Discussion from Gab Board re Pres.
Posted By: MT Girl on 2008-06-21
In Reply to:
"First... I don't claim him. I think he's a tyrant to put it nicely and I think he is a warmonging hillbilly (and that's sad for the hillbillies because they are decent folk he gives a bad name). I told everyone not to vote for him last time... I tried to warn them. I didn't want him and he hasn't done anything to help me our my friends and family in the slightest, except make us look ridiculous on the international stage (which I can say because I live in Europe at the moment and I know how foolish they think us right now). Second, good for you. Maybe you should vote for McCain so that the pain (errr I mean pleasure) never ends. I bet the people that he's been against and not fought for (i.e., Katrina victims, Iowa flood victims, homosexuals, people with diseases that stem cell reasearch could help, innocent people in far off lands that lost family members and friends who were innocent victims) I bet they all share your same sentiments.. right? You can have him.. I bet right about now he's half price on the discount rack anyways! Third... you should be grateful she put "creatrue." Its probably how Bush spells and says it, so its a true representation. Fourth... I think the last time I checked it was a free country with free speech and allowed for people to have their own opinions. I have better names to call him than childish ones... but I won't use them since your so easily offended... are you his personal emotional filter? I doubt he cares what the American people call him... he's certainly proven he doesn't care what they think or how they feel... so why should we care about him? Thanks back atcha. I can have whatever opinion I want of the president and I can tell you, I am more the majority than you are."
Moving over here per Mod request.......
Of course you can have your opinion about President Bush. I was just saying that the names are uncalled for. Are you staying in Europe forever or are you planning on coming back to the U.S.? Just curious.
President Bush isn't perfect and there have been many mistakes, I do agree. I did vote for him and agree with the vast majority of his conservative views. I do plan on voting for John McCain in November. But, if Obama is our next president, as much as I disagree with his views, I wouldn't call him names; but that's just me I guess.
I do not envy anyone who is willing to take on the gigantic role of running the country. I would not want the job in a million years. I have respect for ANYONE, republican or democrat, who is ready and willing to take on this great responsibility.
I still would like to know what a creatrue is and President Bush is NOT retarded.
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
Could you please take your discussion to your own board
PLEASE.
This is the liberal board, or at least that what it says. I don't understand why you guys have taken it over.
That is true....so everyone want to move the discussion to Faith board? nm
x
really wanna barf - guess who steps up as pres. if something awful happens to the pres and vp??? nm
....
I think BB has a point here in that the main point on the board is political discussion, and let'
face it, there is SO MUCH going on right now, changes, problems, disasters, and so much debate on what should/could be done, but so many tims the political discussion disintegrates in a finger-pointing, name-calling exercise, spouting religion all over the place. Yeah, our spiritual beliefs are dearly held and we would all strive to be the best we can be, and do whatever we can whatever the ideology is, but sometimes I wonder, since we have a board EXPRESSLY for Faith isuues, where relgious debates/discussions/forums, etc are welcome, why does THIS board have to be turned into RELIGION BOARD PART II, especially if one ideology wants to dominate or ridicule/condemn those who come on here for lively inteligent discussion, debate of issues in Congress and in our lives, and just want their beliefs held separately? CNN is not EWTN or any other Christian network, and there are constant informative, bright, lively, balanced discussions from all over the political spectrum on the credentialed news stations, as well as C-Span, but they are not constantly hiding behind a cross, rosary, bible, star of David, or whatever....can we not strive to do the same and put religious debate on the Faith board?? Just a thought to ponder, MHO, it might work beter, who knows?
don't want either for pres.
Can we have her for pres instead of VP? LOL
.
Schwarzenneger for pres
x
First Pres younger than me
and though I love him (am definitely a kool aid drinker, I admit) he looks like he's in junior high and it will be sad to see him age. Maybe it won't be too bad. He seems to like stress.
Who was Pres on 09/11/2001?
Why would anyone give him credit for PROTECTING us?
Have they done that with previous pres?
If they have done this with previous presidents, I really couldn't care less. Anyone know the answer to this?
