Hey just me....I agree with you both....and one decent politician....sm

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

"The measure also contains a provision denying lawmakers the automatic cost-of-living pay increase they are due next Jan. 1."

This is one thread I can't help posting to. First, I want to say that I absolutely hate the new p.c. term "clearly." Clearly this, clearly that from news anchors, talk show hosts, you name it.

As for the comment by Michelle Obama, if she is proud of her country "for the first time" then she's running a little late in my opinion. I've been a Democrat all my life but no more. The color of the candidate's skin has nothing whatsoever to do with anything, I don't care if he is pea green with orange stripes. Obama scares the bejeezers out of me!! Read about him and listen to him and learn. I'll not be voting for him. I would not have voted for Hillary. Why? Doesn't matter if she's a woman or not. I have no respect for her. I certainly don't admire her for standing by her man.

As for McCain, his stupid comment I think speaks for itself and doesn't show a lot of intelligence. Secondly, he is too old. While I admire his military service, I think if we like the condition of our country now, we'll enjoy more of the same and worse under his leadership.

Listen to both politicians. They both want to give amnesty to illegal aliens and I am dead set against it. Reagan (and I'm no fan of his either) tried that and now we have at least twice as many to deal with as we did then. It is purely political, get the votes whereever they can.

Then there's the matter of our country being sold off to foreign investors one piece at a time and the huge national debt to China. What happens when they call in their mortgage? Will they demand, California, Texas and maybe Alaska or will they just take over the whole danged country?

As for voting in this election????? I probably will just stay home for the first time since I've been old enough to vote. We don't even have a candidate to vote for that is the lesser of the evils in my opinion. I think the last good leader we had was Harry Truman, "walk softly and carry a big stick."

who misuses taxpayer dollars whether it is for sex or whatever the reason may be. I personally feel that our government is trying to tax us to death while they continue to do nothing but spend and, IMO, that is misusing taxpayer dollars as well.

If Ensign misused taxpayer dollars....nail him. If Sanford did....nail him. You seem willing to give Clinton a free pass just because he didn't penetrate Lewinsky with his own pecker. Nevermind that he lied under oath. As for Edwards, his wife was supposed to have been dying from cancer when he diddled another woman. That is his own personal business but you can't get much lower than that.

When it comes to pubs with some of you people, they can't sneeze wrong without some of you guys picking them apart. You went after Palin because her daughter had premarital sex and got knocked up. I'm sure none of you had sex before marriage either, huh? Here we have President Obama breaking campaign promise after campaign promise and all you can say in defense is that we are getting our news only from Fox News or you instantly assume we are pubs. Not all of us are pubs and many of us get our news from many news sources and not just Fox.

Funny how Barney Frank can screw us over with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and hire a guy he was getting sexual favors from (could be the reason why Frank refuses to get dentures) and that was all fine and he still (for some God awful reason) holds the position that he has.

Top 5 Reasons it Sucks to Be Sarah Palin

Over the past week, a fresh new trove of Sarah Palin stories has been offered up to the American people, making plain, once again, that meteoric fame often comes with a hefty pricetag. In the five months since she was plucked from relative obscurity to become John McCain's running mate, Palin has resided on the very sharp blade of a double-edged sword. With her pit bull campaign role, delivering the harshest lines of attack against Barack Obama, Palin quickly became a woman that you loved, or loved to hate. Well, that hasn't changed. But a few recent developments, as magnified by the ever-present media magnifying glass, are making Palin's glass feel a little more half-empty.

1. Back taxes. From the Anchorage Daily News, comes word that Sarah Palin must pay back income taxes on upwards of $17,000 in per diem expenses (meals, lodging, etc.) that she charged to the state of Alaska while living in her own Wasilla home. No exact word on how much the Governor will have to fork over. On the bright side, the ADN article goes on to say that it seems like nobody in Alaska politics, Democrats included, really pays their taxes properly (following a national trend).

2. New enemies. The Washington Post details Palin's awkward reunion with state legislators:

A number of factors seem to have contributed to the bumpy homecoming: a residual anger among Democrats for the attack-dog role Palin assumed in the McCain campaign, lingering resentment from Republicans for the part she may have played in McCain's defeat and a suspicion crossing party lines that the concerns of Alaska, at a time of economic crisis, will now be secondary to her future in national politics.

3. Lack of privacy. Just as Hollywood movie stars, while giving interviews, often complain that they have no privacy, so too must the Palin family grapple with the simultaneous lure and repulsion of flashing cameras. This week, Bristol Palin decided she wanted to relay lots of personal details to Greta van Susteren about the birth of her son, and her feelings on how sexual abstinence is not "realistic" for teenagers. And the governor herself, interviewed by People magazine and in a new biography disclosed that she'd hid the news that she was pregnant with her son Trig from her own family until the final weeks before his birth. (Tommy has more).

