I'd say Israel has good reason to live in fear
Posted By: Hattie on 2006-08-15
In Reply to: No I would not....sm - Democrat
If you think what has been going on in Israel for years and years is perception and not a reality then you've obviously not been to or even read about Israel.
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
should be - do NOT live in fear.
typing too fast and with too much emotion!
No, they live in the US, and the US backs Israel.nm
z
we do live in fear of a dreaded afterlife
We look forward to it. We will be in a perfect place in God's presence. What will it feel like for you when you realize that you have done nothing but waste your life and your opportunity to know peace in God and now will spend your eternity in a place other than heaven? I think it will be quite miserable to be you. That knife cuts both ways.
Good. Hope Israel can destroy HAMAS.
nm
Good for you...Where you live that is...nm
So you must live in one of the good
And for good reason......... enemy amongst us
:(
There is good reason not to vote for it.
It will not work. Obviously the pubs aren't the only ones not wanting to vote for it with the 11 dems not voting for it either. I know this stupid thing will pass but it truly disgusts me. It will not work!!!!!!! We are wasting more money that our grandchildren will have to pay. This is ridiculous. The first stimulus package during Bush's term didn't do much good and now this. Sheesh. HELLO! Obviously Obama and dems aren't paying attention. IT DOESN'T WORK!
Exactly.......the parts don't fit and for good reason!!!
nm
Good thing we live in a Republic
and not a democracy
We live in a culture where evil is good and
good is evil. No wonder God's judgment is upon our nation.
i'm sure osama has a perfectly good reason for this
nm
People are ignoring Sally, and for good reason.
nm
now there's a good reason to want him as president. he can play basketball
nm
We have good reason, kind of a knee jerk reaction. LOL.
We're constantly visited by the *compassionate conservative* trolls from the other board who come here only to be spew hatred, personally attack posters and to generally cause trouble, despite constant requests from the monitor that they not do that.
I've always been in favor of stem cell research. I believe in science progressing and helping people live longer. I don't believe in forcing the personal religious beliefs of some down the throats of every American.
In all honesty, though, here lately it's hard for me to get excited if I see America making progress in any area because it doesn't matter what bill Congress introduces, votes in favor of and presents to the President. Bush will dismiss what he doesn't like and issue yet another of hundreds of his famous *signing statements.* I don't know why we even bother to have a Congress any more. They've been rendered impotent by King George. 
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion/14976584.htm
I apologize if you feel you were being treated negatively. If you're someone who is legitimate and sincere about debate, then welcome to our board.
But if you're only here to start trouble, like most of the elephants in donkeys' clothing invading this board lately, then I'd prefer that you just go away. I won't feed any more hatred because I'm just tired of it all. I've climbed down to their level too many times in the last few months, the stench way down there is just terrible, and I no longer wish to engage in their kind of communication.
What are your thoughts on the issues I've mentioned? Please respond. Thoughtful, intelligent debate, without the use of degrading personal insults, is very welcome here. 
I'll give you one good reason to vote for McCain.
Barrack Hussein Obama.....nuff said.
Fear Mongerer? Obama? McCain and Cheney were fear mongerer
and they STILL ARE !
A *fear tactic* . . .What is to fear in a
bother you!
Any of you live in the midwest? Just in case you live down the road from me...
I live in Wisconsin and am often also in Minnesota.
No, I'm not a stalker or a weirdo (my opinion, anyway).
Yeah, tell me again how liberals want to live and let live....what a joke!!!! nm
why not just tell the truth? That only extends to liberals.*I have had it with Republicans...* a whole group of people tossed out like garbage. *I will not respond to your posts nor read them.*
As to Ann Coulter...the left has their share..Michael Moore, AL Franken...do you ever look at your own party?
That is the most INtolerant post I have seen here in a LONG time.
Liberals true colors always come out...regardless of how much they say they are the MOST tolerant, and want EVERYone to live and let live...everyone if you happen to be liberal.
We are all Americans...and America is about debate. Tell me, liberal Democrat, again how you care about ALL Americans. Talk about ringing hollow.
This is the reason we are in Iraq and it's the same reason I didn't vote for him in 2000: Didn't
his own personal reasons.
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050620/why_george_went_to_war.php
The Downing Street memos have brought into focus an essential question: on what basis did President George W. Bush decide to invade Iraq? The memos are a government-level confirmation of what has been long believed by so many: that the administration was hell-bent on invading Iraq and was simply looking for justification, valid or not.
