationship to take hold.
But on Wednesday, the Congressional Budget Office (search) announced that hurricane's damage to the southeast could reduce national economic growth by nearly a percent at time when forecasters were hoping for a three to four percent increase by the end of the year. It also expects a loss of 400,000 jobs in the labor market.
Some say that inner cities that have never fully recovered from past economic recessions will no doubt be the hardest hit.
I think for the last 25 years, we have had an economy where most of the gains have been concentrated in a small percentage of the workforce, said Danziger. [The] rising tide has not lifted all boats, the economy has shifted so that a smaller portion of the population gets the increases, and the rest is simply happy to have jobs that experience no wage increase or income increases.
According to the recent Total Community Action study, poverty rates have remained stagnant in New Orleans in the last 40 years and even without the near total destruction of the city, have been the highest in the nation.
It would be ironic that it would take a disaster like this to focus [national attention] on this,
Rep. Mel Watt, R-N.C., and member of the Congressional Black Caucus (search), told FOXNews.com, Every area of our lives these disparities exist and we have tried to focus on them all year.
Minority populations left behind in many cities often suffer from bad schools and are at a real disadvantage compared to their suburban middle class and affluent counterparts, say experts.
The poverty differences by education, by race, by central city versus the suburbs, are long standing, said Danziger, who also said that by leaving New Orleans' most disadvantaged, immobile residents behind the hurricane clearly brought that into stark contrast.
The Urban Institute’s Zedlewski admits that over the last several years more resources have been focused on the symptoms of poverty — poor education and healthcare.
If you look at the long haul it is true progress has been made, she said, adding that more needs to be done, particularly in the African American community, regarding single motherhood, the high rate of incarcerated males and investing in adult education.
Swagel, who recently left his job as chief of staff for the White House Council of Economic Advisors (search), believes the current administration has put into place policies — notably tax cuts — that have stimulated growth and are benefiting middle and lower income families the most.
I would say our policies are on the right track, he said. They are working in the right direction, and we should not reverse course when things are improving.
Watt doesn't buy the tax cut stimulus scenario. As soon as this President came in and passing these massive tax cuts, [the poverty rate] turned and went in the opposite direction, he said. This administration is about supporting people of higher income and it makes no bones about it.
Meanwhile, thousands of displaced people from New Orleans are looking for jobs, and trying to begin new lives in places like Houston and Baton Rouge. Poverty advocates hope that in the long term, available education and job training opportunities, as well as the higher wages that have been promised by economists, aren't out of reach. |
Katrina Reveals Poverty Reality
Katrina Reveals Poverty Reality |
Friday, September 09, 2005
By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos
|
PHOTOS |
|
VIDEO |
|
Stories of the grinding poverty among the survivors of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans vividly illustrate what many say is a forgotten truth of modern American life — that pockets of desperate poverty still exist in a country of unsurpassed wealth and privilege.
Underscoring that reality, a report by the U.S. Census Bureau (search) released the same week Katrina hit the nation's southeast announced that the national poverty rate rose for the fourth straight year despite continuing growth in production and political rhetoric that the nation's economy is on the upswing.
Click here to read the U.S. Census Bureau's report.
According to that report, the number of Americans living under the poverty line grew by 1.1 million in 2004 for a total of 37 million people nationwide. That equals 12.7 percent of the total U.S. population. It is the fourth annual increase.
[Poverty] is a problem in America that hasn't gone away — it just went underground for a while, and it shouldn't have, said Sheila Zedlewski, director of the Urban Institute's Income and Benefits Policy Center.
Through images of the predominantly black residents of New Orleans pleading for help, leaving destroyed homes with nothing but the clothes on their backs, America got a wake-up call according to Sheldon Danziger at the National Poverty Center at the University of Michigan. |
No posts regarding war, poverty, health care....
only bush bashing. Don't pretend you actuallyt talk about issues here. You don't.
I'll take socialism over abject poverty....
And that's where we are headed - all due to that big fat present waiting on Obama's desk when he was sworn in. Socialism would be a welcome relief. At least I could go to the freakin' doctor.
Oh, those poor, poverty stricken CEOs. I really feel for them all.
How DO they survive??? 
