Do you have more recent figures, and what is this source, if you do not mind? and..

• Would you PLEASE read my posts BEFORE... - Observer
  • Twisting and turning - Teddy
    • Good grief.... - Observer
      • Your facts are totally messed up - Teddy
        • Do you have more recent figures, and what is this source, if you do not mind? and.. - Observer
          • Please google it.... - Teddy
            • You said you enjoyed proving people wrong... - Observer
              • No, I did not say that. - Teddy
                • With all due respect...yes you did... - Observer
                  • Please - Teddy
                    • This is what I was referring to... - Observer
                      • No, want to see the post where I said.... - Teddy
                        • Well....sorry if I misinterpreted what you said... - Observer
                          • What I posted about poverty was an opinion... - Teddy...one more thing...
        • Yes, America is so horrible that nearly everyone from every country on earth sm - Brunson
          • Personally I love this country - Teddy
        • My apology,..didn't realize you lived in Sweden...nm - Teddy
      • Will ignore you. - Teddy
        • Answers to rhetorical questions... - Observer
          • Clarification - Teddy
            • Let ME clarify.... - Observer
              • Why do you need repeatedly compare us? - Teddy
                • You know exactly what I mean.... - Observer
        • Teddy...sm - Democrat
          • *patience and time* sm - Democrat
            • I am sorry, Democrat...I just don't get it.... - Democrat
              • Yes, I have attacked you. - Teddy
                • Wondering if you realize.... - Observer
                  • Yes, of course I realize - Teddy
                    • I get it. You really do think all those things.... - Observer
            • I need to change tactics... - Teddy
              • Teddy... - Lurker
                • Lurker... - Observer
                  • I was referring to myself... - Lurker
                    • Thank you....(sm) - Observer
                • My thoughts this morning - Teddy
                  • If you would be as honest in your postings to opposition.. - Observer
                    • Agree with some points - Teddy
    • Teddy, give it a rest already. sm - Brunson
      • Oh yes, I shall obey you - Teddy
        • LOL, well some things never change. SM - MT
          • Yep, MT...sounded like it to me too...(sm) - Observer
            • LOL!! Well, they been tryin to tar and feather me for years! SM - MT
              • Well....we know they have no stomach for the fight. ;-) (nm) - Observer
                • You got that right! NM - MT
                  • Actually - Horsey
                    • LOL, you crack me up. NM - MT
                    • Then....see ya! :-) nm - Observer
  • Lincoln and civil rights - Lurker
    • Again we agree to disagree... - Observer
      • This is what I found on the civil rights vote. - Lurker
        • Another take on the story.... - Observer
          • This is from newsmax.com - Teddy
            • Instead of posting this is from Newsmax... - Observer
              • I did not state that your posting was incorrect - Teddy
                • If you had stopped at stating it was from Newsmax... - Observer
            • She also posted the links to check the votes... - Observer
      • Your history is messed up - Teddy
      • if what you say is true - Gadfly
        • Sheeshhhhh gadfly.... - Observer
        • You guys have the most dainty little feelings. sm - Brunson
          • nice - Gadfly
            • Gadfly. SM - MT
            • Is it just me, or is *condemn* the leftist buzzword for the day? nm - Observer
              • Yeah, it goes like that. SM - MT
  • Sorry....I meant for the above to post under Teddy's... - Observer

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

influx of rudeness on this board change your mind about coming here.  As you can see by reading the whole board, most of us don't treat each other rudely.

I don't agree with the present administration in this country, but I'm basically a very happy, cordial, friendly person.  Most of the other posters on this board seem to be very friendly and easy going, too.

So don't let a few bad apples spoil your experience here.

Excellent movies.  Should be required viewing in high school civics class.  If, like Mrs. Palin wishes, creationism be taught along side science, then Michael Moore's beautifully patriotic films should be too.

interview.  There is much more to the story that the article does not include.  Biden's explanation seemed reasonable when I heard it.  You can, of course, disagree with me on that point.