Despite such mounting evidence, Bush resolutely maintains total denial. In fact, when a British reporter asked the president recently about the Downing Street documents, Bush painted himself as a reluctant warrior. "Both of us didn't want to use our military," he said, answering for himself and British Prime Minister Blair. "Nobody wants to commit military into combat. It's the last option."
Yet there's evidence that Bush not only deliberately relied on false intelligence to justify an attack, but that he would have willingly used any excuse at all to invade Iraq. And that he was obsessed with the notion well before 9/11—indeed, even before he became president in early 2001.
In interviews I conducted last fall, a well-known journalist, biographer and Bush family friend who worked for a time with Bush on a ghostwritten memoir said that an Iraq war was always on Bush's brain.
"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and Houston Chronicle journalist Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said, 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He went on, 'If I have a chance to invade…, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency.'"
Bush apparently accepted a view that Herskowitz, with his long experience of writing books with top Republicans, says was a common sentiment: that no president could be considered truly successful without one military "win" under his belt. Leading Republicans had long been enthralled by the effect of the minuscule Falklands War on British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's popularity, and ridiculed Democrats such as Jimmy Carter who were reluctant to use American force. Indeed, both Reagan and Bush's father successfully prosecuted limited invasions (Grenada, Panama and the Gulf War) without miring the United States in endless conflicts.
Herskowitz's revelations illuminate Bush's personal motivation for invading Iraq and, more importantly, his general inclination to use war to advance his domestic political ends. Furthermore, they establish that this thinking predated 9/11, predated his election to the presidency and predated his appointment of leading neoconservatives who had their own, separate, more complex geopolitical rationale for supporting an invasion.
Conversations With Bush The Candidate
Herskowitz—a longtime Houston newspaper columnist—has ghostwritten or co-authored autobiographies of a broad spectrum of famous people, including Reagan adviser Michael Deaver, Mickey Mantle, Dan Rather and Nixon cabinet secretary John B. Connally. Bush's 1999 comments to Herskowitz were made over the course of as many as 20 sessions together. Eventually, campaign staffers—expressing concern about things Bush had told the author that were included in the manuscript—pulled the project, and Bush campaign officials came to Herskowitz's house and took his original tapes and notes. Bush communications director Karen Hughes then assumed responsibility for the project, which was published in highly sanitized form as A Charge to Keep.
The revelations about Bush's attitude toward Iraq emerged during two taped sessions I held with Herskowitz. These conversations covered a variety of matters, including the journalist's continued closeness with the Bush family and fondness for Bush Senior—who clearly trusted Herskowitz enough to arrange for him to pen a subsequent authorized biography of Bush's grandfather, written and published in 2003.
I conducted those interviews last fall and published an article based on them during the final heated days of the 2004 campaign. Herskowitz's taped insights were verified to the satisfaction of editors at the Houston Chronicle, yet the story failed to gain broad mainstream coverage, primarily because news organization executives expressed concern about introducing such potent news so close to the election. Editors told me they worried about a huge backlash from the White House and charges of an "October Surprise."
Debating The Timeline For War
But today, as public doubts over the Iraq invasion grow, and with the Downing Street papers adding substance to those doubts, the Herskowitz interviews assume singular importance by providing profound insight into what motivated Bush—personally—in the days and weeks following 9/11. Those interviews introduce us to a George W. Bush, who, until 9/11, had no means for becoming "a great president"—because he had no easy path to war. Once handed the national tragedy of 9/11, Bush realized that the Afghanistan campaign and the covert war against terrorist organizations would not satisfy his ambitions for greatness. Thus, Bush shifted focus from Al Qaeda, perpetrator of the attacks on New York and Washington. Instead, he concentrated on ensuring his place in American history by going after a globally reviled and easily targeted state run by a ruthless dictator.
The Herskowitz interviews add an important dimension to our understanding of this presidency, especially in combination with further evidence that Bush's focus on Iraq was motivated by something other than credible intelligence. In their published accounts of the period between 9/11 and the March 2003 invasion, former White House Counterterrorism Coordinator Richard Clarke and journalist Bob Woodward both describe a president single-mindedly obsessed with Iraq. The first anecdote takes place the day after the World Trade Center collapsed, in the Situation Room of the White House. The witness is Richard Clarke, and the situation is captured in his book, Against All Enemies.
