Excuse me, but you will not dictate whether or not I include articles in my post.
Posted By: Liberal on 2006-08-17
In Reply to: You remind me of someone as well. TI - Kfir
I post articles here in order to encourage a debate about the articles. In your limited Israel-is-always-right-and-anyone-who-questions-that-is-worthy-of-a-rabid-attack attitude, you can't see that and once again wish to control everything, even how people communicate with each other.
All you want to do is tear down, not build anything. I gave my reasons for posting this article. In those reasons I expressed some skepticism about Hezbollah's sincerity. Instead of offering an intelligent response to those reasons, you once again slammed the door of dialogue and showed that your abilities to communicate are so limited that all you can do is berate and insult. To call me anti-American only highlights your ignorance. I am absolutely pro-American, and I'm very fearful where President Bush is leading us. It's the duty of every American to question what he or she sees as failures or inadequacies in the administration that is in power regardless of party affiliation. I felt the same way during the Clinton administration, and I feel the same way now.
If I were to come on here and say that Hezbollah is rebuilding Lebanon and now the Bush administration wants to compete with them, I would get responses that demand I provide my source, and rightly so. That is the reason I post the entire article itself. I want to gauge if it brings the same questions to the minds of other (repeat once again) LIBERALS as it does to me.
You're free to have your opinion of me, but you come off as pompous and controlling, demanding that everyone bow down and kiss Israel's feet. The mere suggestion that Israel may be even slightly wrong elicits anger and rage from you, and you have shown that repeatedly.
No, you are not obligated to engage in debate with anyone here, but don't whine and complain that you're unable to when someone offers you the opportunity. Your failure to do so when invited only proves how angry and full of rage you are.
For the record, I have never said you were sent to shut down the board. It's laughable to even imagine you have the power to do that. You are no more important or influential than I am or than any other poster on this board is. Get over yourself already.
And, no, I have no idea which sentence of the original article you find disturbing. I personally found several of them disturbing, but I refuse to engage in any guessing games with you.
Am I paranoid? I sure am these days. I'm pro-peace and I'm living in a country run by a President who is trigger happy and who has done nothing but incite the world.
If looking at Israel objectively is anti-Israel according to your definition, then so be it. You said previously on this board that just because Israel didn't bother to send any troops to Iraq didn't mean they're an ally. Please enlighten me. With the BILLIONS of dollars we give Israel every year, along with weapons, we are definitely an ally to Israel. Please explain how Israel is an ally to us. Is it because they grace us with their agreement to take our money and then spy on us? (I could post a number of articles regarding the spying, but since you don't like it when I do that, feel free to Google it on your own.) What have they done for us in return?
I have always believed Israel was the underdog in the Middle East and have always favored them. This is the first time I have ever questioned their actions. We here in America still have freedom of thought and speech, whether you like it or not. You know nothing of me, including how I believe. Your assessment of me is not only wrong, it's absurd and only proves how you interact with people who disagree. I am very relieved that you are not representative of all Israelis, as it gives me a small sense of hope.
I doubt your sincerity in stating that I'm not worth the time to answer, considering all the time you spent doing just that. Another example of your hypocrisy. No doubt you will waste your time once again responding to this with more hatred and insults, only this time I will let you have the last word, since you are now no longer worth the time it takes to respond.
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
Excuse me. Did you bother to read the articles and
In every single reference I provided for you, the phrase "OFFICE of the President Elect" appears....in 1969, 1989, 2000 as well as in the language of the Act. Don't care what your fringe sites say....especially Malkin. Wouldn't be the first time they invented phoney outrage over fairy tales they spin, and it won't be the last. Read the language of the ACT that created the OFFICE of the President Elect, then the articles I provided, and you might see what I mean....or NOT. You seem to have an affinity for make-believe.
BTW, I know my history, but I believe you were trying to ask me specifically about civics. The electoral college makes the election official. However, it has always been customary to refer to the successful candidate on the Nov 4 election as the President Elect. The media is not the driving force behind this...tradition is.
Oh please. We just post articles of Obama
x
Yes, let's post articles to mother's of military. So helpful. Geez. nm
I found several opposition articles and will post the high points....
and actually I was surprised to see that there were some common concerns and actually very little concerning *a move toward socialized medicine.* This is what I found:
Proposals to expand coverage to children from families earning three or four times the federal poverty limit ($61,940 and $82,600, respectively, for a family of four) also highlights the question of just how many should be subsidized, necessarily at others' expense. The $61,940 eligibility limit would cover median-income families in 14 states, and the $82,600 limit would do so in 42 states. Parents earning such incomes do not need additional subsidies for their children to get health care.
