How I hate to disagree with my fellow....
Posted By: piglet on 2007-10-24
In Reply to: No confidence vote - Liberal Democrat
But that is just nonsense. It would do nothing but create anarchy and keep the government so busy rotating presidents in and out of office, that absolutely nothing would get done. I will agree with you that the Bush presidency is one of the worst and that we will be seeing the ramifications of it in the many, many years to come and I am just hoping that he can keep things on an even keel until his term is over. But a no convidence vote? Never.
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
Much as I hate to disagree....
The bailout panic - including AIG - all started with Bush, although it has been made many times worse by Obama. We can even thank McCain and other prominent Republicans for playing into this whole mess.
Both administrations and members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have screwed this up - either because they had political interests of their own or simply got caught up in the madness.
Either way, it's time for term limits for Congress. Way past time, in fact. I wouldn't mind if we threw all of the incumbents out of office the next chance we get, even though I know that a few of them might have done the right thing. We must destroy the power structure that has taken over Washington, and which is NO BETTER, NO MORE ACCOUNTABLE, and NO LESS CORRUPT under Obama than it was under Bush, and indeed has been for quite some time.
As hard as it is for us to do, it is time for the American people to take stock of our government and to acknowledge that power and privilege have hijacked the political process. Indeed, we have now created for ourselves precisely the sort of "ruling class" in Washington that our founding fathers swore would never take over this country the way they had taken over England. We might not have "lords and dukes", but we have "representatives and senators".
As proud as I am of our country's form of government, and of the ideals that it is supposed to represent, I am deeply ashamed over what it has actually become. It is now some years since one of our allies circulated an internal intelligence memo containing this sentence: "The American Senate is for sale." It has only grown worse since that memo was published.
Fellow Arkie
I know where that is! We used to shop in Fort Smith when I was little. From Mena, now south Arkansas. Your part of the country is beautiful. Where the Ouachitas meet the Ozarks! 
To my fellow Americans.....
we are all screwed. I don't think any one in government has a clue what is the right thing to do and the ones who do won't say anything as it might go against their party and who would want to do that. If one party has a good idea, the other party refuses to vote for it because it wasn't their party and let's face it.....neither party wants the other one to look good. Government is going to stick it to us again so we might as well be prepared and get the vaseline out for a little bit of lube.
Hello there fellow vegan
Okay, have to admit I'm not total vegan but am trying. I love beans too. We eats tons of black beans, garbanzo's, and some navy beans and lately been on a homemade split pea soup kick. I do love beans, less meat (we stick to mainly chicken and ham. Although I still won't eat a fava bean (mainly because they said it was like a lima bean and lima beans are repulsive to me).
Is that what they laughed about. I had forgotten.
So am trying here to be more vegan myself. There are certain veggies I just cannot get enough of (brussel sprouts for one).
If you have or know of any good recipes or websites of how to transition more veggie I'd love to hear from you. More than welcome to send me an email.
Thanks and let me know how you like the fava beans.
As I pointed out before...that fellow is not entirely honest either...
and Bush did not lie. While the bill does not explicitly state it will cover families to $83,000, it opens a loophole that will allow New York to again ask for the $82,600 raise and under the new bill would probably get it, because the stipulation preventing it was being removed. So basically what Bush said is true...he should have worded it differently.
Here are some things that were not brought forward that are also bad things about the bill:
Bush had good reason to veto SCHIP
By Grace-Marie Turner
Article Launched: 10/14/2007 01:33:38 AM PDT
Is President Bush a liar who hates children? That's what many of his critics now are asking in the opinion pages of major newspapers across the country. Why else, they say, would he refuse to sign a bill providing health insurance to poor kids?
Specifically, the president has vetoed a bill expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program designed to provide health coverage to lower-income children. One nationally syndicated columnist went so far as to call Bush's rationale in vetoing the bill a "pack of flat-out lies."
This kind of rhetoric is wrong and misleads readers about the facts of this important issue.
There is no debate over whether to reauthorize the SCHIP program so it can continue to provide insurance to needy children. That's a given. The debate is about whether children in middle-income families should be added.
The president is absolutely right in insisting that SCHIP focus on its core mission of needy children. When SCHIP was created in 1997, the target population was children whose parents earned too much for them to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford private insurance. The president wants the program to focus on children whose families earn less than 200 percent of the federal poverty level. In today's dollars, that's $41,300 a year.
About two-thirds of the nation's uninsured children already are eligible for either Medicaid or SCHIP, but aren't enrolled. Raising the income threshold won't solve this core problem. Congress should require states to focus on the 689,000 children whom the Urban Institute says are uninsured and would be eligible for SCHIP if eligibility were limited to the $41,300 income level.