On September 12th, I left the Video Conferencing Center and there, wandering alone around the Situation Room, was the President. He looked like he wanted something to do. He grabbed a few of us and closed the door to the conference room. "Look," he told us, "I know you have a lot to do and all…but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way…"
I was once again taken aback, incredulous, and it showed. "But, Mr. President, Al Qaeda did this."
"I know, I know, but…see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred…" …
"Look into Iraq, Saddam," the President said testily and left us. Lisa Gordon-Hagerty stared after him with her mouth hanging open.
Similarly, Bob Woodward, in a CBS News 60 Minutes interview about his book, Bush At War, captures a moment, on November 21, 2001, where the president expresses an acute sense of urgency that it is time to secretly plan the war with Iraq. Again, we know there was nothing in the way of credible intelligence to precipitate the president's actions.
Woodward: "President Bush, after a National Security Council meeting, takes Don Rumsfeld aside, collars him physically and takes him into a little cubbyhole room and closes the door and says, 'What have you got in terms of plans for Iraq? What is the status of the war plan? I want you to get on it. I want you to keep it secret.'"
Wallace (voiceover): Woodward says immediately after that, Rumsfeld told Gen. Tommy Franks to develop a war plan to invade Iraq and remove Saddam—and that Rumsfeld gave Franks a blank check.
Woodward: "Rumsfeld and Franks work out a deal essentially where Franks can spend any money he needs. And so he starts building runways and pipelines and doing all the necessary preparations in Kuwait specifically to make war possible."
Bush wanted a war so that he could build the political capital necessary to achieve his domestic agenda and become, in his mind, "a great president." Blair and the members of his cabinet, unaware of the Herskowitz conversations, placed Bush's decision to mount an invasion in or about July of 2002. But for Bush, the question that summer was not whether, it was only how and when. The most important question, why, was left for later.
Eventually, there would be a succession of answers to that question: weapons of mass destruction, links to Al Qaeda, the promotion of democracy, the domino theory of the Middle East. But none of them have been as convincing as the reason George W. Bush gave way back in the summer of 1999.
Israel
There are many jews who do not like Sharon, many. I could post what they say about him but I wont. However, posting about great leaders, I grew up loving absolutely loving Golda Meir..The situation in Israel is not ours to decide or get heated about..the situation we need to get heated about is America. To try to tie jews and christians together happily cannot happen. For many many years christians did not even acknowledge jews or their beliefs, now all of a sudden lets get together as we believe as one, however, we do not believe as one, not at all. I have watched this over a few years, the christians are trying to hook onto jews as they think well, we both believe in the Bible so we believe the same. We do not believe the same. First of all, we do not believe in the new testament, we do not believe in hell, many of us do not even believe in a heaven and we do not believe in jesus as a savior. He was a jewish man who taught peace and love and tolerance but nothing more. Our savior has not come yet. I think you truly pray and feel for Israel, however, maybe you can take a few courses of Judaism at a local synagogue and understand us more. I know my local synagogue has courses for non jews to learn more about us.
Oil from Israel
Has anyone researched that? In the coming future, Russia will attack Israel. Those who have researched prophecies of the future of the world believe a gusher of this oil wealth is soon coming from Israel, and Russia (amazingly not called Soviet Union in these prophecies of 1100+ years ago) will form an Islamic alliance (they really don't want to) and will come down from the north and attack unwalled villages, supposedly for this sudden great wealth of oil. However, Israel has built walls all over the place. So, this attack will probably happen after the one world leader soon to appear on the world scene offers a convincing (but false) peace and Israel tears the walls down. I have been to Russia, and it is so different from what was promised to the Russian people back when my parents were very young. Then, it was a revolution similar to what Castro was supposed to have done, and now what Chavez is supposedly doing. I saw the apartments, hospitals, schools, etc., in Russia. Yes, Kruschev said there were no homeless people. I only saw people who had to live in apartments where the government dictated that they live and no freedom to express their opinion. Their cost to live in these apartments - free. Our cost to have the freedom in America to say what we want to - priceless. Anyone remember that guy that wrote, The Late Great Planet Earth, back in the 1970's. He now has a program called International Intelligence Briefing. Check your local/cable listings. If you know of any others like him who have researched this other side of the (global) story, please let me know. Thanks.