************************
Baucus, Grassley Comment
Senate Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and the committee's ranking Republican Chuck Grassley (Iowa) jointly requested the CBO study but "had divergent views of its findings," according to CQ Today.
Baucus, who supports spending $50 billion over five years to expand SCHIP, said the report validates the program. CQ Today reports that Baucus "expressed little concern" that people would leave private insurance plans to enroll in SCHIP, saying that every public health insurance program provides coverage to some people who might be able to obtain private health insurance (CQ Today, 5/10). Baucus said, "The fact that uninsurance for children in higher-income families has stayed about the same means that SCHIP is helping the lower-income families it's meant to serve."
Grassley said the report supports his argument that SCHIP eligibility should not be expanded beyond 200% of the poverty level. He said, "This report tells us that Congress needs to make sure that whatever it does, it should actually result in more kids having health insurance, rather than simply shifting children from private to public health insurance" (CongressDaily, 5/10).
****************************
SCHIP is a joint state-federal program that provides health coverage to 6.6 million children from families that live above the poverty line but have difficulty paying for private insurance. Already, the program is generous. A family of four with an income of more than $72,000 (350% of the federal poverty level) is eligible for SCHIP's subsidized insurance. Now, Congress wants to expand coverage even further, to families making up to 400% of the federal poverty level ($82,600 for a family of four). But, according to the Congressional Budget Office, 89% of families earning between 300% and 400% of the federal poverty level already have coverage. The CBO estimates that some 2 million kids already covered under private insurance would be switched over to government insurance. The only purpose of all of this seems to be to turn children's health insurance into an outright entitlement — part of the Democrat's broader push to move all of America's health-care industry under government control.
Along with expanding SCHIP coverage to include people higher and higher up in the middle class, the Democrats' bill would also give states incentives to sign up aggressively new "clients," by loosening requirements to join the program and encouraging states to market the program (anyone who rides the New York City subway knows how active the Empire State is already being on this front). How is all of this to be funded? Well, the bill would impose a 61-cent increase in the 39-cent a pack federal cigarette tax, bringing it up to an even dollar. We've written before on how corrupt is the government's interest in the cigarette business. It turns out that the government needs to keep people smoking; the Heritage Foundation estimates the government would need to sign up some 22 million more Americans to take up smoking by 2017 to fund this increase in SCHIP. To add to the irony, most smokers are low-income Americans, meaning that the poor essentially will be funding the health insurance of the middle class. Mr. Bush would be right to veto it while working to increase access to private insurance through tax breaks and deregulation.
****************************
So, it would appear to me that the major problems some have against it are: it will shift children who are now covered by private insurance onto a program unncessarily; it will allow for more adults on the program, something that was never intended; that paying for it with a tobacco tax targets the very people who need the assistance, the lower income families as statistically that is where the most smokers are...essentially shifting the burden for adding middle class families to the lower income families...and I think we can all agree that is not a good thing.
In my research I also found something VERY interesting...
I am sorry to say I did not know the particulars of the President's proposal regarding insuring children...only his proposal extends to everyone, not just children...sure have not seen the media report it....
Opposing view: President's plan is better
Extend SCHIP program without spending billions to expand it.
By Mike Leavitt
We all want to see every American insured, and President Bush has proposed a plan to see that everyone is. Congress, instead, is pushing a massive expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) that grows government without helping nearly as many children.
The president's plan, announced last January, would fix our discriminatory tax policy so that every American family received a $15,000 tax break for purchasing health insurance. If Congress acted on the president's plan, nearly 20 million more Americans would have health insurance, according to the independent Lewin Group.
In contrast, Democrats in Congress would more than double government spending on SCHIP and extend the program to families earning as much as $83,000 a year. But their plan would add fewer than 3 million children to SCHIP, and many of the newly eligible children already have private insurance. So instead of insuring nearly 20 million more Americans privately, Congress would spend billions of dollars to move middle-income Americans off private insurance and onto public assistance.
The Democrats' plan has other problems. It would fund SCHIP's expansion with a gimmick that hides its true cost. It would allocate billions of dollars more than is needed to cover eligible kids. And it would allow states to continue diverting SCHIP money from children to adults. This is a boon for the states but costs the federal government more.
Ideology is really behind the Democrats' plan. They trust government more than the free choices of American consumers. Some in Congress want the federal government to pay for everyone's health care, and expanding SCHIP is a step in that direction.
SCHIP is part of the fix for low-income children, and Congress should put politics aside and send the president a clean, temporary extension of the current program. Expanding SCHIP is not the only way or the best way to insure the uninsured. The president's plan is better. It would benefit many more Americans. It would focus SCHIP on the children who need help most. And it would move us more sensibly toward our common goal of every American insured.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I think a $15,000 tax break would help more American families afford health insurance, thereby covering more kids AND adults, which is the goal, right? And no raising of taxes or targeting the lower income families with a tobacco tax...sounds like a win-win. I don't care if it is Bush's idea or the Democratic Congress' idea...it is a good idea. This time it happened to be Bush's.