The other big problem is that, across the country, states are using SCHIP dollars to insure adults.
Fourteen states cover adults through SCHIP, and at least six of them are spending more of their SCHIP dollars on adults than on children. For example, 78 percent of SCHIP enrollees in Minnesota are adults, 79 percent in New Mexico, and 72 percent in Michigan.
With these statistics in mind, the Bush administration issued a ruling in August requiring states to demonstrate that they had enrolled 95 percent of eligible needy children before expanding the program.
Yet the bill that Congress passed, and which the president vetoed, nullifies that ruling and effectively refuses to agree that needy kids should get first preference. Instead, the congressional measure would give $60 billion to the states over five years to enroll millions more "children" - although many of them will, in fact, be adults. Others will be from higher-income families.
New York, for instance, could submit a plan that would add children in families earning up to $83,000 a year to SCHIP. New Jersey could continue to cover kids whose parents make up to $72,000. All the other states would be allowed to cover kids in families with incomes up to $61,000.
Most children in these higher income families are already covered by private insurance. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 77 percent of children in families earning more than twice the poverty line have private health insurance now.
No one doubts that SCHIP is a vitally important program for needy children, and that our nation needs to do a better job of helping working families afford health insurance. But giving the states incentives to add middle-income kids to their SCHIP rolls will prompt families to replace private insurance with taxpayer-provided coverage.
This is completely backward. The goal of SCHIP should be to provide private coverage to uninsured children. If Congress would send the president a bill that does that, he says he would sign it in a minute.
Not a fellow liberal, just a few things to say...
the National Right to Life Committee is not a religious organization. This from Wikipedia: The National Right to Life Committee is the largest right to life/pro-life organization in the United States with affiliates in all 50 states and over 3,000 local chapters nationwide. The group works through legislation and education to work against abortion, infanticide, euthanasia and assisted suicide. It was founded in Detroit in 1973 in response to the Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade which legalized the practice of abortion in all fifty states. It a non-sectarian, non-partisan group whose founding members included leaders in fields of science, religion, law, ethics and medicine. Its board consist of an elected representative from each of the 50 states and several at-large board members.
It might surprise you to know, there are Democrats, and there are liberals, who are not pro choice. There are Republicans who are pro choice. It is not a political issue. It is a deeply moral, deeply personal issue. In my case, it is tied to my belief in God (not my God, He is everyone's God). Perhaps not so in others. Those who do not have God in their lives, I do not expect them to understand where I am coming from, and I am not trying to force anything down anyone's throat. That is MY personal conviction. In others, perhaps it is tied to their own sense of morality and what to them is right and wrong. That is our right, just as your stand is yours.
I would counter what you say by saying how could you stand up with such strong conviction for the less fortunate, the sick, for all living things EXCEPT the unborn, the most innocent of all? And the helpless? Piglet...who in this world is MORE helpless, more utterly defenseless than an unborn child? Who?
If you have the benevolence to stand up for all the others you mention, why does that not extend to the unborn? Why are they excluded?
How is it different for a woman to deem an unborn child inconvenient and decide to kill it before it is born or partially born, and that is fine, yet let that child be born and she smother it the next day and you would be outraged, or at least I hope you would. How is that right in even a most twisted sense? The plain and simple fact is it is still a dead baby who was murdered. I realize that terms like "Murder" and "Chopped up like salad in a blender" are terms that make people uncomfortable. And well they should. Because that is the stark reality of abortion, choice or not.
In this day and time, in all but the most extreme circumstances (rape, incest, possible death of mother), there are ways to prevent an inconvenient pregnancy. If we stopped performing abortions except in those extreme cases, that would stop 90%, of not more, of all abortions.
REASONS FOR ABORTIONS: COMPILED ESTIMATES
rape 0.3 % (0.1-0.6 %)
incest 0.03 % (<0.1 %)
physical life of mother 0.2 % (0.1-0.3 %)
physical health of mother 1.0 % (0.1-3 %)
fetal health 0.5 % (0.1-1.0 %)
mental health of mother depends on definition
"personal choice"
--too young/immature/not ready for responsibility
--economic
--to avoid adjusting life
--mother single or in poor relationship
--enough children already 98% (78-99 %)
Not sure where you are going with the deciding how we die thing...unless you are talking about assisted suicide/euthanasia? That slippery slope may lead somewhere you don't want to go...when that decision is taken away from you and given to someone else, to whom you have become inconvenient and a bother and it would be in their best interest that you be dead. Think about that very carefully. And before you say "Oh that would never happen" I am sure that people who made the same comment about abortion never thought it would be legal or commonplace either. The Terri Schiavo case...I just think it would behoove anyone to think very carefully about that particular snowball and do they really want to start it down the hill.