Pres just had a press conference..
listened very discernibly, heard nothing different from his other press conferences... Feel like I'm watching "Groundhog Day" starring Bill Murray, only Bill Murray is much more funny and quite a bit smarter! When will get some real leadership? We desparately need LEADERSHIP!!!
A little insight on Pres. Bush
I work in a very high profile media department, and part of my job is transcription of raw interviews. I have transcribed several transcripts of raw interview footage with Pres. Bush, and he is the most respectful, gracious, down-to-earth person behind the scenes you can imagine. It's not that fakey type of schmooze either. You can tell he's genuine. When there is a break in the interview process he's asking the crew about their families etc. He has a very kind heart.
Now, with that said I don't agree one hundred percent with all his policies. Some of the the things he has been for I have been totally against...amnesty for illegals is one of them.
I do not have one problem with people disagreeing with his policies but to personally say he's a bad person, compare him with Hitler and other evil people is not only beyond the pale it's just plain not true. I have also transcribed interviews of several members of the Bush family, and they are all warm loving people.
I could mention some people who are not gracious, but I'm not here to smear anyone's character on the basis of my professional knowledge, but I do feel I need to defend a person who is so unjustly character assassinated on a daily basis.
President Bush has very unfairly been painted to be evil by the media and the extreme left in this country. Again, nobody is forced to like him, but to say he's a bad evil person is just not right or factual, and I, for one will defend him on his character.
You mean "proud of your pres-elect" (nm)
Just watched him with Pres Bush and
Obama in the White House, definitely no droop, no change at all in his appearance.
has anyone changed Pres choice in
x
for new pres foremost, to keep us safe.
x
Name a pres that kept all his campaign promises?
I don't expect him to keep all his promises. In actuality, he really can't. None of the other presidents in my memory have been able to either. That is an unrealistic expectation. They say what they need to say to get elected.
too bad i'm not the pres - i'm control freakish enough 4 it
:)
Oh, pul-EEEZE. Any pres., Pub or Dem, deserves a
night out on the town once in a while. And of COURSE it cost $20,000! It's not like they can just hop on public transit with no Secret Service, and cruise on down to the local burger shop.
His memory is no more 'selective' than the current Pres..
and his cronies...
I like your line of thinking. LOL. You should run for pres. You'd have my vote. nm
nm
When GW Bush became pres, I did give him a chance even though
amazin
If that is all you got out of this discussion, please, do bow out.
As I see from your other posts you just tend to step in and make random irrational comments, I'm sorry I even replied to your post.
Transcript: Democratic response to Pres. Bush's
Good morning. This is Congressman Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the House Majority Leader.
Over the past several months, Democrats and Republicans in Congress have negotiated a bipartisan extension of the highly successful childrens health insurance program known as CHIP - a program enacted by a Republican-controlled Congress in 1997, with strong Democratic support, and signed into law by President Bill Clinton.
CHIP provides health insurance coverage for over six and one-half million American children in families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford private insurance.
However, millions of other children who are currently eligible for this health insurance are not enrolled due to the programs limited resources.
To address this, our bipartisan legislation provides funding for approximately four million more children - ensuring that at least 10 million low-income children in our nation receive the health care coverage they need and deserve. Thats good for them and for our country.
This legislation does not change current eligibility guidelines. It simply strengthens CHIPs financing, covers more low-income children, and improves the quality of care they receive.
Sadly, on Wednesday, President Bush - in the face of bipartisan majorities in Congress, and contrary to the will of the American people - vetoed our bipartisan bill.
The President claims - wrongly - that this bill is fiscally irresponsible.
The truth is, this legislation is fully paid for. It does not add one nickel to the deficit or to the debt.
Furthermore, under the Presidents proposal more than 800,000 children who now receive coverage under CHIP would lose that coverage.
The President claims that this legislation would lead to a government takeover of health insurance. He is wrong.
The truth is, Americas largest private insurance lobbying group supports this bill - as do Americas doctors, nurses, childrens advocates, 43 governors, and, most importantly, 72 percent of Americans.
The claims made against this bill are simply wrong.