Exactly...but Obama is still pushing his Global Poverty Bill.....
It is designed to send BILLIONS of our hard earned dollars to Africa and other 3rd world countries to cut poverty there by half.
How can he cut their poverty by half?? He should be worrying about OUR poverty. Which is a telling point in my mind. Why is Obama so bent on giving OUR money away? I don't know about you, but I don't need the govt' telling what to do or not do with my money. I earned it, I have the final decision.
If his tax plan scares you, check out his Global Poverty Act. Link inside.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56405
This is the reason we are in Iraq and it's the same reason I didn't vote for him in 2000: Didn't
his own personal reasons.
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050620/why_george_went_to_war.php
The Downing Street memos have brought into focus an essential question: on what basis did President George W. Bush decide to invade Iraq? The memos are a government-level confirmation of what has been long believed by so many: that the administration was hell-bent on invading Iraq and was simply looking for justification, valid or not.
Despite such mounting evidence, Bush resolutely maintains total denial. In fact, when a British reporter asked the president recently about the Downing Street documents, Bush painted himself as a reluctant warrior. "Both of us didn't want to use our military," he said, answering for himself and British Prime Minister Blair. "Nobody wants to commit military into combat. It's the last option."
Yet there's evidence that Bush not only deliberately relied on false intelligence to justify an attack, but that he would have willingly used any excuse at all to invade Iraq. And that he was obsessed with the notion well before 9/11—indeed, even before he became president in early 2001.
In interviews I conducted last fall, a well-known journalist, biographer and Bush family friend who worked for a time with Bush on a ghostwritten memoir said that an Iraq war was always on Bush's brain.
"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and Houston Chronicle journalist Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said, 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He went on, 'If I have a chance to invade…, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency.'"
Bush apparently accepted a view that Herskowitz, with his long experience of writing books with top Republicans, says was a common sentiment: that no president could be considered truly successful without one military "win" under his belt. Leading Republicans had long been enthralled by the effect of the minuscule Falklands War on British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's popularity, and ridiculed Democrats such as Jimmy Carter who were reluctant to use American force. Indeed, both Reagan and Bush's father successfully prosecuted limited invasions (Grenada, Panama and the Gulf War) without miring the United States in endless conflicts.
Herskowitz's revelations illuminate Bush's personal motivation for invading Iraq and, more importantly, his general inclination to use war to advance his domestic political ends. Furthermore, they establish that this thinking predated 9/11, predated his election to the presidency and predated his appointment of leading neoconservatives who had their own, separate, more complex geopolitical rationale for supporting an invasion.
Conversations With Bush The Candidate
Herskowitz—a longtime Houston newspaper columnist—has ghostwritten or co-authored autobiographies of a broad spectrum of famous people, including Reagan adviser Michael Deaver, Mickey Mantle, Dan Rather and Nixon cabinet secretary John B. Connally. Bush's 1999 comments to Herskowitz were made over the course of as many as 20 sessions together. Eventually, campaign staffers—expressing concern about things Bush had told the author that were included in the manuscript—pulled the project, and Bush campaign officials came to Herskowitz's house and took his original tapes and notes. Bush communications director Karen Hughes then assumed responsibility for the project, which was published in highly sanitized form as A Charge to Keep.
The revelations about Bush's attitude toward Iraq emerged during two taped sessions I held with Herskowitz. These conversations covered a variety of matters, including the journalist's continued closeness with the Bush family and fondness for Bush Senior—who clearly trusted Herskowitz enough to arrange for him to pen a subsequent authorized biography of Bush's grandfather, written and published in 2003.
I conducted those interviews last fall and published an article based on them during the final heated days of the 2004 campaign. Herskowitz's taped insights were verified to the satisfaction of editors at the Houston Chronicle, yet the story failed to gain broad mainstream coverage, primarily because news organization executives expressed concern about introducing such potent news so close to the election. Editors told me they worried about a huge backlash from the White House and charges of an "October Surprise."
