I brought up Russia............sm
Posted By: m on 2008-12-20
In Reply to: response (sm) - Just the big bad
because it was an example of basically an exact opposite from what America is. You seem to want to live completely opposite than Americans have lived for the 150 (give or take) years before Madelyn Murray O'Hare started raising Cain (no pun intended) about prayer in schools, etc. While I realize atheists did exist prior to her time, for the most part, they pretty much "lived and let live" much as Christians did with respect to co-existing with them. That is more what I would call "tolerance" rather than getting all up in arms because God's name appears on the currency that puts a roof over your head, food on your table and clothes on your back.
As to the issue of Christian gays and lesbians, I really feel that is a subject more for the Faith forum and would happily discuss it with you there sometime as I have opinions on that as well. (are you surprised? LOL)
Marriage is a union between a man and a woman period. Unless you are married to a woman, then of course I feel your marriage is valid and certainly not worthless. You are really stretching the limits of common sense on this subject with your suppositions.
Your next to last statement is absolutely correct. There is only one way for true Christianity and that is based solely on the teachings in the Bible. People who do not believe the Bible do see it as divisive and intolerant, but like Paul said "the preaching of the cross is foolishness to those who do not believe." Again, another fascinating subject for the Faith forum, but I would state that it is not Christians who seek to divide this nation but unbelievers who do because of their unbelief.
With all that said, JtBB, I will say this. I find you a very interesting person and really enjoy debating issues with you and hope you realize that just because our opinions clash some, okay most, of the time does not mean that I don't like you. :o)
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
Russia
Was wondering what you all thought of Russia's response to President-elect Obama. Are any of you concerned about that guy more so now than before?
Can they see Russia from their house?
I have always been worried about Russia
There was a great quote from 40 or 20 years ago, from a Russian professor, I'll have to search for it. But, basically it said something like, "We will bring them in with good will and kindness, and then we will crush them with our iron fist!"
However, the issue with Russia doesn't raise any concerns over Obama with me. Maybe he can use a little diplomacy instead of just trying to bomb everything off the map, lol!
Yes, I am worried about Russia.
I do not mean to sound churchy, but I have been brought up that it states in the Bible that Russia (known as another name in Bible, but shows it on a map where Russia is) to be very worried. When the country Russia comes into play, need to worry about Amargeddon, The End Times. Not the countries of Iran, North Korea, etc., but Russia. Yes, I am concerned about Russia.
Russia's opinion
We never believe a word they say unless it somehow coincides with our own opinions, huh?
Based on what is going on right now with Russia and georgia...
I would say looking in his eyes and seeing KGB is pretty much on the mark. McCain knows who and what Russian "management" are. You can see what they think about negotiations. Basically told the world up yours, if we want Georgia back we are going to take it. Why doesn't Obama go visit them like he did Germany and give a speech about how he is a citizen of the world and see how far it gets him. Sigh....Careful what YOU ask for.
It ain't Russia I'm immediately worried about...
xx
These remarks from Iran and Russia may not
RE: Response to Obama's election by Iran: What I see here is an opening for dialog in the recognition that there is a capacity for improvement of ties, not exactly the "Death to America" sentiments expressed in the past, this despite Obama's statement directed at those who would tear the world down (we will defeat you). I also see several implied preconditions. After all, preconditions are a two-way street:
1. I would be curious to have Aghamohammadi expand on what he means by Bush style "confrontation" in other countries. He is the spokesperson for the National Security Council in Iran, has been involved with the EU, Britian, France and Germany as a nuclear arms negotiator and would be directly involved in any dialog with the US on the subject of nuclear arms nonproliferation. We hardly have a leg to stand in this arena with our current "do as I say, not as I do and never mind the nuclear stockpiles in Israel we financed" approach. My guess would be he is condemning military invasion and occupation, hardly a radical position for any sovereign nation to take. In his own capacity, he should understand the US has unfinished business in Afghanistan and possibly Pakistan, so it is impossible to know in the absence of dialog what alternatives to military invasion may be possible. It might be worth a look-see.
2. His implied request for the US to "concentrate on state matters" might be seen by some as a little progress, especially since, at the moment, we do not even have an embassy in Iran. This also implies a possible opening to US business interests there (which were abundant under the Shah), a staging ground for diplomacy and establishing an avenue for articulating US foreign policy within their borders.
3. Concentrating on removing the American people's concerns would imply a desire on his part to repair and improve Iran's image abroad.
A well thought out response to these implied preconditions would be a logical place for Obama to start when speculating on his own preconditions.
RE: Russia's recent behavior and rhetoric is worrisome on many levels to more than a few countries in the region. Cold war with Russia is in NOBODY'S interest, including Russia's I fail to see how turning our backs, isolating ourselves or ratcheting up bellicose rhetoric toward them would do anything except give them a green light to proceed. It's an ugly world out there and Obama will inevitably be taking either a direct or an indirect diplomatic role in addressing this issue. Russia has expressed that same expectation.