4. Stimulus. She hates the stimulus bill, and will build new roads to prove it. Before President Obama signed the stimulus bill into law, Palin declared that he should veto it. Why? It contained too much wasteful spending. Well, that seems like an odd criticism given that Palin is now proposing to build a road to Nome that will cost an estimated $4 million per mile.

5. Ashley Judd and Planned Parenthood. Governor Palin is a potent symbol, and, like Hillary Clinton before her, she has become a sure fire way to raise money and attention for groups or individuals who staunchly disagree with her views. Consider the attention she has brought to the practice of aerial hunting, and the cash she continues to raise for Planned Parenthood.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/11/06/news/newsmakers/emanuel_easton.fortune/?postversion=2008110613

the Supreme Court's decision on eminent domain, either, and I also hope that guy buys Souter's property and turns it into a hotel. I love the name of the restaurant he wants to build in the hotel: Just Desserts. (I can't remember which TV show I saw that on because, contrary to those on these boards who already have me figured out, I DON'T only watch MSNBC. I actually flip back and forth between MSNBC and Fox. I'm sure it was one one of those stations, though.)

I do have a problem with partial birth abortions, based on my limited understanding of it, which is what I've heard the conservatives say about a full or nearly full-term baby being basically born and then "beaten to death" by the doctor. (From what I've discovered from some conservatives on these boards in the past few days, I take everything they say with a grain of salt and accept the possibility up front that it's an exaggerated statement devoid of critical facts.)

But if this is indeed true, then I don't know how it could be considered anything BUT murder. And I don't understand the issue regarding the health of the mother because if the mother can survive the delivery of a baby that can survive outside the womb, then the issue would seem nonexistent. (Again, I don't know that much about it.)

I also have mixed feelings about children and abortion. One the one hand, it is a surgical procedure, and if my child can't even have her ears pierced without my consent, then certainly she shouldn't be allowed to have a surgical procedure without my consent.

But what about if she's been impregnated as the result of a rape by her father or other family member? That sick stuff DOES happen in this country. What if she knows she wants an abortion? Should she be forced to have the baby? I can think of situations where she might be safer if the parents didn't know, but yet I still feel the parents have a right to know. I'm very conflicted about this particular issue and can't say I have a definite opinion. That's why I'd like to hear more on the subject from some intelligent, thoughtful, nonjudgmental people.

As far as gay marriages, I admit I get a little "twinge" at the use of the word "marriage." It might be that something deep in my gut is telling me that marriage SHOULD be between a man and a woman. After all, WE invented it and WE wrecked it. I think they should invent a new name for their unions because from what I've personally seen, gay couples seem to last for a very long time, much longer than some marriages I know. As far as whether or not they should have rights, why SHOULDN'T they? I don't recall a day during puberty when I woke up and made the decision that I was going to be straight. Likewise, I'm willing to bet that no gay person woke up and decided to be gay. I just don't understand why people are so threatened by the thought that a group might actually have RIGHTS in this country. As with abortion or stem cell research, etc., if they don't believe in it, they shouldn't PARTICIPATE IN IT. I'm neither pro-gay or anti-gay. (A quick look in the mirror, though, reminds me that I'm definitely pro-gray.

)

With all of these social issues, as you said, we will "stand in judgment with our maker." That's between us and our own personal God, and those with different religious/spiritual beliefs have no right to shove their beliefs down our throat.

I saw a post on the other board referring to when the U.S. was founded, saying that the vast majority was Christian but that others were given "the freedom to others not to believe..."

NOBODY can "give" anyone "freedom" to either believe or not to believe, and the fact that this poster thinks they can is either very stupid or very scary, and I'm not exactly sure which it is. I think this is relevant because I believe there are some conservatives out there who don't only want the law to reflect their specific narrow brand of religion, but they would LOVE to be able to control what people think and believe.

Knowing that Bush is going to appoint one (maybe two before the end of the year) new Supreme Court Justice(s) scares me because, as you said, our rights are being slowly taken away, and this man has proven by his own actions that the personal freedoms of others aren't things that he cares for much, especially freedom of speech and ideas. That's why he banned anyone who didn't agree 100% with his views from all of his "open town hall" meetings.

We also have an evangelical Senator who holds a public meeting in a search and says that liberals aren't people of faith.

First, it's freedom of speech. Next, it will be freedom of religion. What about freedom of "thought."

I wonder what their views on stem cell research would be if it was discovered that stem cell research held the key to developing a new technique to control thought processes of those who disagree with them.