Israel was willing........... sm
to give the Gaza Strip to the Palestinians in 2005 and allow them to govern it on their own, but that wasn't good enough for the Palestinians.
China has given us untold amounts of money. Does that mean that China has a say in how our country should be run?
I stand on my previous statements that any country that does not support Israel (and I don't mean just monetarily)is barking up the wrong olive tree.
do you really think it is just to let Israel
take the whole of Palestine? Does not matter what the Bible says!
Fear
Fear is a rational response when based on facts. It has enabled humans to survive throughout history, giving us the sense to run from something that is dangerous and encouraging us to use our wits to make good decisions to ensure our future survival. It was your fellow committed dems below who said their reasoning for not liking Palin is because "she creeped them out" and they don't like her voice. Is that the type of voters we want?
Nothing to fear
abide by the law. Why does that scare you?
I fear you are right.
They will be back under this administration. That, however, doesn't mean they are any good. it just means they will be there. Then we shall see whether they help or harm.
More fear??
 I absolutely agree with you. It seems that the harder Obama works to clean up the mess left by Bush the more ridiculous over-the-top the accusations get from the Repubs and Conservatives. Really, it is okay to not agree with Obama but come on-if you need to b***h, at least make it real. Trying to increase unemployment to wipe out capitalizism?? Puleez!!
US, Israel planned ME war
Why does none of this surprise me?
'US, Israel planned ME war'
13/08/2006 11:06 - (SA) |
 |
|
|
New York - The US government was closely involved in the planning of Israel's military operations against Islamic militant group Hezbollah even before the July 12 kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers, The New Yorker magazine reported in its latest issue.
The kidnapping triggered a month-long Israeli operation in South Lebanon that is expected to come to an end on Monday.
But Pulitzer Prize-winning US journalist Seymour Hersh writes that President George W Bush and vice president Dick Cheney were convinced that a successful Israeli bombing campaign against Hezbollah could ease Israel's security concerns and also serve as a prelude to a potential US pre-emptive attack to destroy Iran's nuclear installations.
Citing an unnamed Middle East expert with knowledge of the current thinking of the Israeli and US governments, Israel had devised a plan for attacking Hezbollah - and shared it with Bush administration officials - well before the July 12 kidnappings.
The expert added that the White House had several reasons for supporting a bombing campaign, the report said.
If there was to be a military option against Iran, it had to get rid of the weapons Hezbollah could use in a potential retaliation against Israel, Hersh writes.
Citing a US government consultant with close ties to Israel, Hersh also reports that earlier this summer, before the Hezbollah kidnappings, several Israeli officials visited Washington to get a green light for a bombing operation following a Hezbollah provocation, and to find out how much the United States would bear.
The Israelis told us it would be a cheap war with many benefits, the magazine quotes the consultant as saying. Why oppose it? We'll be able to hunt down and bomb missiles, tunnels, and bunkers from the air. It would be a demo for Iran.
US government officials have denied the charges.
Nonetheless, Hersh writes, a former senior intelligence official says some officers serving with the Joint Chiefs of Staff remain deeply concerned that the administration will have a far more positive assessment of the air campaign than they should.
There is no way that (defence secretary Donald) Rumsfeld and Cheney will draw the right conclusion about this, the report quotes the former official as saying. When the smoke clears, they'll say it was a success, and they'll draw reinforcement for their plan to attack Iran.
|
Israel solution
Move the state of Israel to Virginia, Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson can fight over the honor, and see how much y'all love Israel then.
I am not asking you to discuss Israel. sm
I know that it happens all the time. I am sorry that it does.
You don't have to go to Israel to know right from wrong.
Occupation, blockade, genocidal war of attrition, settlement expansion, diasporas of refugees, no right to return, the wall, imposition of police state, creation of open air prisons/terrorist breeding gounds, countless treaty violations, repeated invasions, plunder of resources, wholesale murderous slaughter featuring killing, generations of widows, widowers and orphans, maiming for life and massive destruction of property...just to name a few things off the top of my head.
Why Israel Fights
Why the Israeli attack helps the US by taking on Hamas now and why this time Israel may succeed in Gaza. A well-written perspective on Gaza, Israel, Hamas. This adds more to consider as we all discuss this war.