Debating The Timeline For War
But today, as public doubts over the Iraq invasion grow, and with the Downing Street papers adding substance to those doubts, the Herskowitz interviews assume singular importance by providing profound insight into what motivated Bush—personally—in the days and weeks following 9/11. Those interviews introduce us to a George W. Bush, who, until 9/11, had no means for becoming "a great president"—because he had no easy path to war. Once handed the national tragedy of 9/11, Bush realized that the Afghanistan campaign and the covert war against terrorist organizations would not satisfy his ambitions for greatness. Thus, Bush shifted focus from Al Qaeda, perpetrator of the attacks on New York and Washington. Instead, he concentrated on ensuring his place in American history by going after a globally reviled and easily targeted state run by a ruthless dictator.
The Herskowitz interviews add an important dimension to our understanding of this presidency, especially in combination with further evidence that Bush's focus on Iraq was motivated by something other than credible intelligence. In their published accounts of the period between 9/11 and the March 2003 invasion, former White House Counterterrorism Coordinator Richard Clarke and journalist Bob Woodward both describe a president single-mindedly obsessed with Iraq. The first anecdote takes place the day after the World Trade Center collapsed, in the Situation Room of the White House. The witness is Richard Clarke, and the situation is captured in his book, Against All Enemies.
On September 12th, I left the Video Conferencing Center and there, wandering alone around the Situation Room, was the President. He looked like he wanted something to do. He grabbed a few of us and closed the door to the conference room. "Look," he told us, "I know you have a lot to do and all…but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way…"
I was once again taken aback, incredulous, and it showed. "But, Mr. President, Al Qaeda did this."
"I know, I know, but…see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred…" …
"Look into Iraq, Saddam," the President said testily and left us. Lisa Gordon-Hagerty stared after him with her mouth hanging open.
Similarly, Bob Woodward, in a CBS News 60 Minutes interview about his book, Bush At War, captures a moment, on November 21, 2001, where the president expresses an acute sense of urgency that it is time to secretly plan the war with Iraq. Again, we know there was nothing in the way of credible intelligence to precipitate the president's actions.
Woodward: "President Bush, after a National Security Council meeting, takes Don Rumsfeld aside, collars him physically and takes him into a little cubbyhole room and closes the door and says, 'What have you got in terms of plans for Iraq? What is the status of the war plan? I want you to get on it. I want you to keep it secret.'"
Wallace (voiceover): Woodward says immediately after that, Rumsfeld told Gen. Tommy Franks to develop a war plan to invade Iraq and remove Saddam—and that Rumsfeld gave Franks a blank check.
Woodward: "Rumsfeld and Franks work out a deal essentially where Franks can spend any money he needs. And so he starts building runways and pipelines and doing all the necessary preparations in Kuwait specifically to make war possible."
Bush wanted a war so that he could build the political capital necessary to achieve his domestic agenda and become, in his mind, "a great president." Blair and the members of his cabinet, unaware of the Herskowitz conversations, placed Bush's decision to mount an invasion in or about July of 2002. But for Bush, the question that summer was not whether, it was only how and when. The most important question, why, was left for later.
Eventually, there would be a succession of answers to that question: weapons of mass destruction, links to Al Qaeda, the promotion of democracy, the domino theory of the Middle East. But none of them have been as convincing as the reason George W. Bush gave way back in the summer of 1999.
New reason
Bush gives new reason for Iraq war
Says US must prevent oil fields from falling into hands of terrorists
By Jennifer Loven, Associated Press | August 31, 2005
CORONADO, Calif. -- President Bush answered growing antiwar protests
yesterday with a fresh reason for US troops to continue fighting in
Iraq: protection of the country's vast oil fields, which he said
would otherwise fall under the control of terrorist extremists.
The president, standing against a backdrop of the USS Ronald Reagan,
the newest aircraft carrier in the Navy's fleet, said terrorists
would be denied their goal of making Iraq a base from which to
recruit followers, train them, and finance attacks.
''We will defeat the terrorists, Bush said. ''We will build a free
Iraq that will fight terrorists instead of giving them aid and
sanctuary.
Appearing at Naval Air Station North Island to commemorate the
anniversary of the Allies' World War II victory over Japan, Bush
compared his resolve to President Franklin D. Roosevelt's in the
1940s and said America's mission in Iraq is to turn it into a
democratic ally just as the United States did with Japan after its
1945 surrender. Bush's V-J Day ceremony did not fall on the actual
anniversary. Japan announced its surrender on Aug. 15, 1945 -- Aug.