As Senator Pat Roberts, a senior Republican from Kansas, recently said: I am not for excessive spending and strongly oppose the federalization of health care. And if the Administrations concerns with this bill were accurate, I would support a veto. But, Senator Roberts added: Bluntly put, they are not.
Most puzzling of all, perhaps, is the fact that the Presidents veto violates his own campaign promise.
In 2004, at the Republican National Convention, the President promised (and I quote): In a new term, we will lead an aggressive effort to enroll millions of children who are eligible but not signed up for government health insurance programs. We will not allow, he said, a lack of attention, or information, to stand between these children and the health care they need.
But he has done just that.
But the Congress has done exactly what the President said he was going to do, if re-elected.
Yet today, the only thing standing between millions of American children and the health insurance they need and deserve is one person. The President is saying no to these children he promised to help.
This is a defining moment for this Congress.
In the words of Senator Charles Grassley, a Republican of Iowa, weve got to do what we can to try to override the Presidents veto.
In the days ahead, we will work to persuade many of our Republican colleagues, who insist on standing with the President, to instead join the bipartisan majorities in Congress - and Americas children - in overriding this veto.
I urge all of you: Contact your Member of Congress.
Ask them to support our children.
Ask them to do what the President promised to do when he sought re-election.
Ask them to vote to override the Presidents veto and ensure health care for our kids and for their future.
Thank you for listening. This is House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer.
Lets put this nonsense to bed. Pres candidates born outside US
Here's the link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born_citizen
Here's the text. See. Isn't this EASY?
US presidential candidates born outside the US
"The constitutional wording has left doubts about whether those born on foreign soil are on an equal footing with those whose birth occurred inside the country's borders, and whether they have the same rights."[2] Though every president and vice president to date (as of 2008) has either been a citizen at the adoption of the Constitution, or else born in a U.S. state or Washington D.C.,[3] a number of presidential candidates have been born elsewhere.[4]
Barry Goldwater, who ran as the Republican party nominee in 1964, was born in Arizona while it was still a U.S. territory. Although Arizona was not a state, it was a fully organized and incorporated territory of the United States.[5]
George Romney, who ran for the Republican party nomination in 1968, was born in Mexico to U.S. parents. Romney’s grandfather emigrated to Mexico in 1886 with his three wives and children after Utah outlawed polygamy. Romney's parents retained their U.S. citizenship and returned to the United States in 1912. Romney was 32 years old when he arrived in Michigan.
Lowell Weicker, the former Connecticut Senator, Representative, and Governor, entered the race for the Republican party nomination of 1980 but dropped out before voting in the primaries began. He was born in Paris, France and acquired his citizenship at birth through his parents. His father was an executive for E. R. Squibb & Sons and his mother was the Indian-born daughter of a British general.[6]
John McCain, who ran for the Republican party nomination in 2000 and is the Republican nominee in 2008, was born at the Coco Solo U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone to U.S. parents. Although the Panama Canal Zone was not considered to be part of the United States,[7] federal law states: "Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States."[8] The law that conferred this status took effect on August 4, 1937, one year after John McCain was born — albeit with retroactive effect, resulting in McCain being declared a U.S. citizen.[9]
The mere fact of Constitutional ineligibility has not deterred some minor parties from nominating candidates for President who could not possibly serve in the office. For example, although some states have blocked ballot access for such candidates, the Socialist Workers Party nonetheless successfully placed its candidate, Róger Calero, on the ballot in Mississippi in 2004. [10]
My husband and I were discussing is that the upside of Obama as pres it that we will probably
x
Isn't it wonderful to have a pres WHO DIDN'T STEAL THE ELECTION? AND WHO sm
won by such a large margin???? Poor Gore had to sit through Bush's inauguration knowing he had 500,000 more votes. This is WONDERFUL!
What exactly is illogical, and where was the discussion?