Just my take on it.
If you want to find the articles, just put *expanding SCHIP* in a Google search. I read several articles in support of both sides. I did not see much about the income leveling, except in one article, which did mention that New York had a "sliding scale." It did not define it, but I am thinking it is at the purview of the states, and if New York did it others probably could too?
Excuse me, I misread your post. Sorry...nm
excuse my typos today...I catch them after I post... :) nm
Excuse me. All I did was post a link to a CBS news story
the ideas you brought up in your original post trying to imply that O's AG nominee was somehow responsible for the 9/11 attacks. I think that kind of inaccurate accusation deserves some sort of defense. You evidently have a tough time digesting data that in any way contradicts your thinking, so now we have gotten to the place where I am a pouncing, bug-squashing know-it-all who slaughters innocent insects with my windshield? For posting a link to a reputable news article written directly in the aftermath of 9/11 (YEARS before Mr. Holder's nomination). Really? Don't you think you may be over-reacting just a tad?
Don't you just love the way they try to dictate how/where WE move
on our own board? What a bunch of kooks! 
I was just making a point that if somebody gives you something, they cannot dictate how to use it -
x
Don't you think that common sense would dictate this to be totally false?
It's these sort of ridiculous statements that contribute to the ignorance that is rampant out there.
Not all Americans.........I didn't let fear and ignorance dictate
nm
That does not include
car companies bailout which obviously they cannot bail them out now after reading this. It DOES include though CEO and board of directors bonuses. I believe not only a Great Depression coming, but even worse than that.
Will this include the dems who
were all for this stuff or at least knew about it and said nothing or will this strictly be a continued witch hunt on Bush and Cheney? If you want revenge on the pubs, I personally feel that the dems who knew and/or were for it should be held accountable as well. If Bush and Cheney go down, they all should.
did they include PUMA in that poll among...
Democratic women? And there are a lot of men in PUMA too. I have seen as many male members as female ones being interviewed...and they are still not happy. Will be interesting to see how it all plays out. All of those 18 million disgruntled Hillary voters are NOT women.
Why is it that McCain supporters include
Do you know how much credibility you lose each time you pass such trash along? I will not use my time citing passage after passage from the Quran to expose your ignorance. If you care anything at all about being taken seriously, you will take a little time to actually read the Quran, which is a Holy Book, before you trash it. When you do thi, you make Christians look really ugly.
Any poll can and will include "illegals"
@
do those boring posters include you too?
nm
Team McCain should include any and all who
proliferating these messages. From our own forum, we can see that there are plenty of nationalist nut jobs, rabid racists and pious patriots out there who are not able to make the connection between hate speech, violence and assassinations. This can only lead us into the necessity for swift, tight and hopefully harsh enforcement of hate crimes in the future. I hope they make tougher laws regarding hate speech along the way.
My vote is based on issues, -include character.nm
nm
I'm curious....does your view include Sarah Palin?
and the way the media continues to demonize her and her family?
Or does this just apply to Pres. Obama. In your view.
kyoto, one of many articles
INDEPTH: KYOTO
Kyoto Protocol FAQs
April 13, 2005
Depending on who you talk to, the Kyoto Protocol is either a) an expensive, bureaucratic solution to fix a problem that may not even exist; or b) the last, best chance to save the world from the time bomb of global warming.
Those are the extremes in what has become a polarizing debate that has engaged governments, consumers, environmental groups and industry all over the world for more than 20 years.
The problem the Kyoto Protocol is trying to address is climate change, and more specifically, the speed at which the earth is warming up. Whether Kyoto can accomplish this is very much a matter of debate.
For the record, the Kyoto Protocol went into effect Feb. 16, 2005, with 141 countries signing on, including every major industrialized country – except the United States, Australia and Monaco. The U.S. is responsible for about a quarter of the emissions that have been blamed for global warming.
Two of the world's biggest – and growing – polluters also have not signed on. India and China don't have to – they're considered developing countries and are outside the protocol's framework.
First, the science behind Kyoto.
Is the climate changing?
The United Nations certainly thinks so. And so do most (but not all) scientists who study climate. The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) summarizes the work of 2,000 of the world's top climate experts. Its latest report (2001) makes for some sobering reading.
Yes, the world is getting warmer, the report concludes. The IPCC says the average global surface temperature has risen by about 0.6 degrees Celsius since 1900, with much of that rise coming in the 1990s – likely the warmest decade in 1,000 years.