Why Israel Fights
By WILLIAM KRISTOL
Published: January 4, 2009
The Israeli assault on Hamas in Gaza is going to be a replay, we’re told, of the attempt to subdue Hezbollah in southern Lebanon in the summer of 2006. And the outcome, it’s asserted, will be the same: lots of death and destruction, no strategic victory for Israel and a setback for all who seek peace and progress in the Middle East.
Obviously, war is an unpredictable business, so I say this with some trepidation: I think the conventional wisdom will be proved wrong. Israel could well succeed in Gaza.
For one thing, southern Lebanon is a substantial and hilly area, bordered by northern Lebanon and Syria, through which Hezbollah could be re-supplied, both by Syria itself and by Iran. Gaza is a flat, narrow strip, bordered by Israel, as well as by the sea and by Egypt, no friend to Hamas. By cutting off the northern part of Gaza from the southern, Israel has basically surrounded northern Gaza, creating a military situation very different from that in Lebanon in 2006.
What’s more, the Israeli leadership seems aware of the mistakes — political, strategic and military — it made in Lebanon. That doesn’t mean it won’t make them all over again. The same prime minister, Ehud Olmert, is in charge, after all. But, today’s defense minister, Ehud Barak, is very different from his predecessor, the weak and unqualified Amir Peretz. So far as one can tell, the Gaza operation seems to have been well-planned and is being methodically executed, in sharp contrast to the Lebanon incursion. Barak has also warned that the operation could be long and difficult, lowering expectations by contrast with the Israeli rhetoric of July 2006.
In addition, in Lebanon, Israel proclaimed war goals that it couldn’t achieve — such as retrieving its two kidnapped soldiers and disarming Hezbollah. Now the Israeli government says that it seeks to weaken Hamas, lessen its ability to fire rockets from Gaza and secure new arrangements along the Egyptian-Gaza border to prevent Hamas from re-arming. These may well be achievable goals.
And, of course, not all military efforts against terror fail. Recall Israel’s incursion into the West Bank in the spring of 2002, when, under the leadership of Ariel Sharon, Israel succeeded in ripping up established terror networks and began the defeat of the second intifada. Israel also was able to avoid a long-term re-occupation, while retaining the ability to go back in on anti-terror missions. What’s more, the 2002 bloodshed didn’t seem to do lasting damage to hopes for progress or moderation on the West Bank. After all, it’s Gaza, from which Israel withdrew in 2005, not the West Bank, that became a Hamas stronghold.
An Israeli success in Gaza would be a victory in the war on terror — and in the broader struggle for the future of the Middle East. Hamas is only one manifestation of the rise, over the past few decades, of a terror-friendly and almost death-cult-like form of Islamic extremism. The combination of such terror movements with a terror-sponsoring and nuclear-weapons-seeking Iranian state (aided by its sidekick Syria) has produced a new kind of threat to Israel.
But not just to Israel. To everyone in the Middle East — very much including Muslims — who aren’t interested in living under the sway of extremist regimes. And to any nation, like the United States, that is a target of Islamic terror. So there are sound reasons why the United States — whether led by George W. Bush or Barack Obama — will stand with Israel as it fights.
But Israel — assuming it succeeds — is doing the United States a favor by taking on Hamas now.
The huge challenge for the Obama administration is going to be Iran. If Israel had yielded to Hamas and refrained from using force to stop terror attacks, it would have been a victory for Iran. If Israel were now to withdraw under pressure without accomplishing the objectives of severely weakening Hamas and preventing the reconstitution of a terror-exporting state in Gaza, it would be a triumph for Iran. In either case, the Iranian regime would be emboldened, and less susceptible to the pressure from the Obama administration to stop its nuclear program.
But a defeat of Hamas in Gaza — following on the heels of our success in Iraq — would be a real setback for Iran. It would make it easier to assemble regional and international coalitions to pressure Iran. It might positively affect the Iranian elections in June. It might make the Iranian regime more amenable to dealing.
With respect to Iran, Obama may well face — as the Israeli government did with Hamas — a moment when the use of force seems to be the only responsible option. But Israel’s willingness to fight makes it more possible that the United States may not have to.
Who does Israel belong to? So you are saying
the U.N. overstepped its bounds? And what about the United Kingdom that controlled the area in the early 1900s?
Like it or not nations are formed through civil war. There are winners and there are losers. It's really very simple. The process has not changed for centuries and it will never change. The strong prevail. The righteous prevail. The minute we take a liberal viewpoint, that's the exact minute we become weak.
