Here's your answer, 1st paragraph, 2nd line.
Posted By: jj on 2009-01-14
In Reply to: The big O is a superficial cheeseball! If this truly was a ltr from - Lu
...Parade Magazine ASKED the President-elect, who is also a devoted family man, to get personal and tell us what he wants for his children.
He didn't take out an ad in the newspaper. He simply answered a simple question posed to him by a reporter on assignment. If you had taken the time to read more carefully and weren't in such a hurry to slam the man, you might have noticed that.
There was nothing superficial about his response. In fact, the only superficial thing around here is your post.
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
last line of Matthews piece cut off in error. 1 line sm
complained in a letter to his boss that Matthews had shown a pattern of sexism.
Actually, I answered your posts line by line
about not "allowing" you to have an opinion. Those are your words, not mine. This is a good example of how this discussion has escalated from a simple link to this utter squashed bug nonsense. Why are you not able to simply debate the original issue at hand...the Eric Holder appointment? Too much of an intellectual challenge when somebody presents a THIRD-PARTY alternative viewpoint? You are the one who mentioned losing sleep and I remarked that it was probably unnecessary since you were blowing something out of proportion....something you have been doing all afternoon. You takes things WAY too personally.
The last paragraph of
this article is just tooooooo good. I would LOVE to see the Bush supporters actually really "go to Iraq," and for free!!!!
|
Sacrifice? Count Me Out
If You Supported the War, Pay For It
|
by Ted Rall |
|
If America is truly on a war footing," Thom Shanker asks in the New York Times, "why is so little sacrifice asked of the nation at large?" Military recruiters are coming up short of volunteers, yet neither party is pushing for a draft. No one is proposing a tax increase to cover the $60 billion annual cost of the Iraq and Afghan wars. There are no World War II-style war bond drives, no victory gardens, not even gas rationing. Back here in the fatherland, only "support our troops" car ribbons indicate that we're at war--and they aren't even bumper stickers, they're magnetic. Apparently Americans aren't even willing to sacrifice the finish on their automobiles to promote the cause.
"Nobody in America is asked to sacrifice, except us," the paper quotes an officer who just returned from a year in rose-petal-paved Iraq. "[Symbolic signs of support are] just not enough," grumbles a brigadier general. "There has to be more," he demands. "The absence of a call for broader national sacrifice in a time of war has become a near constant topic of discussion among officers and enlisted personnel," the general claims.
Northwestern University professor Charles Moskos says: "The political leaders are afraid to ask the public for any real sacrifice, which doesn't speak too highly of the citizenry."
To which I say: Screw that. It's not my duty to suffer for this pointless war. I've been against it all along, and you can stick your victory garden where the desert sun can't penetrate.
I was among hundreds of thousands of Americans who marched against invading Iraq in early 2003. Tens of millions cheered us on. The largest mass protest movement in history (so designated by the Guinness Book of World Records) brought together pacifists, humanists and people like me. We knew Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. We didn't believe that the same White House that propped up dictatorships in Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Egypt, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia--that had, when it suited them, supported Saddam--could possibly be interested in liberating the people of Iraq. When we scrutinized coverage of the CIA's prewar analyses, we found that there wasn't any. There were only reports dating back to 1998, ancient history in the intelligence business. We absolutely didn't trust Dick "cakewalk" Cheney's breezy predictions.
Bush and Cheney ignored our concerns. Instead of building a solid case and bipartisan political consensus, they bullied and lied to Congress and the UN to scam us into this unwinnable war. Who can blame them? They work for ExxonMobil and Halliburton, not the American people. But they, not us, broke Iraq. It can't be fixed, it's not our fault and it's not our problem. There's no reason to relinquish our creature comforts to back their grubby little oil grab.
The most galling aspect of this fiasco is that it was entirely predictable. I know; I predicted it. Here's my column written back in July 2002:
"Most experts expect Iraq to disintegrate into civil war after an overthrow of Saddam's oppressive Ba'ath Party," I wrote. "Opinion of the United States is now at an all-time low among Muslims around the world. Going after Iraq will make matters worse. Why give radical anti-American Islamists even more political ammunition with which to recruit suicide bombers and attract the financial donations that fund their assaults?"