The IPCC also found that snow cover since the late 1960s has decreased by about 10 per cent and lakes and rivers in the Northern Hemisphere are frozen over about two weeks less each year than they were in the late 1960s. Mountain glaciers in non-polar regions have also been in noticeable retreat in the 20th century, and the average global sea level has risen between 0.1 and 0.2 metres since 1900.
Simply put, the world is getting warmer and the temperature is rising faster than ever.
What are the very long-term climate predictions?
The IPCC predicts more floods, intense storms, heat waves and droughts. Its study forecasts a rise of 1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius in the global mean surface temperature over the next 100 years, with developing countries most vulnerable.
Other studies are even more apocalyptic. A report commissioned by the World Wildlife Fund predicts dangerous warming of the earth's surface in as little as 20 years, with the Arctic warming so much that its polar ice could melt in the summer by the year 2100, pushing polar bears close to extinction.
The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment predicts that caribou, musk ox and reindeer would find their habitats severely reduced. Northern aboriginal peoples around the world would find their way of life changed forever, the study said.
What is causing the world to warm up?
The 6 greenhouse gases Kyoto targets |
Carbon dioxide.
Methane.
Nitrous oxide
Sulphur hexafluoride.
Hydrofluorocarbons.
Perfluorocarbons.
|
Most scientists blame industrialization. Since the 19th century, the richer countries of the Northern Hemisphere have been pumping out ever-increasing volumes of heat-trapping greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. Industrial societies burn fossil fuels in their power plants, homes, factories and cars. They clear forests (trees absorb carbon dioxide) and they build big cities.
Greenhouse gases allow solar radiation to pass through the earth's atmosphere. But after the earth absorbs part of that radiation, it reflects the rest back. That's where the problem lies. Particles of greenhouse gas absorb the radiation, heating up, and warming the atmosphere. The increasing levels of greenhouse gases are causing too much energy to be trapped – the so-called greenhouse effect.
Greenhouse gas emissions targets apply to 38 industrialized countries and economies in transition
|
For a list of these countries and their emissions targets, click here:
UNFCCC
|
Isn't there a lot of debate over the whole issue of climate change?
While scientists tend to agree that the earth is warming, not all agree that rising greenhouse gas emissions are the culprits. A vocal minority say the earth's climate warms and cools in long cycles that have nothing to do with greenhouse gases.
Some dispute the data concerning rising sea levels and rising temperatures. Others dispute the projections, which are based on computer models. But again, those views are those of a minority. Most climatologists agree that global warming is causing unprecedented climate change…and that things will get worse unless something is done.
What does the Kyoto Protocol require?
The Kyoto Protocol was adopted in late 1997 to address the problem of global warming by reducing the world's greenhouse gas emissions. It is considered a first step and is not expected to solve the world's climate change problems by the time its first commitment period ends in 2012.
Kyoto sets out an agenda for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 5.2 per cent from 1990 levels (although economies in transition, like Russia, can pick different base years). Some reports say the lower target is to be met by 2010. But that's shorthand for the actual target date, which is to achieve those emission cuts over a five-year average (2008 to 2012).
All countries are not treated equally by Kyoto. Canada, for instance, has committed to chopping its greenhouse gas emissions by six per cent. The U.S. target was a seven per cent reduction. But in 2001, one of the first acts of newly-elected President George W. Bush was to formally withdraw the U.S. from Kyoto. Bush said the U.S. would not ratify the treaty because it would damage the U.S. economy and major developing nations like China and India were not covered by its provisions.
Kyoto also allows some industrialized countries to make no cuts, or even to emit more greenhouse gases that they did in 1990. Russia's and New Zealand's emission levels are capped at their 1990 levels. Iceland can emit up to 10 per cent more greenhouse gases, Australia eight per cent more. (Like the U.S., Australia has announced it won't ratify Kyoto). Developing nations are not subject to any emissions reduction caps under Kyoto.
Much of the criticism around the Kyoto Protocol is over political realities and the limitations of the treaty. Critics say a five per cent cut will accomplish little, especially with the United States not on board. Some Canadian critics say our economy will pay a heavy price for meeting our Kyoto commitments because we'll have to compete with an American economy that faces no such restrictions. Many doubt that Canada's target cuts can be reached in Kyoto's first phase that ends in 2012.
Others say the money to implement Kyoto would be much better spent on improving land usage and infrastructure in poor countries.
How are emission targets met?
Emission targets can be met several ways. The most obvious way is to actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions – more fuel-efficient cars, fewer coal-fired power plants. But Kyoto also allows for three other mechanisms.