So, even after Israel withdrew from
Gaza, the Hamas still continued bombing Israel. Who is the aggressor?
Politics of fear?
Intrigued by what is scaring you and why. A few questions. Politics of fear. Which party embodies and promotes this concept? Why? Whose agenda does it serve? Who benefits? More importantly, who doesn't? Visions of terrorists licking their chops with itchy trigger fingers? Where is this coming from? Media? Party rhetoric? Bush/Cheney/McCain? If you think they will attack "no matter who the president will be" then the politics of fear and its manipulation is working well on you and we are all doomed to repeat that anguish. So you fight fear with more fear and leave that weapon in the hands of a hot head? Does that scare you more or make you feel more safe? Do you want to base your vote on a surrender to fear?
Now, how about that other conference table vision? You fear the Obama cult? What is it that they are following? Hope? Vision? A different approach? What does the alternative have to offer? An alliance of diplomacy?
While doing your research, it might help you to go to the following link and read it in it's entirety, including all the links embedded under At a Glance. Would be very interested if you are still having those visions and feeling as frightened after your research.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/#diplomacy
My fear is that if we bail them out
what have they learned. They obviously won't have any consequences to their actions. We will be the ones to suffer for their greed and crimes. However, what is to become of us if we don't bail them out? I really don't know the answer to this. I am just thoroughly ticked off that our government has allowed things to get like this. Now they are sitting around crying and whining, pointing fingers, wanting special interests included in the bill, etc. I'm just so disgusted.
The fear of Obama --
Why do some people think that 1 person can change everything? I've read comments on various sites, injecting fear that Obama is the one they speak of in Revelations, that he is a muslim trying to infiltrate this country from the inside out.
I hope that if anything can be learned by this recent economic situation, it is that 1 person, even the "top dog", can't bring about a change unless everyone else is on board. Pres Bush himself couldn't even get this bill passed. If he's top dog and he can't make that kind of change, why the fear that Obama could?
Excuse me, but we should fear someone who has a
nm
fear machine
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2008/10/01/ldt.tucker.economy.cnn
Here is where that comes from......fear factor
Brad Sherman is right....sorry bunch of cowardly people we put in there who brown-nose out of nothing more than fear that they feed on with each other. Nothing written in cement.....just the fear factor!
http://revolutionarypolitics.com/
Fear mongering. Do you ever have anything...sm
positive to say? You are the one who is marching in lock step with the republican party. There are good, average and bad in each party. No one is all bad or all good. Get it?
Obama knows the fear everyone has
He knows everyone is so worried about the economy that many will ignore his associations, his true feelings and where they lie. Unfortunately, many are doing just that.
I fear for his life.
I truly do worry about Barrack Obama for the simple fact that there are nut jobs out there who would rather he be killed than take the presidency. We've already had one plot to take his life. I hate to say that I believe there will be more. I will not be voting for Barrack Obama and I do believe he is a liar and will drag this country down into the dumps, but I do not wish him any harm.
If, God forbid, something horrible should happen to Barrack Obama....I believe it will tear our country apart. It will segregate us and racism will become even worse than it is now. We could potentially have our own civil war started with all of this.
The only thing we have to fear is
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uwOL4rB-go
I really think that this is a ridiculous fear. sm
Should it happen, feel free to say, "I told you so." But I really think that you are all being just about as ridiculous as those saying the Obama is the antichrist. Neither is very likely in my opinion.
Smear = Fear
xx
Another lie. Another SMEAR=FEAR.
Please stop spreading lies.
Sorry, didn't mean to cause fear...(sm)
It sounds to me like the contractors may be able to get out before this is implemented......Hopefully they all will.
For those of you who so fear socialism
(and I don't want to see socialism), what do you think the Bush administration has done? Buying interests in banks, etc.
I also know quite a few wealthy folks and some who are just well-to-do. All grieve their losses in the stock market and they are all RABID REPUBLICANS who supported John McCain. They HATE Obama. They "get it." They hate him because they believe he is going to raise their taxes so he can lower taxes on the working class. All of them have been part of the working class. The wealthiest one is a widow who married her money. They aren't afraid of "Robin Hood," they're afraid of having to give back some of the windfall Bush gave them with his tax cuts.
|