14 in the United States because of the time difference.
Democrats said Bush's leadership falls far short of Roosevelt's.
''Democratic Presidents Roosevelt and Truman led America to victory
in World War II because they laid out a clear plan for success to the
American people, America's allies, and America's troops, said Howard
Dean, Democratic Party chairman. ''President Bush has failed to put
together a plan, so despite the bravery and sacrifice of our troops,
we are not making the progress that we should be in Iraq. The troops,
our allies, and the American people deserve better leadership from
our commander in chief.
The speech was Bush's third in just over a week defending his Iraq
policies, as the White House scrambles to counter growing public
concern about the war. But the devastation wrought by Hurricane
Katrina in the Gulf Coast drew attention away; the White House
announced during the president's remarks that he was cutting his
August vacation short to return to Washington, D.C., to oversee the
federal response effort.
After the speech, Bush hurried back to Texas ahead of schedule to
prepare to fly back to the nation's capital today. He was to return
to the White House on Friday, after spending more than four weeks
operating from his ranch in Crawford.
Bush's August break has been marked by problems in Iraq.
It has been an especially deadly month there for US troops, with the
number of those who have died since the invasion of Iraq in March
2003 now nearing 1,900.
The growing death toll has become a regular feature of the slightly
larger protests that Bush now encounters everywhere he goes -- a
movement boosted by a vigil set up in a field down the road from the
president's ranch by a mother grieving the loss of her soldier son in
Iraq.
Cindy Sheehan arrived in Crawford only days after Bush did, asking
for a meeting so he could explain why her son and others are dying in
Iraq. The White House refused, and Sheehan's camp turned into a hub
of activity for hundreds of activists around the country demanding
that troops be brought home.
This week, the administration also had to defend the proposed
constitution produced in Iraq at US urging. Critics fear the impact
of its rejection by many Sunnis, and say it fails to protect
religious freedom and women's rights.
At the naval base, Bush declared, ''We will not rest until victory is
America's and our freedom is secure from Al Qaeda and its forces in
Iraq led by Abu Musab alZarqawi.
''If Zarqawi and [Osama] bin Laden gain control of Iraq, they would
create a new training ground for future terrorist attacks, Bush
said. ''They'd seize oil fields to fund their ambitions. They could
recruit more terrorists by claiming a historic victory over the
United States and our coalition.
The reason
Like GT so eloquently wrote below, she has nothing to do with my request that you leave our board. The only person who has anything to do with it is YOU.
You and every single one of your *friends* are rude, crude, abrasive, insulting, and continually lie, lie, LIE. You are the kind of people I would choose NOT to associate with in real life because you have no values and you have a gang mentality, but most of all, you're just deplorable human beings, as you yourselves have demonstrated through your posts.
You have your own board. Would you please just go back there? You are offensive to many on this board. This is the liberal board. You clearly don't belong here any more than I don't belong on your board, where you and you *friends* indeed constantly gang up on anyone who disagrees with you. If that's how you want to conduct yourselves on your own board, that's fine. It's your board, and if you choose to turn it into a filthy sewer, that's your option. But you don't have the right do that on the liberal board. I'm very close to writing to the administrator and complaining about you all before I leave, as well. You don't contribute anything of value to this board, and all you morons do is chase kind, loving and intelligent people away.
As GT says in her posts, you are clearly obsessed with her, and I don't understand why, but you're becoming psychotic about it, and you're showing that psychosis to anyone who reads this board. You paint her to be a terrible person, and from what I read in her posts, she is NOT a terrible person. She is loving and caring and intelligent..all traits that not ONE of you posseses. You are way out of your limited ignorant hateful league on this board. Please. JUST GO AWAY.
There's no other reason.
All they want to do is start trouble. Ignore the gnats.
The reason for this. sm
and something that is not in this short article is the language of the bill and the loopholes it leaves open. I have no doubt at all that the NRA would back terrorists or suspected terrorists from getting guns. However, this bill is badly written and needs to be revised to leave no loopholes for further legislation not included in the bill, which often happens.