Countries can buy emissions credits from countries that don't need them to stay below their emissions quotas. A country can also earn emissions credits through something called joint implementation, which allows a country to benefit by carrying out something like a reforestation project in another industrialized country or economy in transition. There's also what's called a clean development mechanism that encourages investment in developing countries by promoting the transfer of environmentally-friendly technologies.
Each developed country must develop its own strategy to meet its Kyoto commitments. Industrial countries that ratify Kyoto are legally bound to see that their emissions do not exceed their 2008/2012 targets.
What happens if a country fails to reach its Kyoto emissions target?
The Kyoto Protocol contains measures to assess performance and progress. It also contains some penalties. Countries that fail to meet their emissions targets by the end of the first commitment period (2012) must make up the difference plus a penalty of 30 per cent in the second commitment period. Their ability to sell credits under emissions trading will also be suspended.
Articles 39 and 42 of the U.N. Charter
permit the Security Council to determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and to authorize the use of force to maintain or restore international peace and security.
I read your articles - all of them - and...
In the first link you provided, the fourth paragraph in the gray box says, "Both Mr. Kahl and a senior Obama campaign adviser reached yesterday said the paper does not represent the campaign’s Iraq position."
Also, in this article it clearly states that Obama still plans to withdraw in the 6th paragraph:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/07/mccain_obama_position_on_iraq.html
Also, Obama's website still states the same information of 16 months -
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/
proposed tax policies which include granting rebates to most US workers.
That statement jumped out at me.
There are several articles...goggle it....see inside...
this is just one.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view/2008_09_13_Obama_s_female_staffers_shortchanged:_He_s_no_great_equalizer/
Many interesting articles on this site...
http://clintondems.com/2008/09/obama-admits-dual-citizenship-with-kenya/
There have been numerous news articles......sm
stating that Obama's mother was a self-proclamed atheist. You can find them if you Google and check out news web sites.
The beliefs of the Catholic church are very different in some respects than those of most Christian denominations. Catholics, as I understand, believe that without baptism (infant christening) that even a baby is not saved. Most mainstream Christian denominations believe that a person makes a choice to believe in Christ and accept him as Savior once they reach the age where they have the capability of making that decision. I am not saying all this to get into a long theological discussion with you but simply to point out the differences between the two. If you want to discuss religion, we have been asked to use the Faith board to do that.
There are all sorts of articles; just google
x
I won't read these articles - the last time I did so,
No thanks!
I read articles on this fellow......... sm
during the campaigns before the election. His predictions are not very promising and I believe we are in for a long, rocky ride. The government bailouts are just the beginning of government owning America, lock, stock and barrel.
I live in a rural, rather economically depressed area now and wonder how quickly my area will start seeing these changes. I wonder if it will be one of the first and hardest hit or if the more affluent areas of the country that enjoy a wider variety of jobs and better paying jobs will be more adversely affected first.
My 18-year-old son and I were discussing his future last night. Although he is a junior in high school, I told him that it is time that he started looking at the job markets in our area and deciding on a job that would pay well and would be in demand for a few years, at least. He won't be going to college, partly because of financial issues, but mainly because he is just not "college material" but I do want him to investigate trades-type schools and trades jobs in which he will be able to provide for himself as an adult in an economy where blue-collar workers struggle at best. 
Personally, I am not spending any more than is absolutely necessary to survive at this point. I guess I'm being "unAmerican" by not stimulating the economy, but right now I'm more concerned about what my future holds and whether I will be able to keep my home than whether I have a big-screen TV or an iphone. Times are indeed getting scary.
Yup, don't forget to include the opinions of the criminally insane as undeniable truth....nm
dfdfd
Send a letter to the director of the school system and include that message. sm
This has absolutely nothing to do with being instructed in English.
Sounds like the teacher is foisting her principles and ideas on youngsters, which she has no right to do. It's none of her business who and who was not born out of wedlock. She has no right to tell youngsters to get married and stay married, that's none of her business either. She has no right to tell a youngster to take a job and keep it, no matter what the pay. I'm wondering how old this teacher is.
Write a letter of complaint to the Board of Education, stating the above and ask them what this has to do with English instruction.
She's not a morals counselor, she's supposed to be a teacher of English.
Maybe the ACLU would be interested. You never know. Can't hurt to ask.
It that was my kid, I'd be in the teacher's face big time.
If you go there, please include Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Obama, McCain....the list goes
You can't be selective. If you insist on putting blame for the current situation our country is in, you must put the blame on each and every person that was a part of it.
Articles of impeachment filed on Cheney sm
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), the former mayor of Cleveland who is seeking the 2008 Democratic nomination for president for the second time, introduced articles to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney Tuesday, basing his decision on Cheney's initial push to send the United States into war with Iraq.