Looking out for your fellow Americans, how noble sm
Did you figure out how to spell McCain yet?
Wouldn't you want your fellow supporters to think for
;?/
LOL...Kind of like saying *my fellow prisoners*..
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.
I am concerned for my fellow democrats on this post
Is there possibly anything else you can discuss or raise cane about other than Bush? To say that Bush started the fires in California is just beyond the scope of common sense.
I am not a Bush supporter, never was, never will be....however, not all the ills in the world or in our own country can be blamed on him alone.
I am most astounded by some of these postings, as they don't seem to make much sense and make you sound much less intelligent than I am sure you are.
Blame the people who elected him and blame Congress for not pursuing further investigation, but to keep rehashing it is blarney.
Are you calling your fellow pubs ignorant?:
x
I think Palin IS a scare tactic. She & her fellow
believe in FREEDOM.
Freedom of Speech.
Freedom of/from Religion.
Freedom of Association.
Pursuit of Happiness.
Marching in lock-step with America's religious Nazis somehow just doesn't fit with what our forefathers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution.
You're really worried about your fellow citizens?
because if that were the case, you would be asking him why he continues to let illegals and overseas workers with visas into this country to take those very jobs they report are gone.
You don't know any of this is going on because you don't pay attention to anything unless Obama has said it. If he doesn't tell you illegals are taking these jobs, then you'll just pretend they are not. Sorry you don't feel illegals taking our jobs to the tune of 1.5 million right now isn't MORE important than spending more of your money.
Ever stop to think if they didn't have the jobs, Americans would?
Nope....she just stated she was here to post issues for her fellow liberals...
(or he, whichever the case may be), and I just mentioned I had not seen any issues posted. Are YOU the posting police?
And what facts to post....I hope you are really proud of your fellow posters...
right now.
And I still disagree. We shall agree to disagree. But....
welome to the board! A new voice is welcome, whichever side the voice decides to fall. :)
English not so good. Sad for you. So much hate. Life too short hate.
x
Oh I see....you hate small town folks, you hate Christians...
and you hate the military...you are also coming into real clear view.
Sheesh, you not only hate Bush, you hate PEOPLE!
x
They don't hate us because we are free, they hate us because...
We need to stop imposing the way we live on them. They don't hate us because of our freedom. That is absurd. When have you ever heard them say we hate you because you are free? Never. What they have been saying is "Don't tell us how we should live". "Don't tell us we need to have the same type of government that America has", and they also say "We don't need the Americans designing our own countries flag" and that is why they hate us. They are their own country. It is not right for us to go in and say you need to live the way we do, your government needs to be run the way ours is. How would we like it if they came and said "Were invading America and your going to conform to the way we live because "its' the right way" or "god has told me this is the way it's suppose to be". No, we wouldn't like it one bit. Every country lives differently. We need to stop dictating how other countries should live.
Hate mongers hate everything.
x
So you not only hate gays, you also hate
.
Disagree..sm
It takes a heartless person to say that the 9-11 widows are doing this for money. WHAT MONEY??? The insurance policy? Stop kidding yourself. Losing a love one and gaining an insurance policy is not everyones object of affection. This is the same effect of a mother losing her child to a drowning and then pushing for swiming safety, or victim of a sex predator pushing for tougher sex laws.
As far as Hillary, I think she is just as outraged as anyone else should be at Ann's comments, and the fact that Ann gets media coverage to tout this stuff is just as mind numbing.
All you said about Ann I agree, plus add hatred, evil, and prejudice and you have her pegged.
disagree here also
Colter is a hatemonger, thats all. I heard every hour of AL Franken's program and he never said anything outrageous like she/it. Al Franken was quite witty and entertaining and merely give his listeners the facts that were suppressed elsewhere. He was on the story about Asian factory workers forced to have abortions by their American bosses way before other outlets were discussing it. Really!! Stop trying to pull the wool ....
I would have to disagree with you.
No surprise there right?
I would like to note that all social reform to take place in the United States has been at the heels of a liberal movement. From our breaking off with Britain in the mid 1700s, to civil war in the mid 1800s, and the liberal movement of the mid 1960s. Liberalism as a belief has moved from Republican to Democrat and back again more than once. Taking your stance on pro-life and moving it to the time of mid 1800s would put you for all intents and purposes under the Democratic wing.
As the saying goes, complacency breeds contempt, and I believe that we are now in the beginnings of another liberal movement. A little quicker than our 100 year mark, but with the speed that the world is changing, so must we.