This is one BIG reason why
I don't want government involved in my health care. The VA is a joke and our veterans do not get the care that they need and deserve. If heroes like that aren't taken care of by our government....what in the he11 makes us think that the government will take care of us? 
You are the reason I put it in here, to
see just how much it would bother you. Knew you would make a fool of yourself again and give us all another good laugh for the day. It's just another name to me, could be Tom Thumb as far as I care.
I am sorry that is the only reason you
want Obama to win this election. I am afraid you are in for a rude awakening, my child! No need for rubbing in my face, I can easily live it, I have a higher power on my side! As stated earlier, I have a life outside this election, I only wish the same for you.
Here's another possible reason:
Maybe people who are struggling to afford healthcare, fill up their gas tanks and feed their families just happen to agree with his VIEWS on the issues. 
This is the reason
We have always felt O was wrong for the position. We have been discussing what his policies will mean to the country. His lack of knowledge, his plans are bad for the country and will not keep us safe, his redistribution of wealth and how that will not help the economy and will put us into a depression. It will now mean there will no longer be a middle income anymore. Those middle income will now be among the low income and the downright poor will now also join the low income. So we've tried discussing O and his plans/issues. Nobody wanted to listen. They are just too he!!-bent on hating Bush with such abhorrence they won't listen to reason. O tells people he's going to give them all this stuff for free and people believe it. We've tried pointing out his character flaws and who he keeps for company - Ayers, Wright, Farrahkan, etc. Only after he hears an outcry from some he decides to say, oh yeah, I don't agree with him, he just happened to be someone in my neighborhood which is an outright lie, but people just hate Bush/Cheney so much they won't see past his lies.
I think we all have a feeling O will win, unless a miracle happens (and they can - we can all hope and pray), but a lot do not know what it is like to live in a socialist country. Where what you work for his taken away from you without your consent and given to others who like most are now saying they will quit and just get the handouts O is promising.
We are trying to expose O for what he truly is. His followers do not seem to care that he sat through 20 years of Wright's hateful anti-American sermons twice a month for the past 20 years and never got up and walked out of any of them. His followers do not seem to care that he will blantantly change the constitution just so he can be elected. His followers do not seem to care that the people who gave him his start in politics are Ayers. While you all choose to believe he was "just a guy in my neighborhood". His followers do not seem to care that he is accepting money from countries like Libya and our other enemies - the same ones who are trying to destroy us and wipe us off the planet as a nation unless we convert to Islam. There are so many reasons we are so appalled that this character slimed his way up and stole the election from Hillary. As election day comes closer we are ever more worried that that O could get in. We will hope and pray he doesn't but the thought of what will happen to our country. Everything our country was based on and evertything our founding fathers went through to make this a great country will be lost forever. But that is okay for his followers. After all Farrakan said he is the messiah, so most of his followers must be Farrakan supporters too. It's a very sad time to see how many of O's followers want to live in socialism, how many of you do not care if the country is safe, how many don't care that they are have re-education camps to throw those who do not think like them in and if they cannot be re-educated they will be eliminated. It's frightening to think many who support him will most likely be like those in Germany who turned in people who didn't agree with the Fuhrer. I just don't want to live in a country like that, but many do say "History will repeat itself".
For some reason......
they didn't want to give you that loan. Refusal because of $11? Sounds like an excuse to me. Our lender (who also sold us the property) even lied about how much we put down..........
The only reason I have
ever called you a kool-aid drinker is because you constantly post about rhetoric. When will you wake up and realize that even democrat politicians say one thing and do another. You can't get much more obvious about than the Obama administration and yet you continue to sing his praise. You are blinded by your own political party.
Obama...the man who said he would sign no bill with pork in it and then did without batting an eyelash.
The man who said he would pull troops out of Iraq and has extended the time frame to keep troops in Iraq longer and to deploy more in Afghan. He ridiculed McCain for not wanting a time line but I guess a time line is okay as long as you can push it back whenever you feel the need, huh?
A man who promised tax cuts on 95% of the American people and yet he wants cap and trade which will tax everyone A LOT.
Gay rights activists sing his praise and yet Obama himself isn't for same sex marriage.