I'm no genius, but even I could see that this war was doomed eight months before the invasion:
"Do the Kurds deserve a homeland? Sure. Would Iraq be better off without Saddam? Probably. But if we're smart, we won't be the ones to blow over this particular house of cards. We have too much to lose and too little to gain in the mess that would certainly ensue."
Did I call that one or what?
David Hendrickson, a scholar at Colorado College, tells the Times: "Bush understands that the support of the public for war--especially the war in Iraq--is conditioned on demanding little of the public." Of course, Bush himself hasn't given up a second of vacation or a single donated dollar, much less one of his hard-partying daughters, to the "war effort." Sacrifice is a hard sell down here among the citizenry when we don't see it starting where it should start, among our leaders.
I'm already sacrificing too much for a war I always believed was stupid and wrong. I'm paying three dollars a gallon for buck-fifty gas and walking through gauntlets of over-armed National Guardboys at airports and bus stations. I'm in greater danger than ever before of getting blown up by a pissed-off fanatic. And I dread the giant tax hike we'll eventually need to pay off Bush's deficit. But these aren't enough sacrifices for Bush and his vainglorious generals, who are planning "a Civilian Reserve, a sort of Peace Corps for professionals. . . a program to seek commitments from bankers, lawyers, doctors, engineers, electricians, plumbers and solid-waste disposal experts to deploy to conflict zones for months at a time on reconstruction assignments, to relieve pressure on the military."
If you voted for Bush, here's your chance to plant your butt where your ridiculous car magnet is, smack dab in the middle of the Sunni Triangle. Good luck.
© 2005 Ted Rall
### |
|
Might we see the whole paragraph?
context, you know, to make a valid decision?
The last paragraph.
Now I know Emanuel is chief of staff and why obama picked him, makes sense.
I agree with the last paragraph, as well.
This is definitely a campaign against the First Amendment, and I believe Bush will do whatever he can to silence people who either disagree with him or who catch him in lies (a full-time job in and of itself).
Bob Geiger - see 2nd paragraph
The last paragraph is why I posted it.
I am not at all convinced that the issue of abortion is a liberal or conservative stance. I think it tends to be tied to conservative because of its religious roots, but even that is debatable. Women throughout history regardless of religion have been having abortions. I believe it simply to be your own belief that really should not be attached to a political process.
As war is always a political process, the comparison isn't really fair is it? and I really, really hope that you are not referring to the war on Iraq because there is just too much refuting evidence to continue to believe we were justified in invading Iraq in the guise that we were defending ourselves.
How can you be pro-choice in the voice of war knowing that the very nature of it kills more people than abortion ever could? Just the war in Iraq alone has probably killed more people than the abortions in the United States in the past 100 years.
Makes no sense to me.
Ho hum, lost me after second paragraph
x
Your last sentence of the third paragraph was just as...sm
uncalled for, I believe, and untrue.
I like this paragraph in your post....
'For the most part I will find people who live in other countries and are observing what is going on here to be a lot more credible because they do not have an agenda.'
Right, and they are more objective as they are far away from it all.
you should forward that last paragraph
to the White House where they seem to think terrorists can be rational and reasoned with and will play nice with us.
In one paragraph you have not only told me more than I ever wanted to know.
You have outlined and described in perfect detail the problem with why your arguments can never be recognized as anything but dividing. Gt, believe me, this is not all about you, which it always seems to end up being about in your posts. The fact that you refuse, not fail, but refuse to accept anything, any explanation, any single example of the image you project as well as your close-minedness, is illustrated in every post that you make.
I agree with the assessment in the last paragraph.sm
They will use kiddie porn and so-called domestic terrorism to limit our use of the Internet. Everything is greatly exaggerated to induce fear, and then you will allow them to slice up more of your liberties.
Yes, and regarding that final paragraph re: Iran
Seymour Hersh has yet to get it wrong, no matter how much the King George and his men attack.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060821fa_fact
That would be great but one paragraph has me a bit leary.
"The announcement comes less than a month after the world's largest maker of microprocessors used in personal computers said it would close plants in Southeast Asia and scale back U.S. operations under a restructuring that affects as many as 6,000 employees."