There certainly *is* a feral element on the right that will attack anyone viciously if it serves their purposes - nothing is sacred to them - and they don't respect "logic" any more than they respect the mothers of deceased soliders. I've spent years talking to these people. It took me a long time to reluctantly come to the conclusion that you can't reason with them because they don't respect reason. You can't find common ground because they don't want to share any ground - they want it all. You can't speak to them in a sincere way because they will take that as a sign of weakness and attack you all the harder. You can't deal with them fairly and expect to be treated fairly in return - they will lie at the drop of a hat. Their intention is not to be tolerant of others but to crush any dissent and run smear campaigns against those who are not "like" them. Now that's just my experience with this specific element on the right. It's just my opinion but it's far from illogical to draw conclusions from many years of personal experience. If you are a progressive, may you have better luck than I in trying to find a human face amongst that particular element I'm referring to. If you are a Republican and you actually want to discuss something, it seems like there are plenty of people here including me who would be willing to discuss an issue without getting personal. But no matter who you are, don't expect me or anyone else who's had my experience with the ugly among the right to parse their words or try to be falsely sweet and forgiving toward a specific group of people who are just flat downright dangerous and despicable, and don't deserve to be kid-gloved.
I really enjoyed the discussion, as well.
It was nice to have a peaceful discussion with differing viewpoints. Peace to you, too.
This discussion is about where Bush was and was not.
Ignored the most devastating natural disaster in recent US history.
new topic for discussion
McCain's cross in the dirt story he tells now -- history of:
how similar the McCain story is to that offered by Soviet dissident Alexander Solzhenitsen and then later popularized by Christian leaders Chuck Colson and Billy Graham. Sullivan also points out other suspicious changes:
The story changed from the guard using a sandal to the guard using a stick.
At Saddleback, McCain talked about a single guard being the protagonist. The same guard loosened his ropes and then later sketchd the cross in the dirt. In McCain's 1999 book, these were two different guards at two different prison camps.
McCain's first writings about his time in captivity didn't mention the story at all, so he's asked his readers for evidence of McCain offering that story prior to his 1999 book (when he was gearing up for a presidential run).
Several contributors to the comment thread on my first post have pointed to this rather stunning New York Times piece from 2000 in which McCain tells the story but about someone else!
Many years ago a scared American prisoner of war in Vietnam was tied in torture ropes by his tormentors and left alone in an empty room to suffer through the night. Later in the evening a guard he had never spoken to entered the room and silently loosened the ropes to relieve his suffering. Just before morning, that same guard came back and re-tightened the ropes before his less humanitarian comrades returned. He never said a word to the grateful prisoner, but some months later, on a Christmas morning, as the prisoner stood alone in the prison courtyard, the same good Samaritan walked up to him and stood next to him for a few moments. Then with his sandal, the guard drew a cross in the dirt. Both prisoner and guard both stood wordlessly there for a minute or two, venerating the cross, until the guard rubbed it out and walked away.
I think they had a family discussion ...
and they decided as a family to go forward. And this would not be an issue had there are those judgmental among us who decided to make it one. In this day and time for the Dems here, of ALL People, to act all holier-than-thou and act like being pregnant not married still carries some kind of stigma just stinks to high heaven. These same people who have told us to go back to our churches and not push our morality on them. The hypocrisy is staggering. The very people they called judgmental are the ones surrounding this family to support them, not ostracizing them like they had announced their daughter was a pedophile or a serial killer.
I would put the judgment here much MORE in question than Sarah Palin's, and I think a lot of people out there in America whose lives this very thing has touched will do the same.
And I would say that regardless of what party affiliation she has too. If that was a Democrat running for VP and people wre bashing her in this way I would be yelling foul just as loud.
It just amazes me the depths some will sink to for political purposes. INcluding fileting a 17-year-old. Just because her mother made the announcement did not mean poeple were obligated to attack..that was a choice and it taking that choice says a lot about character...or the screaming lack thereof.
we are having a mature discussion
about politics and religion, please do not start posting useless dribble. Thank you.
a "mature" discussion about
seeing black men run through the house, black arms coming out from under the bed, and several people talking to Jesus in the flesh? Okay then. I will bow out.