He wants people to have the right to choose to carry a child or abort it and yet he takes the rights away from hospitals and doctors by not allowing them to refuse to perform that procedure. You complain about taking the rights away from people but yet you have no problem taking rights away from people with a different view point than yourself.
Yet all you ever come back with is that we are a bunch of babies who need to grow some balls and how ignorant we are for watching Fox News even though Fox has higher ratings than the crap you watch.
The channels you profess to tell the truth aren't even covering the tea parties. I personally feel that thousands and thousands of Americans protesting is a big deal and should be reported on whether or not a channel agrees with the reason behind it. Picking and choosing what to report is not telling the truth. It is being very one sided. Any open minded person would realize that.
Reason
Can you demonsrate that the health of those without healthcare coverage is better or equal to that of those who have healthcare coverage?
I see no reason why
marriage would not still be limited to two people (of whatever flavor) at a time. Bygamy would still be bygamy.
You're right. Think what men with half a dozen legal wives and a couple of dozen kids could do to any medical plan, let alone our system for deducting dependents from income tax.
On the other hand, I have a same-sex housemate who is disabled, unemployed and uninsured. We are not gay, but if same-sex marriage were legal, I could marry her and get her insured under my plan. Many marriages involve no sex. Maybe they didn't start out that way but over time they evolve in that direction. We would simply be skipping the honeymoon part.
There is a reason for this......
Less natives of these countries are having children because they are paying such high taxes to let others live off the system, they can't afford to have more children.
Same in the U.S.
Here is a possible reason why.....
Because the smart people have seen through Obama and the rest of the Dems from the get-go and don't want more of what we have now. If you want to win bad enough, you will use any means available, legal or illegal. But then that is JMO.
the reason they are making
the reason they are making a big deal about the drilling about to happen in alaska is because tyhey think that it is going to interuppt the migration of one of the biggest elk herds in all of alaska, and because if it did, that would not only kill the animals, but a local tribe depends on that herd for food........lol.another contradiction in their thinking.
i personalluy believe that the drilling there is going to be a huge step towards our energy independence.because it will provide over 3 million barrels of oil for over thirty years.wich is ten percent of what we would have used...............
Maybe Fox News is #1 for a reason
Could it be that Americans are more conservative than liberal? I mean, I doubt liberal Americans are tuning in to Fox for shock value. I personally believe Fox News is pretty balanced. Yes, it may lean more conservative, but they always equal out their guests on many of the shows such as Neil Cavuto, Shepherd Smith, Hannity and Colmes. There is balance there. Maybe conservative guests come off as getting more air because they are better debators and not always spouting talking points like the liberals do. If one liberal says some phrase at 8:00 in the morning on the Today Show in reply to a topic then you could almost bet that Democratic pundits will spout the same line the rest of the day. I've even heard talk show hosts do montages of multiple Democratic pundits within a 24-hour period, and it's scary how they all say the exact same thing. If you remember Pee-Wee's Playhouse where he had a word of the day. Democrats seem to have a word of the day too. I'm not saying that Republicans don't do that too at times, but it seems much more prevalent with Democrats.
Did I say that was the only reason to vote for someone or not...
don't believe I did. I did not mention voting at all. Just saying that the two things together might give someone cause to think.
Actually, his church affiliation and the doctrine it puts forth worries me a lot more than his patriotism or the lack thereof.
You have a good day now!
I agree, and for the same reason...there are some...
"sick tickets" out there. But I am sure the Secret Service is taking extra precautions; they would have to. I would like to think that people in this country have evolved beyond that, but I can't say I am assured of it, and it only takes a handful of radicals to pull off bad things...we should know that from Oklahoma City and 9-11.
I would not wish that on ANYone, of course. And I hope that he will be vigilant and listen to the Secret Service. JFK didn't, and he paid dearly for that.
If he is elected I will be holding him up in prayer as I always do for the President, any President. I do not wish the man ANY ill. I just do not think he is right for the job.
Is there a particular reason you used his full name ... sm
Making sure you put the Hussein part in, when I have never seen you address him that way before. Yes, it is his full name but some people (are you included?) love to add that in just to make people think he is Muslim or make references to it.