Take a look at the date... Olbermann Still Lying About O’Reilly, Fox Ratings

Sunday, November 9, 2008 8:45 PM By: David A. Patten Article Font Size

MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann has won the Worst Liar in the World Award once again. His latest big fib is not a new one. He continues to claim that he is beating “The O’Reilly Factor,” the longtime king of cable news programs hosted by Bill O’Reilly of Fox News. But the numbers show otherwise. But that apparently doesn’t bother Olbermann. MSNBC took out a full-page ad in The New York Times proclaiming “A Sweeping Victory” for its ratings and declared “Countdown With Keith Olbermann” the No. 1 cable news program. Independent ratings consistently show O’Reilly gets about twice the ratings Olbermann does. Although Olbermann frequently leads his viewers to believe he has overtaken “The O’Reilly Factor,” in this case the numbers really do speak for themselves. O’Reilly’s program, which Fox airs at 8 and 11 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, averaged about 4 million viewers a night during the month of October, compared with Olbermann’s average of about 2 million, according to TVbytheNumbers.com, a leading Web site that analyzes the Nielsen ratings. Olbermann not only overlooks the fact that O’Reilly trounces him but also claims the opposite is true. Olbermann wrote on MSNBC’s Web site on Oct. 24 that O’Reilly “has seen the ratings spike here at MSNBC and decided that it is the result of a fraudulent conspiracy . . . ” So how can a news network tout ratings that actual Nielsen research doesn't support? The explanation is an almost-invisible line of fine print at the bottom of the ad, stating it refers to the 8 to 9 p.m. time slot for the dates Oct. 27 through Oct. 31, for viewers between 25 and 54 years of age. In other words, MSNBC is touting one time period or ratings category, which is the exception to the overall ratings. Consider: According to the Nielsen ratings, show on Thursday was the single most-watched program on cable television that week, other than Disney’s “Hannah Montana” and “Monday Night Football.” The second-most-watched program the week of Oct. 27 was O’Reilly’s program that Tuesday. And by the way, O’Reilly also hosted the fourth-most-watched cable program that week. The highest any of Olbermann’s programs placed that week was 19th. (It was the only Olbermann show to crack cable’s top 40 programs that week.) “O’Reilly’s lead in average viewers is large and has never been challenged by Olbermann,” Bill Gorman, co-founder of TVbytheNumbers.com, tells Newsmax. He points that “Olbermann has substantially increased both his average viewers and adults 24 to 54 substantially over time.” But data shows Reilly continues to regularly outpace Olbermann even in that key demographic group. Olbermann appeared elated this past week with the election of Barack Obama to the presidency. But the win may be a Pyrrhic victory for the liberal news anchor. Olbermann had positioned himself as the anti-Bush, anti-Republican news source on MSNBC. With Democrats firmly in control of the White House and Congress, it’s questionable that his audience will grow. Fox, meanwhile, may be a big beneficiary of the Obama win. So far, the “early returns” suggest Fox may be growing already. On Nov. 5, the day after the elections, Fox kept about 12 percent more of its Election Day audience than MSNBC.

This was pulled from journalism.org.

After four years of war in Iraq, the journalists reporting from that country give their coverage a mixed but generally positive assessment, but they believe they have done a better job of covering the American military and the insurgency than they have the lives of ordinary Iraqis. And they do not believe the coverage of Iraq over time has been too negative. If anything, many believe the situation over the course of the war has been worse than the American public has perceived, according to a new survey of journalists covering the war from Iraq.

Above all, the journalists—most of them veteran war correspondents—describe conditions in Iraq as the most perilous they have ever encountered, and this above everything else is influencing the reporting. A majority of journalists surveyed (57%) report that at least one of their Iraqi staff had been killed or kidnapped in the last year alone—and many more are continually threatened. “Seven staffers killed since 2003, including three last July,” one bureau chief wrote with chilling brevity. “At least three have been kidnapped. All were freed.”

A majority of journalists surveyed say most of the country is too dangerous to visit. Nine out of ten say that about at least half of Baghdad itself. Wherever they go, traveling with armed guards and chase vehicles is the norm for more than seven out of ten surveyed.

Even the basics of getting the story are remarkably difficult. Outside of the heavily-fortified Green Zone, most U.S. journalists must rely on local staff to do the necessary face-to-face reporting. Yet nearly nine out of ten journalists say their local staff cannot carry any equipment—not even a notebook—that might identify them as working for the western media for fear of being killed. Some local staffers do not even tell their own families.

Most journalists also have a positive view of the U.S. military’s embedding program for reporters. While they acknowledge the limited perspective it provides, they believe it offers access to information they could not otherwise get.