What do they know? Are they afraid O is going to put extra taxes on businesses that do business overseas (which I hope), or are they being smart? Sorry if my sarcasm shows, but this will still affect 6,000 jobs in the U.S.? Why? Need to do some digging here.
The paragraph about early retirement
That's where DH is. Forced to retire because of no work (road construction). The stimulus money went to 2 cities in my state. The rest of the state got nothing towards road construction or very little.
We didn't get last year's stimulus check because we owed taxes and they put the money towards that. Now he's getting screwed out of the $250 because he wasn't retired when this happened. Never fails.
Remember that cartoon of the guy always under the grey cloud? That's us. 
Your last paragraph is absolutely correct.
The UN is definitely weak. It could be because of some of the countries that belong to it have the same ideas as Iran and NK.
I wonder when the UN is going to pay up on their lease for the NY building they occupy. Probably never because they think they are above reproach.
Once again you wasted a whole paragraph telling me how stupid I am SM
without a SINGLE FACT! I give up with you. You are just too much (or too little). Whateva!
Your 2nd paragraph is complete and utter nonsense. sm
You wrote: 'Besides, a lot of atheists who try to disprove that God ever existed will usually come to the conclusion that there is too much evidence to prove that He does exist. It usually scares the you know what out of them and they become converts.'
And you know this how? I would say show me the evidence to back up this ridiculous claim, but I already know you have none. It's your opinion/religious propaganda, and it's blantantly false. You also have it backwards. You're implying people start out being athiest, then convert to religion. It's the other way around, when religious or secular people start questioning all the improbable/impossible things the bible is overflowing with, in addition to all of its inconsistenties and outright contradictions.
Forgive me if I doubt that you're an expert on athiests, and forgive me if I doubt your critical thinking skills, because religion frowns upon that - you're not supposed to question god or think for yourself, just obey his commands, or should I say, various human interpretations of his commands...
If there was indeed
'too much evidence to prove that He does exist' then everyone would believe in him. How could anyone deny it? They couldn't. But that's just it, there is no evidence to prove it, whereas there actually IS scientific evidence to the contrary, that you apparently are unaware of or haven't investigated.
Instead, you're willing to believe something based only on 'faith.' In every other area of your life where you'd want or even *demand* facts, proof, or concrete evidence before believing something so important, with religion (some) people are all too willing to blindly accept it on faith.
BTW, an athiest doesn't have to DISprove god (you can't prove a negative, anyway), you have to prove that he *does* exist, and you can't. And wouldn't you think if he really existed, he would prove it to the entire world's satisfaction anyway and put an end to the debate and all the relious wars, conflict, genocide, misery, suffering, etc? He'd rather we kill each over it? I think not. It makes no sense.
You also wrote: 'You can say all you want, but you just can't argue with a completely changed life'
Yes, I can argue it. You changed your life because *you* wanted to change it. You! Not some mystical, magical, invisible being in the sky who cares about your every thought and action. People change their lives for the better every day, without religion. IMO, if you hadn't found religion, you would've kept looking until you found something else that worked for you, and it probably would've been a lot healthier than the brainwashing, closed-minded, divisive phenomenon that is religion.
a spokesman for M/P issued the last paragraph so not sure how reliable
that would be. Odd how they added it at the end but did not say if it was a fact. It was supposed to be an investigative article. There is no way of knowing if that is fact, it is only what the McCain people say is true.
Cannot trust anyone it seems.
oops - one paragraph made NO sense of mine..sm
That's not to say that they are not entitled to feel what they feel and they are entitled to their opinions/voice..even though I just reread my post and it could be interpreted that way (and sorry for that) -
(above is the corrected paragraph - sorry *lol*)
This paragraph is in my post...I guess you forgot to read it...nm
Actualy, my cut-and-past job didn't miss the first paragraph
but appreciate your selective reading. Nice name, BTW.
why do you answer so stupidly, the right answer
if you had any brains, would have been......
'well, she made a mistake.'
But telling me that I need a job, is so stupid, yes, stupid AND a very weak point.