We as a people and government have to embrace change, that is the true nature of liberalism.
Realistically, your views/postings justify the label. You may not wish it, but by just expressing them promotes it. The fact that you have never mentioned the remote possibility of voting Democrat, which at this point in our history leans toward the liberal, and only looking at the Republican party is labeling. If you did not want to be labeled or wish not to be, you wouldn't be so quick to make your conservative opinions heard.
As I frequently tell my husband, if you get too caught up in the details, you will lose the bigger picture, which usually leads me to telling him that he gets in his own way more often than not.
I disagree
First these are pics of him NOT in his uniform. True, there are some pics of him in his uniform in some of the ads, but others he is in civilian clothes. It gives me the same feeling as when I went to the health food store and spent $50 for a large can of protein powder and got got home and the can was half empty. I call it "deception". I also think by reminding us of his time in the service he is reminding us that he was a POW and he's got a grudge against people in other countries and he's going to use his position for revenge. That's what I see when I'm reminded of his uniform.
Second - his mind. No it's not a cheap shot, its the truth. Everytime he speaks he misstates himself. When talking about the countries at work he gets the different countries mixed up and has got to constantly be correct by Lieberman or others standing around him. When asked about his voting record on important issues he can't remember how he voted and he even stated so. One time he said "I can't remember how I voted on that issue". It was an important issue and I looked at my DH and said what does he mean he can't remember, how would you forget something like that. So I think the state of his mind is an important factor in whether I will vote for him.
As for Obama...I was not talking about Obama in my post. I was talking about McCain, but since you brougnt it up, sure there are things I may not like about him but his speaking ability and remembering important issues are not one of them. Saying he can't make speeches without a teleprompter or planned statement is just not true. He has spoken at several events without a teleprompter or prepared speeches and he can think on his feet just fine. I didn't hear him stumble over questions given by audience members or media. I'm sure you probably heard that from some conservative programs like Fox or Rush Limbaugh.
i must disagree
I have read many of his columns. He is a right wing extremist.
Disagree....
...and really, just have to laugh out loud.
Sarah Palin has more experience than Barack Obama. Just wait and watch.
Every time, every person, be in on Obama's own team, Obama himself, Biden, or you for that matter....say that she has no experience....
Well guess what? She has more leadership experience than Obama.
She has been in charge and running a government.
She has been the governor of Alaska since 2006.
She was the mayor of a city, Wasilla, Alaska.
So I ask you. How can you, or anyone out there, sit there and say she has no experience to be VP....when you have a candidate running for President who has even less experience for her.
Explain that one to me.
And while you're doing that, think about how bad Obama will look every single time anyone, anywhere, brings up her lack of experience....as that will only highlight and reinforce his own, sadly lacking leadership background and experience.
Disagree. sm
I feel the reason New Orleans went under was because the National Guard, tanks, etc. were all in Iraq.
Doesn't it bother you that Palin actually said, her son was going to Iraq to fight the people that attacked us? Clueless.
I agree that McCain is a war hero, so is my dad, but he certainly is not qualified to be President.
I have to disagree with you on that.
Nm
and I disagree with you so
maybe we both will be kicked off too for disagreeing.
Sam does research before posting an answer to some of the statements told here, then posts the links so we can all see what is the truth, not just a few. Anyone who cares anything about this country would do the same. It's not rocket science. The problem is some people on this board don't care to listen. They're right and everybody else is wrong.They think sam is attacking them personally, when he/she is not, just stating FACTS, not untruths.
Sorry, OT, but I must disagree
The liberal media would be analyzing his choice till the cows came home.
Well, I disagree. s/m
Did you miss the part where he said, "I'm the decider."? His old buddy Richard (message says *ick is a bad word.........well, on that we can agree) is guilty right along with him. I do not think history will be kind to him. But then it WAS kind to FDR until the republicans came out with their "study" to excuse the fact that Hoover was, before Bush, acknowledged to be the worst president in history.
I say while you're putting Palin on her dogsled back to Alaska, hitch up a couple of longhorns and point Bush and Cheney back to Texas. Trouble is I don't think Texas wants them.
Again, you and I disagree.
While I do not agree with you, I do respect your right to your opinion.
disagree, because
McCain has plenty of energy to get the job and more done; and Palin has more experience than even Obama... Yes, our govn't has lots of checks and balances, but if you put a democratic pres in, with a democ house and democ senate, you have a steamroller effect and dem's have not been very good about 'reaching across the aisle'. Besides, some of the "changes" that may occur in an obama reign may take decades to un-do (appointments of judges for example) and if it makes our country more unsafe and we suffer an enemy attack, that's irreparable damage to lives, and longterm for economy, etc. What about all the jobs lost with his economic (so-called:) plan, and taxation which will hurt small business and cost jobs? (100% of job growth has been in small business) How many more will lose homes, etc under Obama after losing their jobs? How screwed up will our healthcare system become? No, i want a safe USA, i want a stable growing economy, etc and will vote McCain.