And most journalists, eight out of ten, feel that, over time, conditions for telling the story of Iraq have gotten worse, not better.

The survey, conducted by the Project for Excellence in Journalism from September 28 through November 7, was developed to get a sense of the conditions journalists have faced in trying to cover the war over the last couple of years. It was not designed to poll their sense of the situation in Iraq at this one or any other particular moment in time, or to offer a referendum on the success of the surge. It will be followed, later this year, with a content analysis of coverage on the ground from Iraq.

The survey included responses from 111 journalists who have worked or are currently working in Iraq. The vast majority, 90 of them, were in Iraq when they took the survey or have worked there in 2007, and most have spent at least seven months in the country cumulatively since the war began.

The journalists are from 29 different news organizations (all of them U.S. based except for one) that have had staff in Iraq—including newspapers, wire services, magazines, radio, and network and cable TV. This represents, by best estimates, every news organization in the U.S. save one that has had a correspondent in Iraq for at least one month since January 2006.¹

Nearly everyone surveyed also responded to open-ended questions – often at length – offering a vivid and sobering portrait of trying to report an extraordinarily difficult story under terrifying conditions.

“The dangers can’t be overstated,” one print journalist wrote. “It’s been an ambush – two staff killed, one wounded – various firefights, and our ‘home’ has been rocked and mortared (by accident, I’m pretty sure). It’s not fun; it’s not safe, but I go back because it needs to be told.”

Whatever the problems, a magazine reporter offered, “The press….have carried out the classic journalistic mission of bearing witness.”

“Welcome to the new world of journalism, boys and girls. This is where we lost our innocence. Security teams, body armor and armored cars will forever now be pushed in between journalism and stories,” one bureau chief declared.

The Project for Excellence in Journalism, which is non-partisan and non-political, is one of eight projects that make up the Pew Research Center in Washington, D.C., a “fact tank” funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts. Princeton Survey Research was contracted to host and administer the online survey.

I agree that we should stay OUT of this, though I fear the timing of this all was purposely designed to drag us into it right before Inauguration Day.

Gaza truce broken as Israeli raid kills six Hamas gunmen

A four-month ceasefire between Israel and Palestinian militants in Gaza was in jeopardy today after Israeli troops killed six Hamas gunmen in a raid into the territory.

Hamas responded by firing a wave of rockets into southern Israel, although no one was injured. The violence represented the most serious break in a ceasefire agreed in mid-June, yet both sides suggested they wanted to return to atmosphere of calm.

Israeli troops crossed into the Gaza Strip late last night near the town of Deir al-Balah. The Israeli military said the target of the raid was a tunnel that they said Hamas was planning to use to capture Israeli soldiers positioned on the border fence 250m away. Four Israeli soldiers were injured in the operation, two moderately and two lightly, the military said.

One Hamas gunman was killed and Palestinians launched a volley of mortars at the Israeli military. An Israeli air strike then killed five more Hamas fighters. In response, Hamas launched 35 rockets into southern Israel, one reaching the city of Ashkelon.

"This was a pinpoint operation intended to prevent an immediate threat," the Israeli military said in a statement. "There is no intention to disrupt the ceasefire, rather the purpose of the operation was to remove an immediate and dangerous threat posted by the Hamas terror organisation."

In Gaza, a Hamas spokesman, Fawzi Barhoum, said the group had fired rockets out of Gaza as a "response to Israel's massive breach of the truce".

"The Israelis began this tension and they must pay an expensive price. They cannot leave us drowning in blood while they sleep soundly in their beds," he said.

The attack comes shortly before a key meeting this Sunday in Cairo when Hamas and its political rival Fatah will hold talks on reconciling their differences and creating a single, unified government. It will be the first time the two sides have met at this level since fighting a near civil war more than a year ago.

Until now it had appeared both Israel and Hamas, which seized full control of Gaza last summer, had an interest in maintaining the ceasefire. For Israel it has meant an end to the daily barrage of rockets landing in southern towns, particularly Sderot. For Gazans it has meant an end to the regular Israeli military raids that have caused hundreds of casualties, many of them civilian, in the past year. Israel, however, has maintained its economic blockade on the strip, severely limiting imports and preventing all exports from Gaza.