The vice president is beating the same drums of war against Iran that he beat against Iraq under false pretenses, and he's doing it all over again, against Iran, Kucinich said. And I say that it's time to stand up to that. Our country couldn't afford this last war. We can't afford to go into another one. And somebody has to challenge the conduct of this Vice President.
See: http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/04/kucinich-takes-steps-to-impeach-cheney.html
She posted articles about the big 3 in Europe, not European car cos.....(nm)
Lots of articles on Churchill and Henry Ford and sm
Jews and communism. It doesn't matter if the pillars were made of salt (of course, history tells us that they were eventually). It matters that historically this was what Hitler built his Reich on. This is indisuptable and absolute. Henry Ford's hatred for Jews was legendary, BECAUSE of communism.
It means you're good at paraphrasing articles others
nm
Lies? What we show are facts, links, articles.
What about poor Palin? She is a human being and look at the ATTACKS on her. By the way, she is a republican and I would say Dem's are bashing. We are not bashing Obama, we try to show you articles, links from CNN who by the way supported Obama, and you state we are bashing Obama.
A very intelligent and honorable man, but the articles leans severely to the right.....sm
I tipped over twice reading it. I am not trying to be mean or facetious, I think sometimes people feel so strongly in their beliefs,and I agree with many of his beliefs, that they comes get "tunnel vision", they lose their peripheral vision for that part of humanity that has been good and honest, but has been dealt some very bad, unfair blows and needs help. In my own heart and opinion, there is a difference between radical, fundamentalist Muslims, and mainstream, peaceful, truly religions Muslims, and have have met and worked with many with lovely families. Basically, the author seems to want to cling onto an idealistic life where everything is fair, the good guys always win, and there is only black and white. Well, there are lots of shades of gray in between, and like it or not (and I grew up in the Beaver Cleaver generation), the earth has moved on, time has moved on, and we have to deal effectively with WHAT IS. Yup, I am tired too, especially since my husband and I both have health issues, we certainly aren't kids anymore, and retirement is looking more and more like a pipe dream, even though we invested, sacrificed, and saved. But whining or wishing will not solve anything, as Americans we are famous for pulling ourselves up by the bootstraps and getting the job done, and our job now is to work together, search out viable answers, care for each other, and pull through this depression INTACT AND WHOLE. Off my ratty soapbox now!
Original pledge by forefathers didn't include God. I agree with keeping the original.
http://www.usflag.org/history/pledgeofallegiance.html
The original Pledge of Allegiance
I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands- one nation indivisible-with liberty and justice for all.
On September 8,1892, the Boston based The Youth's Companion magazine published a few words for students to repeat on Columbus Day that year. Written by Francis Bellamy,the circulation manager and native of Rome, New York, and reprinted on thousands of leaflets, was sent out to public schools across the country. On October 12, 1892, the quadricentennial of Columbus' arrival, more than 12 million children recited the Pledge of Allegiance, thus beginning a required school-day ritual.
At the first National Flag Conference in Washington D.C., on June14, 1923, a change was made. For clarity, the words the Flag of the United States replaced my flag. In the following years various other changes were suggested but were never formally adopted.
It was not until 1942 that Congress officially recognized the Pledge of Allegiance. One year later, in June 1943, the Supreme Court ruled that school children could not be forced to recite it. In fact,today only half of our fifty states have laws that encourage the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in the classroom!
In June of 1954 an amendment was made to add the words under God. Then-President Dwight D. Eisenhower said In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war.
Excuse me.....
How can it be easy enough to prove with ISP numbers if the ISP numbers are not available? Yes, I may be blowing this out of proportion but you seem to be contradicting yourself and your posts, as well as some others did raise the specter (sp?) of this being a nonsecure website.
I do know such outings' with a lot more info that just ISP numbers have occurred on other political forums, i.e., proteswarrior.com (although I am bracing myself right now for the retaliation this mention will bring from right-wingers).
Golly, I kind of feel like this forum is in the midst of being hijacked by the conservative in-your-face folks somewhat.
Excuse me, but I'm AO.
You are careless. Even a small brain like mine can see there are major differences in gt and ao's writing styles. Check it out. Besides, we don't even live in the same part of the country. I'm sure the administrator can verify that for you if it makes an important difference in your life.
Also, AO is not Another Observer, in case that was your next accusation. See, there's more than one of us out here.
Excuse me but it should have said *did not*
Geesh, I forgot that this forum doesn't like apostrophes. Do you ever make a mistake? I don't make fun of people's typos, but evidently because you can't stick to the subject or respond directly to my post without calling names it's just a rabbit trail to discredit me. You know, whatever, you've proven that you're not worth my time.
See ya...