Don't you get it? SP 1st in line. JM=72.
nm
That is really out of line and
comparing Obama to Hitler? Talk about paranoid. There is nothing to suggest Obama is Marxist or Nazi. This is all hate and pot stirring rhetoric. Boy some people just operate on fear and are sour grapes that the majority of the people have spoken and Obama was chosen.
You really should come up with a better line.
No such thing as Bush juice. But I wouldn't expect less from someone on the kool-aid.
That's the only line you took from the speech...sm
But you think Bush who admits that he did drugs - obviously inhaled or sniffed, and was an alcoholic is a living testimony of credibility. Is there a double standard here?
Newsweek on-line
nm
Oh geez. The least you could do is get a new line...
you asked me that same question under a different moniker not long ago. At least get some new material. Geez! And as far as emailing you...not in this lifetime. I did that once...once burned, many time shy. You guys can get pretty hateful on this board, but a sailor could take lessons from you when you are uncensored...LOL Had enough of potty-mail all-tolerant liberals to last me a lifetime. And anybody knows you can have more than one email going to the same place. Geez. Get a new schtick. This one is oldddd.
The bottom line is....
from 1870 to the 1960's the majority of elected Democrats in Congress, with the help of a small minority of southern Republicans, effectively denied African Americans the right to vote for 90 years FOLLOWING the civil war. If you are saying that seeking their freedom and giving them the right to vote is a "liberal" movement, then it was the Republicans in majority, not the Democrats in majority, who were the "liberals" of that time.
In my mind, we are all tied up in semantics. The passion and commitment to something that to each of us is morally right is not liberal nor conservative. It is a human characteristic. None of us, I suppose, are truly liberal or truly conservative. It is a mixture. Some "liberals" agree with me that abortion is morally wrong and are against it for that reason, yet still consider themselves liberals. Some "conservatives" (such as Guiliani) do not agree on abortion and are pro choice, yet still call themselves conservative. I made a comment on the conservative board regarding the fires in California and was accused of sounding like a "bleeding heart liberal." So, in essence, over time people have identified certain characteristics and tried to put them in a liberal or a conservative box. And because we are human, and because we are different and have different ideas, we do not fit into boxes and ideas cross over. Hence, no true liberals or true conservatives....and that fact does not bother me at all, though it does bother some.
It is just that some of us love the labels more than others, I guess; the labels make them feel good, like they are affiliated with something noble...and what the labels mean to us individually, and some get very angry if someone questions the label.
I guess my prefrence is not to be labeled.
And that is what it is...a label, in the grand scheme of things. Because no one can really agree on what it means. Everyone puts their own personal spin on it. That is the nature of the human condition.
The last line of your post is....
So, the "God is telling me I need to fight for all unborn fetuses" is a religious issue and should be there. Tired of seeing line after line after line of religious opinions on the political board.
You also said this: If your trying to make an argument with the "I'm fighting for all the unborn fetus'" and God is telling you this, blah, blah, blah, that's all great but it should be on the "Faith" board.
I never said anything remotely like that. To suggest I did is not true. TO use your own words, I take offense to someone who makes judgments about me without knowing me. You can make judgments about me, but no way should I make any about you?
Generally when something is not true it is a lie. I did not directly call you a liar. However, I apologize for any inference if there was any. How's this? What you said is not true. I never said God told me to do anything. I never said religion was my motivator. You made assumptions about me and you don't know me.
It is not hard to read posts on abortion at all, in caps or not. Just don't click to open it.
You and the others have made your point ad nauseam about how tired you are of it. I am tired of being told what I can post and what I can't, just as tired as you are of seeing abortion threads. And none of the threads would be near as long as they are if "they" ( I won't include you since you say you are not one of them) didn't pile on and bash me. It would just beone lone post. And believe me, as tired as you are of seeing abortion posts I am tired of the endless bashing that goes with them.
Yes, I said if it chaps you so be it, and it obviously does. You are basically saying the same thing to me: stop the abortion posts or take them somewhere else, and if it chaps you, so be it. Okay for you, not okay for me.
And to use your words..enough has been said about it and it is getting old.