Ehud Barak, the Israeli defence minister, had personally approved the Gaza raid, the Associated Press said. The Israeli military concluded that Hamas was likely to want to continue the ceasefire despite the raid, it said. The ceasefire was due to run for six months and it is still unclear whether it will stretch beyond that limit.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/05/israelandthepalestinians

So that means you have chosen to disrespect the moderator’s rules and come here (now suddenly on purpose) when you choose to, but you still post things such as:  “Well, really, you ain’t supposed to be here and don’t tell me you’re a moderate conservative cause I ain’t buying it. <<<<<Liberal board's that way...if you can stay awake more than five minutes there” when a liberal visits your board?  Figures.  Fits perfectly in line with the rules only applying to some and not others.

I can’t believe you wrote *I understand that some of the terrorists may have worked or dealt with the UAE, but they did not carry out any attacks through them* and act as if that’s okay.  The Kool-Aid must be especially tasty today.

Do I advocate racial profiling?  I advocate historical profiling.  Historically, they were tight with bin Laden before, and there is nothing to suggest they don’t have the capacity to be tight with him again. 

In short, the REAL kind of profiling I would endorse is limiting this kind of deal countries who has NEVER had ties to terror in the past.

You may consider the below too long to read.  I’ve bolded and underlined the important points in case you give up after the first 3 words.  I truly feel that Dubya is selling out every American’s safety for money, and I don’t understand how you, as an American, can support or trust this.  Of course, you do obviousy still trust and support Bush, so that explains a lot.

Considered an ally now, UAE backed bin Laden

By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
February 23, 2006

The United Arab Emirates has become what the Bush administration calls a reliable partner in the war against Islamic terrorists, but its rulers maintained close ties to Osama bin Laden before September 11, and the cities of Abu Dhabi and Dubai have since served as operations and financial bases for al Qaeda terrorists.
    But the United Arab Emirates, the most Western of Persian Gulf nations, also has become the United States' closest military ally in the region. Its ruling emirs permit Navy warships to dock in the bustling commercial center of Dubai on lengthy liberty calls. It also hosts U.S. Air Force warplanes, refueling jets and spy planes at the sprawling Al Dhafra air base near Abu Dhabi. The base sits across the gulf from U.S. adversary Iran.
    During the Clinton administration, the United States even considered killing bin Laden when he was on a hunting expedition but did not because one of his hunting partners was one of the United Arab Emirates' emirs.
    They have been helpful and supportive and a good partner in the fight against terrorism, said a U.S. counterterrorism official.
    It is these two faces of the Arab nation -- a one-time sympathizer of al Qaeda, yet strong post-September 11 U.S. partner -- that Washington is considering in the debate over the Bush administration's proposal to let United Arab Emirates company Dubai Ports World run six large U.S. seaports.
    The U.S. September 11 commission's report is replete with accounts of some of the 19 hijackers -- two of whom came from the United Arab Emirates -- using Dubai's permissive banking system and lax passport certification to gain entry into the United States and bankroll a mission that killed more than 3,000 people.
    During bin Laden's stay in Afghanistan -- where he built terror training camps, a personal army and a financial network -- some of the United Arab Emirates' upper crust, known as emirs, visited him. The United Arab Emirates was one of only a handful of countries that recognized the harsh Taliban regime, bin Laden's protector.
    In 1999, bin Laden spent time in the Afghan desert south of Kandahar near the Sheik Ali hunting camp. It was regularly used by visitors from the United Arab Emirates, according to the September 11 commission report. U.S. intelligence detected an official United Arab Emirates government airplane there on at least one occasion.
    According to reporting from the tribals, bin Laden regularly went from his adjacent camp to the larger camp where he visited the Emiratis, according to the report.
    In fact, the presence of the United Arab Emirates rulers at the camp gave the Clinton administration second thoughts about ordering an air strike to kill bin Laden, more than two years before the attack on the United States.
    According to CIA and defense officials, policy-makers were concerned about the danger that a strike would kill an Emirati prince or other senior officials who might be with bin Laden or close by, the commission said. The Clinton administration was so concerned about the emirates' cozy ties to bin Laden that one official called a United Arab Emirates political leader to complain.
    Weeks later, the camp was dismantled, and bin Laden disappeared. The implication was clear: Someone in the United Arab Emirates tipped off bin Laden, the United States' most-wanted fugitive, who then was planning the September 11 attacks.