Excuse me, but it's a law. sm
She was asked to comply by the police and she IGNORED THEM. She is not above the law. None of us are. Everyone should be concerned about this behavior. Bush had nothing to do with it! My gosh, the things you say.
Excuse me.
If you don't want my opinions then don't read them. It's that simple.
Sorry I dared to enter your high and mighty world. I'll leave you to your hate.
Excuse me, but yes you did. sm
I usually don't post here, but here is what you said below. You have posted on our board, so I am posting here. By the way, your temper tantrums and attacks are not doing anyone any favors. Not an attack but an observation. Here is what you said below.
*The neocons, of course, can't have this, so they send our threads to people like you to crash the liberal board, utilizing their very own name calling and intimidation tactics. They never gave a hoot about Israel in the past, but suddenly they see Israel as their new best friend. They're winking at God and saying, See? We're on Israel's side now and won't be one of the groups against Israel, so bring on the Rapture. We've secured our place with God. The Rapture Index has indicated it's fasten your seatbelt time and they can't wait.*
As far as for the rest of what you have said, most of us have always been on Israel's side. You are showing how really and truly uninformed you are by statements like this.
Excuse me.....
the first settlers were not slave owners and came here for religious freedom. The founding fathers were deeply seated in Christianity. The country WAS founded on those principles. However, others came who did not ascribe to those principles, just as there are those who do not ascribe to those principles now. May I also remind you that slavery was introduced here by Dutch traders who bought slaves in Africa and brought them to America...much later. And who sold those slaves to Dutch traders? I believe it was other Africans, who enslaved and sold their own people. The original colonists at first got along with the Indians. It was much later, in the plains, where the near annihilation as you call it occurred. All during that time were present the Christian missionaries who tried to intervene, were often killed for it, by whites and Indians alike. I am Choctaw, I am descended from the indigenous peoples. Indians also killed and enslaved one another. It is not an *American* invention. And...who said I was painting anything as *rosy?* My point was, and still is, and is borne out daily, that the further you travel from Christian principles the more acceptable killing, slavery, and all other ill of the world becomes. Turning the blind eye so to speak. And it is generalizations like you state above, that the entire country is responsible for what a few did...it is that kind of mindset, like the other poster who thinks *Republicans* need to be destroyed. That kind of generalization is dangerous. Blaming an entire country, an entire group of people, for what a few do is not realistic. Not everyone in the country condoned everything. All through history you will see Christians spoke out against slavery, spoke out against what was happening with the Indians, spoke out against segregation, spoke out against abortion, and on and on and on. Perhap I should stop saying *this country* and say *the people in it.* *This country* was founded on Christian principles, and for a long time for the most part most of the people in it followed those principles. As time went on, fewer did. And somehow, the tide has completely turned and Christians are the enemy. But, I do stand corrected. America, the concept of America, has not chnaged. But the people in it most certainly have.
Excuse me again...
See my responses below.
You said: You need to read up on your history of this country.
I say: Right back at you. And you need to look deeply into books published 100 years ago as well as ones published in this century so you get the whole picture.
You said: Why does it matter what the origins of slavery were? The fact is, most of the founding fathers either owned slaves or families' had owned slaves. Washington owned hundreds of slaves, although he freed them as part of his will upon his death.
I say: I never said the founding fathers did not hold slaves. Re-read my post. I said that the original colonists did not hold slaves, and they did not. Jamestown was settled in 1607...slaves were introduced to this country around 1640, several years later. That is the truth and that is what I said. What matters about the origins of slavery is you want to condemn this country for holding slaves. I don't see you railing against Africa for starting the slave trade...if no slaves to sell, none would be bought. If you are going to rail against something, rail at the source. That is like blaming the school child for taking the drugs the dealer sold him.
You said: What do you mean, slavery came much later. Later than what?
I say: See my answer above.
You said: This country still condoned slavery for 100 years.
I say: Please do not say *this country condoned* because this country as a whole did NOT *condone.* Huge numbers of people did not own slaves. You know that. Only the more well to do folks could afford it. And through the years several thousand people did speak out about it and did what they could, and in case it escaped your attention, we finally fought a civil war in which one of the principles was to abolish slavery.
You sid:
As far as the founding fathers and our rights we protect here's some info:
It's important to differentiate the Constitution that the Founding Fathers cooked up from the Bill of Rights. Today when we think of the protections of the American system, we usually think of the shining example of ethics and goodness contained in the Bill of Rights. These are the first ten amendments to the Constitution. They are primarily the work of George Mason (1725-1792). He would have been a Founding Father because he was a delegate to the convention from Virginia, but he refused to sign the Constitution. He realized that it failed to protect individual liberties and failed to oppose slavery.