Don't read too much into this discussion. It just happens...sm
to be the news of the day. I do find it amusing though that her clothes came from the stores that they did. NM has $3000 handbags, etc, very HIGH prices and she probably only got a few outfits for the RNC's $150,000. I am sure that she didn't choose to get her wardrobe from these stores. She was probably staying in a hotel and the repub bigwigs called the department stores and told them what to bring over and what size, charge it to us. They were molding her to what they wanted her to be in order to get votes. It backfired. I actually feel sorry for her now. I hope she gets to keep her new clothes. She will probably be glad to get back to Alaska and out of the lower 48.
No, actually I'm not begging for discussion..
I am simply pointing out diversity. I've seen numerous posts on here from christians, and I really don't feel a need to debate their religion every time I see it. In fact, I respect other's opinions and beliefs, especially when they are willing to express them.....something you should try.
haven't been following this discussion at all BUT
isn't that calling the kettle black? I only clicked on this message cause it was the latest posted one... and after reading it i go... um excuse me... did you EVER given the current administration a break? for ANYTHING? And i dont want to hear they did this and this and this and this. that's fine, people were against them from the beginning too. This happens on BOTH sides, why doesn't everyone agree that there are hypocrites on each side!!! that is hypocritical in itself when you ALWAYS point fingers at the other side! Differing opinions is one thing, but to say that the RIGHT cant give this government a break? Well that's because they OPPOSE what it is they stand for! just like the left opposes what the right stands for!!!!
You call that discussion?
By definition, a discussion is give and take. An informed opinion on a complex issue takes more than a snarky one-liner on a subject line. It's really easy to define an opinion with which you disagree as "endless babble."
Besides, message boards are lousy places to have a true discussion about anything.
Here's a topic for discussion
Leaving criminal penalties out of the equation: Is it immoral to break the law?
What if you consider the law immoral (such as, for example, segregation)? What if you consider integration immoral? How much does individual conscience have to do with this? Easy to say someone else's conscience is in error, but they are saying the same about yours.
Some people try to short their taxes because the money goes to fund a war they do not believe in (there's usually one going on) or to fund abortions, or medical research they abhor, and now to bail out failed businesses and individual mortgages. I think everyone could find something that's funded by our tax money objectionable. How much are we morally required to render unto Caesar?
It's illegal to overstay a parking meter. Is it also immoral if you did it intentionally, simply because you've violated a law? How about sliding through a red light at 3 a.m. on a deserted country road when you could not possibly injure anyone?
If it's legal to raise rent past a tenant's ability to pay, is it also moral? What if this makes them homeless?
I thought the discussion was
for employees to have their health benefits taxed as income.
As noted in a discussion below about this...(sm)
I don't care what his views are or what he is. What I do care about his what he teaches kids. Sending them to his conservative website for homework in my opinion is way out of line.
Of course, this has nothing to do with the language used by the poster above, which is what I was talking about before you tried to change the subject, as usual.
Why is this discussion over - Ive been away for awhile and,
So why is this topic now closed?
First thing is a Biography of Pres. Bush, then Welcome to Michael Moore...nm
x
Personally, I am disappointed in Pres Bush, but namecalling is really infantile.
I think it detracts from logical debate. Pointing out people's personal flaws is another really bad debate tactic. Need to rise above that high school behavior and stick to the opinons and there are plenty of bad things to say right now. Don't make it personal.
So much for logical discussion between right and left.
/
I see. I saw in a discussion about Bruce on Netscape.nm
z
Bashing and discussion are two different things. sm
Evidently the moderator agrees, as she hasn't paid a visit to the boards.
Question regarding the abortion discussion below??
This question is mainly for anti abortion advocates. What would you do in a situation where you were found to be pregnant, but it was found to be an ectopic pregnancy? Would you terminate the pregnancy, or carry it to conclusion, whatever that conclusion may be? Thanks for any replies.
This discussion kind of reminds me of the ...sm
election of 1960, Nixon/Kennedy. Everyone was saying Nixon is a God. He has the most experience. No way John Kennedy is qualified to be president. Then came the first debate, and the rest is history. No teleprompter needed for either JFK or Obama. Their vision for America was/is enough to light the world.
yeah, so what, you aren't following the whole discussion
nm
Not trying to start a religious discussion here, but
being on its knees is exactly what this country needs. 
|