However, I don't think it's because of President Bush AND his DADDY. I think George W. came into office hell bent on finishing what his daddy DIDN'T finish and only needed a reason, real or invented, to "finish" it. And I totally agree with you when you say that this was his personal agenda. I think the disconnect is that many people want him to focus on terror, but his personal agenda has always caused his focus instead to be on Iraq, and I personally am very fearful for the future of this country as a result of that.

I believe they will definitely find a way to twist it if some are found guilty. Under no circumstances will they admit that this administration could possibly do anything wrong.

It should be criminal to expose children to such hostility and insanity. It sounds like real violence could have ensued if these whackos would have been crossed in any way.

I almost feel for some of these people. A brief visit to the Conservative board left me thinking I should have worn a helmet and worn body armor. Although it's a scary place over there, it must be terrible to exist inside a body that harbors such rage and hatred every day, 24/7. I don't understand what has happened to their religion, but my Christian religion still promotes love, tolerance, respect and the principles of the Golden Rule, all attributes that seem completely foreign to them. All they do is trash others and haven't contributed one positive thing to that board.

Sometimes I think there isn't much difference between these people and the terrorists who attacked us and other countries. They both exhibit signs of mental illness, a maniacal obsession with controlling what everyone believes, and they both promote hatred, violence and intolerance in the name of their respective gods. About the only main difference I can see is that the terrorists, unfortunately, seem to be much more intelligent in their pursuit of their goals.

I had the same feeling about Roberts and I was glad to hear he had done this pro bono work.

With every day that passes, I feel less and less hope. I've never been this frightened of a politician in my entire life.

And I wonder if we had stepped it up a while back, how much of this would be going on today. The more we delay, the better they get at their "craft."

I wish we had never gone in there to begin with and think it's one of the biggest mistakes a president could have ever made. But we're there, and we can't just go in there, turn their country upside down and leave without leaving them with some semblance of normalcy. Those who said this is a quagmire were right on the money.

Anyone who has anything less than a hate Bush agenda should burn in hell as far as GT is concerned. I too don't agree with Bush 100% on everything, but that does not matter to GT. If you agree with Bush on anything you should not pass GO and go straight to hell along with Bush's Stepford wife and alcoholic daughters. Am I painting that picture correctly GT?

I am a moderate conservative, and a Republican, although I'd consider a moderate Democrat like Joe Lieberman or somebody reasonable, however, the Democrats won't nomiate anybody like that, so my vote stays Republican.

As for hand outs and hand ups... There's a big difference between somebody who is unable to work and somebody who is unwilling to work. The individual who is physically or mentally unable to work, or the hard working family who falls on hard times for whatever reason that is out of their control, those people deserve some help. Hands outs/hands up, whatever you want to call it should be viewed as a stepping stone to self sufficiency.

I feel for the innocent victims (children) of those who embrace a lifestyle of just taking free money from those of us in society who work hard, but I havn't much compassion for able bodied young people who refuse to work. If an uneducated person is working hard but not making enough to sustain themselves they can avail themselves of food stamps, WIC, free school lunches, and I don't a problem with that. But, drive through a poor neighborhood and watch the young healthy people sitting on stoops and standing on corners doing nothing all day instead of working. Whether it be pursuing their GED, or taking vocational classes, they should be at least thinking of bettering themselves instead of just resigning to a life of free hand outs.

I hear ya and yes I agree we should stay away..There are a lof of other political boards through the net, where we can discourse/debate with conservatives over ideas and America without being attacked like mad dogs (I hate to use the analogy as mad dogs as my dogs are much kinder than the conservatives who post here..smile)..

I think O'Reilly got a taste of his own medicine and was about to lose it. I roared when Phil called him Billy, and Phil in no way denigrated Bill's nephew, but Phil had asked if any of O'Reilly's kids are serving in Iraq. O'Reilly tried to use his nephew's service to detract from the fact that NONE of his own children are there. I think that's what made O'Reilly the angriest: The fact that Phil zapped him on that point.

And now that Libby (yuck! I should change my moniker) and Rove are both implicated in the Plame scandal, it will be interesting to see what Fitzgerald's findings are, and they should be coming soon.

I also agree about Cheney. He's very scary. There is definitely a very shrewd, conniving network at work in this administration, and Bush simply isn't bright enough to do this on his own. And there are no standards of decency left on any level in this administration, which is incredible for the CONs, considering all they ever babble about is their superior *decency*. For example, they blatantly lie without blinking an eye, as do some of their more dedicated followers. If anyone dares to disagree with this president, the response it to DESTROY the opponent (not unlike what happens on these boards, only to a more dangerous degree, such as exposing Valerie Plame, for example). Nothing is out of bounds any more.