I say:
Excuse me, yet again, but isn't this the same George Mason who himself held slaves? Yes, he did. What he did was speak out about the slave trade, but he did not give up the slaves he already had. Don't know if he released them upon his death or not, like Washington did. He was holding slaves at the time he was criticizing the practice. Pardon me if I do not see that as the height of hypocrisy. And you are wrong,because the Constitution did not address slavery is NOT one of the reasons he did not sign it. You are correct that he did not sign it because he did not feel it addressed individual freedoms; but, in fact, he spoke OUT against including mention of slavery in the Constitution (probably because he owned slaves himself). Get your facts straight.
I can find no mention at all of the founding fathers lobbying against the Bill of Rights. Please supply me with the historical references.
You said: Mr. Mason lobbied against adoption of the Constitution just as many of the Founding Fathers lobbied against the Bill of Rights. Most of the Founding Fathers disapproved of giving ordinary citizens such liberties as freedom of religion, freedom from unreasonable search and torture, the right of free speech and so forth. In fact, when John Adams (1735-1826) was president (1797-1801), he took away freedom of speech.
I say: Well, what John Adams did then is no different than what the Democrats are trying to do now in shutting down talk radio. Same song, second verse. Get after them with equal zeal, I challenge you.
You said:
The Bill of Rights is really the people's voice against the Founding Fathers; liberty against conformity.
I say:
You are very liberal with your interpretation.
_________
You said:
As far as the Native American disgrace/slaughter, all I can say is you have an interesting viewpoint that is not shared by many indigenous. Bhoo-zhoo.
I say:
It is shared by many more than you are aware. But remember my friend...we are still entitled to our opinion, whether or not it agrees with yours. Question for you: if you still hold such emnity today, hundreds of years later, what could be done about it? You cannot turn back time. Most tribes are doing very well, have their own lands, pay no federal taxes on those lands, and are among some of the more well-to-do among us. If the Nation does not share that wealth properly with the tribe, then the people should take it up with the Nation, which many of us are doing. Native Americans did not just suffer at the hands of white men. They have also suffered a great deal at the hands of their own, and that has nothing to do with this country and everything to do with human beings. There are the good and bad among us, always have been, always will be...in every culture, every population, until the end of time. And dwelling in the past does nothing to help. Learn from the past, yes; but do not dwell there.
And try to get your information from several sources. Study for yourself, research for yourself. I learned long ago that is necessary.
Excuse me....
Thou shalt not kill - there is a federal law against murder. Thou shalt not steal - there is a federal law against stealing...you will have to do better than separation of church and state. That being said, the words "separation of church and state" are not in the Constitution. It says that there shall be no state-sponsored religion. To my knowledge there is no religion called United States of America. Did that happen while I wasn't looking? Funny to me that the government can pull many laws right out of the Bible, but come to one that that doesn't suit the more liberal ones among us and they start yelling separation of church and state. Go figure.
That being said, most of the laws on the books today have "religious wacko" origins. This country was founded by "religious wackos," or was that missed in history class? Oh yes, I forgot...the more liberal among us stopped teaching that inconvenient truth. However, one can still do searches and read the original writings of the founding fathers...if one is really interested in the truth.
What would folks like in place of "religious wacko" laws? Just let everyone do whatever they want...kill you if you are annoying or a burden to them? Kill you if you are no longer wanted? Steal from you if you have something they want and can't afford to buy for themselves? America was basically a ""Christian theocracy in its infancy, meaning the basic laws all came straight from the Bible. It was also a democracy...the two are not mutually exclusive. And there it goes again, lumping Christians and any other religious group into one group of "religious wackos." Extremely divisive and unnecessary. And, it looks to me like it is not the "religious wackos" on this site who are going bananas when someone doesn't agree with them....
Excuse me?
Excuse me but I do not believe
I bashed SAHMs. I think it should be a personal decision and one should not be looked down upon if they choose to work or choose to stay home. You have no right to bash her any more than she has right to bash you for staying home. I work out of my home because my husband and I need this extra income I bring in. My sister-in-law stays home with her kids and my brother works his @ss off trying to support them and he hardly ever gets to see his kids because he is supporting his family. He wants to spend more time with them but he cannot. So why is it fair for him to never see his kids to support his family working 2 jobs? My mom stayed at home and I hardly ever saw my dad because he was working to support us. Don't you think that sucked with me never seeing my dad or was that okay because my mom was there. If my sister-in-law would get a job, my brother wouldn't have to work 2 jobs and he could see his kids more. If my mom would have worked, my dad wouldn't have had to work that OT and I would have seen him more.
It is great that you can stay at home if that is what you choose to do, but don't bash others for their choice. It isn't like SP is up and walking out of the door to never see her kids again and they do have Todd Palin, their dad, to be with them.
|