I disagree
McCain is not throwing people off his bus because they don't report him in a good light.
McCain is not banning newspaper interviews because they ask him serious questions.
McCain is not banning networks because they ask him serious questions.
The O is doing all of this.
Just because I disagree with you...
does not make me any more closed minded than you apparently are. It is painfully obvious that neither one of is interested in what the other has to say. If you are not interested in debating with me, you could have just ignored my post. I would not, however, count on those greener pastures.
I disagree
What the president elect does in the days prior to his inauguration is important in terms of choosing his staff, etc, but we're not all as enamored of him as some of you, to want to sit googly-eyed in front of the TV and watch his every photo op.
The important points of his pre-inauguration decisions can be covered in the news or newspaper. I think a lot of us still watch the news and read the newspaper.
Anyone can disagree
with one another. That is human nature. I can respect someone that can give point and counter point without getting nasty. There is no need for name calling or veiled side of the mouth comments. I would love a decent conversation with others whose opinions are or are not always the same as mine.
I have to disagree..........sm
With the government overseeing and directing healthcare to the point that a doctor cannot treat a patient the way that patient needs to be treated, it will be much worse. This measure would also discourage or possibly prohibit the development of new medications and new therapies that could, for instance, cure cancer (or the common cold, which the way I have felt for the past 3 weeks, wouldn't be a bad thing). It could also prohibit the treatment of patients with too many comorbid conditions. Would you want your doctor to tell you that he can't treat your mother for cancer because she has Alzheimer disease and she's terminal anyway? Would you want your child who has cystic fibrosis denied treatment of leukemia because the cystic fibrosis is terminal? Personally, I don't want the government taking over my healthcare, regardless of how much money it might save me.
Disagree
Where are you coming up with this stuff? That doesn't make any sense at all. Boy, are we in trouble with this kind of nonsense.
I disagree with you.
I have owned Ford, Chrysler, Chevy, American Motors, Rambler, etc. I have been a fan of Oldsmobilie and Buicks since We bought our first one back in the 80s.
GM's problem is they stopped producting the good cars. I was on their website today. No Olds, only 2 Buicks left. They only produce expensive gas guzzlers like Cadillacs, Saab, and Hummers.
Our LeSabre got 30 mpg and still running strong at 175,000. Shame the rest of the car is not good enought to pass inspection. Same with our Olds. Are they producing them? Nope. Why? They were mid-priced cars with great reliability, great gas mileage, and I like to say popular with middle class people. They now only product the LaCrosse and Lucerne in the Buick line. They don't even produce the Park Avenue which was a luxurious car and one I always wanted (champagne tastes on a beer budget - LOL).
I won't be buying a new car from GM. There's nothing there I like. They should have thought about phasing out more of the expensive lines than the middle class lines. That's where they went wrong. They probably thought if they stuck to the expensive models, they'd make more money. WRONG!!! They didn't take into consideration the ratio between middle class buyers and upper class buyers.
As for Chrysler, I owned 2. They were lemons from the get-go. Hubby owned a couple Fords and they were not very reliable either.
I must disagree with you on this one.
At least the part about Obama being the best thing that has ever happened to us. I don't think that is true at all. I think he has wasted more money spending in such a short time that I hope and pray we don't have him for 8 years. 4 is long and bad enough.
I disagree with you.
The only reason Aunt Louise mentioned how hot it is going to get was to further her religious agenda. She was not referring to global warming in her post, she was referring to what she believes will happen to those who do not hold her same religious beliefs.
By the way, I have never said or implied in any way that posters are not entitled to their own opinion, whether it differs with mine or not. Every person who posts on MTStars is entitled to express their opinion and agree or disagree with the opinions of other posters.
Sorry, but I so disagree with this.
x
if you disagree
Don't marry someone the same sex as you. I think it is a wonderful thing whenever 2 people that love each other make a commitment to be wed.
OMG. I disagree!
Either way, I SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO DISAGREE! Rick Warren also disagrees and it should be 1 man and 1 woman when it comes to marriage.
I disagree too!
.
I disagree.....
For most blacks in this country (those that voted for him) it is about nothing but the fact that he is black...... plain and simple and I have had them tell me that!
No. I disagree, a
big thing, no.
Last not least it is an office. Imagine everybody would bring his supersized flag alont into the office.
BTW,
|