  The United Arab Emirates was becoming both a valued counterterrorism ally of the United States and a persistent counterterrorism problem the commission wrote. It said President Clinton personally pressed United Arab Emirates leaders to break financial and travel ties with the Taliban, but they refused.
    Hamdan bin Zayid, United Arab Emirates foreign minister, told a U.S. diplomat that his country maintains relations with the Taliban to counterbalance Iranian dangers.
    Those dangers are one reason that the United Arab Emirates stands as the United States' best military ally in the Gulf, opening key parts of its country for U.S. operations.
    Its Mina Jebel Ali port, the largest man-made harbor in the world, hosts more U.S. warships than any other rest stop outside the United States. CIA and FBI agents collect intelligence there on militant Islam. The United Arab Emirates has cooperated with the U.S. Treasury Department in shutting down bank accounts linked to al Qaeda.
    The United Arab Emirates is a country that's been an ally in the global war on terror, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said on the Michael Reagan radio show this week. We have a port there where they help us. They have an airfield. We share intelligence, and we have a partnership that has been very, very helpful to the things we do in that part of the world.

The total cost is a whopping $338.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR

14 reasons why we need to get control of illegal immigration:

1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year by state governments.

2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.

3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens.

4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English!

5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.

6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.

7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.

8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for welfare social services by the American taxpayers.

9. $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens.

10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that’s two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular,their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US.

11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our southern border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from terrorist countries.

12. The National Policy Institute, “estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.”

13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances back to their countries of origin.

14. “The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States.”

Well I guess he saw how well it worked with the HC supporters (most giving their opinion that we need a woman in there, we are voting cos its time for a woman, etc, etc and some only voting for her only because she's a woman).  Guess he's so concerned with losing he'll stoop to anything.  Talk about calling the kettle black.  He proclaims Obama doesn't have the experience and he's young and new, and then he picks her?  She's not ready to step in as President, she doesn't have any experience whatsoever.  He's going to have a hard time explaining that one. 

Again it goes to show McCain is not in touch with the American people.  He picks a woman thinking that what all the women want, but luckily the women who supported Hillary are coming out saying we supported Hillary because of her position and viewpoints, not just because she was a women.  I just believe he has just lost any chance to win.     

She has no international experience, been governer less than 2 years and has no experience at anything.  Guess he's making it perfectly clear he wants a running mate who will never question him.  His ego is taking over and its going to sink him.  He'll need the Swift Boat Veterans to fish him out of the water.  Never mind her radical christian viewpoints.  Everything he's been attacking Obama for being, he has just picked a running mate who is all that.  How could he have gotten it so wrong?  Any chance I had of electing him flew out the window with that pick. 

Brother...he would have been better to choose Hillary as a running mate.  Hello President Obama.

presidents because they supposedly represent we, the people. It's not just O that is being scrutinized. Past presidents were too, along with movie stars, sports figures, you name it. If you have a big name, are in the public eye, you will have your life spread all over the media.

This same old argument was brought up on Oprah when Moore, a lobbyiest for insurance companies and a professor who is for universal healthcare for all were on her show.  In fact, they even invited CEOs/representatives from the top insurance companies but none would even talk to Lisa Ling.  Moore stated, once again, that his figures/facts come directly from the US figures/facts and the facts used to argue against him come from insurance company facts.  He stated to go to his web site and the information would be there.

I sit back and laugh..if a republican had thought up universal healthcare or was a pioneer on global warming, the right wing would be behind it 100% but since these are essentially positions hardworking thinking caring democrats back, the radical right wing is going to fight these issues no matter what.

I dont care if you call it socialized medicine, which is a knee jerk response..just what is socialized medicine?  What the Congress has?  Then give it to me.  I most certainly would rather have a universal healthplan, backed by our government, than no insurance at all.  To me it is a no brainer.  I would rather have a little bit of medical care and medicines than no medical care and no medicines.

Sam, this is the same group of people who thought that what Bill did with all those women was okay, or simply a "private" matter.

So nobody in this bunch has ever had a pg teenager?  And if any one of these women here would just throw (that's Demspeak for kill) away a DS baby? It's simply a continuation of what they do is okay and what those nasty conservatives do is just criminal! 

Wow, that's just classy.