Get a new line. That prayer cop-out
nm
Look down the line...sure are a lot from YOU..with no point
other than to bash sam. Pot callin' the kettle wouldn't you say?
Disregard name line.
nm
The name line should read
continue with body of original post.
Bottom line
Obama is going to win, that's what counts.
He must do something right, if the majority wants Barrack Obama.
bottom line...
After the attack of 9/11 something HAD TO BE DONE.
What other options were there?
Doing nothing was sure not an option.
Why is it out of line to say things about
O, yet for years Bush has had some horrible things said about him, Palin was maligned, etc ( I know, I know, you're going to respond by saying the things about Bush and Palin are true..beat ya to it). We have this thing called Free Speech, a wonderful thing, the beauty of the United States. And please don't pull the "racist" card out either, it doesn't fly. This PC, touchy-feely, give peace a chance. can't we all just get along business is grating on the nerves.
That is really out line and distasteful
Very disrespectful to her as a person. I am not going to read your posts anymore because you dont write what I like.
I do not make as much as many per line
but I make a decent amount of money, especially to stay at home. I hear some people whining about how they cannot get more than 10 cpl and think that there might not be so much out sourcing if these folks might be willing to work for less. However, I might take a pay cut if I had to in order to keep my job. It would sure beat forcing my company under and having no pay at all.
Those one-line wonders are just too
are so direct and to the point. Most of us don't have time to write volumes here like some folks! Besides, the questions, or statements, are so simple-minded, it only takes one line to respond.
And then STAND IN LINE for your
You sound awful happy about old Barry. Another welfare millionare in the making, methinks.
That IS the bottom line...
That's the only reason it is being offshored. It has nothing to do with "free trade" and everything to do with corporate greed.
He can say whatever he wants about "line by line" but...sm
O can go through every budget bill, addendum, omnibus, whatever you want to call it line by line. However, until he gets the power of "line item veto, he can take out whatever he wants when he wants, he can veto all he wants until the cows come home. However,
the congress can, by a 2/3 majority, over ride his veto. And guess what??? Pork is still king and earmarks and lobbiests still reign supreme.
Line item veto power is goingto be harder to come by than a choice of a viable 3rd party. But that is JMO.
You obviously just read one line in
my post. I said it cannot be done correctly if it is rushed. They are trying to rush this because it is such a controversial thing. We cannot afford it right now without taxing people more. This is something that needs to be looked at very carefully with the kinks worked out before they go on passing it. Things that are rushed often have a lot of flaws.
The bottom line is....(sm)
Torture does not provide reliable confessions.
Torture has not and will not "save American lives." If it has done anything, it has put more lives at risk.
Waterboarding was used in WWII against US personell by the Japanese. We prosecuted those who used torture and executed them. Why? Because it was against the law. And what did the Japanese get for their efforts with torturing? False information and a bad reputation. What makes you think we'll get anything different from that?
The only thing torture is good for is revenge. That's not what this country is about, and its not what I'm about.
Sp be it, but your line of reasoning is skewed
What if a sex offender was running loose in your neighborhood. What if he had raped a child 10 years ago, went to jail with a slap on the wrist (like what happens these days), and got out in ten years. He shows up in your neighborhood, and you see him out on his porch everyday when the school bus arrives and leaves. Not only is he leering at the school kids he's making outrageous comments on a daily basis. Would you say, *Oh, he went to prison. He did his time. Hopefully, he's rehabilited. Yes, he's a little strange and outrageous, but so far, as far as we know, he's not touched a kid again so we need to leave him alone.*
Would you trust this guy? Especially if you then found out he has a *rape room* in his house? What if his sons were running around the neighborhood reeking havoc and doing the same things but in a more merciless way and you found out they were going to inherit his house when he died?
Well, this correlates very well with Saddam. Almost too closely in fact. Like many of you say here on a daily basis, the world is our neighborhood, and in many neighborhoods there are bullies, and they don't quit being bullies until you take them out. It's just the way the world works.
If they had pulled him from a picket line that would be different...sm
He was arrested for wearing a Veterans for Peace T-shirt.
I come from a long line of military. sm
And none of them feel that way. To each his own.
|