Not saying that was your intention but it smells kind of fishy.
another reason I am moving to the right.
nm
Another reason not to watch FOX! LOL
xx
obama's reason
Integrity. Belief in his own vision for the future. Distaste for repub tactics of dividing Americans over issues such as anti-choice, pro-choice, gay rights, etc.
That's not the whole story/reason. (sm)
I, for one, do not want to pick produce from the fields and do many of the jobs that migrant workers do. I'm not lazy, per se, but I have other opportunities to make my income in ways closer to how I want to live.
Many Americans do not want to do those menial jobs. So, we do need migrant workers who are willing to fill those positions.
That isn't the whole story, though. And it doesn't make it acceptable to allow illegals in regardless of the job situation, etc.
"Voice of reason"? Now, how do you get that out of
nm
And that is a reason to hate her. well...
at least YOU admit it, irrational though it is.
The reason I believe McCain is that he has...
fought the earmarks and pork barrel spending throughout his career, it is documented. Even getting crossways with his own party because of it. When he is in a position of power to be able to actively do something about it with the veto pen, I have no doubt that he will do so.
Obama has said he would clean up lobbying and pork also. But he has not stated how he would go about doing that. He has no history of doing that.
That is why I believe McCain when he says that.
No reason for that attitude.
She was just posting those as examples of things that have been said that are false and that what the OP posted about was yet another one of those rumors that just aren't true.
For the same reason Obama won't go somewhere...
not scripted. Neither one wants to be trapped, and if you look, there are a lot more hunters looking to foul her up than him. He should do it BEFORE she did anyway, HE is the #1 on the ticket. Good grief.
The only reason Obamanation
is going to DC is because Bush requested both candidates to be there. McCain planned on being there anyway. Barry hadn't planned on it until the pres made his request. Barry was more interested in his own personal campaign. I guess it makes sense as to why Barry wants to be reached by phone while he continues his personal campaign.....I mean....not like he knows how to make an executive decision anyway so why be present in DC. Not like he can vote present on something like this.
The reason behind the bail out is
to put money back into the market. If we do nothing at all, the result is likely to be horrific. We have to do something to get money back into the market. However, bailing out these big banks and making us foot the bill is unacceptable to me. These banks and their big wigs should learn the consequences of their actions and not just walk away with a heck of a lot more money than I will ever see in my lifetime. This initial bail out is just a band-aid really. Our economy is collapsing and this bail out will slow down the collapse but there is no guarantee that it will stop it.
Right now they are debating about how to go about this bail out. Some want the bail out left like it is with us taxpayers footing the bill. Others are trying to come up with a plan to not make the burden on us and yet still get money into the market. That is why no agreement has been made.
The only reason you people
continue to bash Fox News is because Fox News isn't smooching Obama's rear end like CNN and MSNBC are. I personally watch both CNN and Fox as well as do my own research so I can get the view points from all around and then I maKe my own decision.
Probably the same reason the hateful right is
XX
The reason you couldn't get help now
Is because to many people are abusing the system.
I had a friend awhile back who was engaged with a baby on the way. Well, two months after the baby was born, her fiance up and left. Couldn't handle the responsibility of being a father. Anyways, he disappeared off the radar. Therefore, no child support (I'm sure you can all think of a few names to call him!) Anyways, she went to the welfare office to see if she could get some assistance. Now mind you she was still working full time, but at $10.00 an hour, she was making "too much".
The lady at the welfare office flat out told her because she was not a minority there is no way she would get assistance! I couldn't believe she said that!
Welfare was created for the single moms out there. Now the single moms can't even get it. Like I have said before, I have no problem giving to those who truly need it. Even with as little as I make I would still give anything I have to those less fortunate. But I will not give to those who won't do for themselves.
Where I live you see the abuse a lot. You see the government housing where one person has the house and they let everyone and their mom stay there rent free. Girls who have babies and let their drug dealing boyfriend stay in the house and use it as a place to sell drugs. You know that income isn't reported!
It saddens me that this is even an issue, but it is ridiculous to give to those who won't do for themselves.
Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime. Anyone remember that??
I feel for you in your situation. You should have been one of the ones helped. Unfortunately, because of the backwards system we have in place, you couldn't get that assistance.
|