I agree with you and find humor in the remarks from Sudan. Anyway, wait and watch is all we can do at this point. It certainly beats the heck out of prognostications of failure or defeat.
That is the modus operandi of Russia....
and probably one of the early tests Biden was talking about. I don't think it came as a surprise to him. I am not concerned about Russia's response...I am concerned about Obama's response to them, but we will have to wait awhile to find that out, I am assuming, since he has not formally taken the job yet.
I do think, however, that Russia's response to a McCain win would have been different. They don't need to test him...they already know where he stands (I looked in his eyes and saw KGB).
The commend from Russia was directed at the new...
administration, not the current one. So it is not Bush's problem. Bush admin reacted the way they should have to the aggression in Georgia...and yes, I think Georgia was aimed at the election. Do you not remember Joe Biden going over there because he "friends" with the Georgian President? Came back denouncing the invasion. How long after that was he pegged for VP? Yeah, I would say the Russians were doing a little water testing.
I wish I shared your optimism about Obama. In sincerely wish I did. I sincerely wish he would take a look at Russia and realize that Marxist socialism does not work. But every torchbearer of Marxism that has come down the pike really believes that he will be the one to make it work. Sigh. Those who do not learn from mistakes are doomed to repeat them.
All that being said...again. I wish I shared your optimism. But history should tell you, Russians are not interested in diplomacy. They are interested in world domination and they want to see if Obama will allow them to swallow it up, one little piece at a time. We shall see.
Venezuela and Russia are going to hold
military manuevers near Venezuela.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,457106,00.html
This is what Russia thinks will happen
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,457550,00.html
Because of our economy, United States will be split: The Pacific area, The South, Atlantic area, etc. As for Alaska? Could be Russia's for the taking.
What is amazing to me about Alaska is Palin. Palin was not to be our next VP, but it sure shows Russia who she is and how she tries to fight for Alaska. Of all states, Alaska came out of no where during the election and shows what Alaska has to offer including Palin who will fight for her state against Russia.
You might find Russia more to your liking......... sm
I'm sure they don't have a church on every corner, "in Gdo we trust" isn't on their money, and if you are lucky enough to even have a TV then I doubt there is a preacher on it. Can't say for sure if their leader knows his anatomy from that of Mother Earth's or not, though.
As for what the right is sacrificing, how about our children being taught in school that homosexuality is just an alternative lifestyle, that it is just as acceptable as a heterosexual lifestyle and not an amoral, sinful lifestyle. Or how about having to tell you daughter 'no' when she wants to buy a 'toy' out of those vending machines so thoughtfully placed in every gas station restroom across the country and then have to explain to her why she can't have one. We have to explain to our children what they are seeing when the news runs a story about 2 men or 2 women getting "married" and why it is not acceptable to us.
If gay people want some kind of legally binding union, fine. Let them have it. I'm not the one who has to answer for it, but please don't parade it around on television for the rest of us to have to look at and please don't call it a "marriage." Call it a civil union or domestic partnership or whatever other PC term you want to call it.
Russia's laughing at us, too. Thanks, Obama!
So much for those hopes of Obama 'repairing our image' in the world.
China's laughing at us.
France and England are scolding us.
And Russia's already written our obituary.
"It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breathtaking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people."
"The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe."
Here's a link to the article in Pravda:
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/107459-0/
I heard this morning russia is buying up
iceland's debts, guess they are in real trouble. supposedly could be a change in the balance of power (not a good one if you know what I mean)...?
More Czars than Russia...or The King and his Court.
The disturbing thing about these "czars" is that they are not answerable to anyone other than Obama himself, and yet are positioned to usurp some of the powers of the Congress, who did not approve their appointments.
You're looking at a man who is concentrating power in his own hands and setting up a banana-republic type of dictatorship.
We already have a census czar. The logical next step is an "elections czar" - whose position will be justified on the basis of "problems" in past elections. He will "help" us "get it right" this time.
When you see that, folks, the end is near.
Russia against sanctions for Iran and North Korea. Therefore:
U.S. and Russia to Enter Civilian Nuclear Pact
Bush Reverses Long-Standing Policy, Allows Agreement That May Provide Leverage on Iran
By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 8, 2006; A01
President Bush has decided to permit extensive U.S. civilian nuclear cooperation with Russia for the first time, administration officials said yesterday, reversing decades of bipartisan policy in a move that would be worth billions of dollars to Moscow but could provoke an uproar in Congress.
Bush resisted such a move for years, insisting that Russia first stop building a nuclear power station for Iran near the Persian Gulf. But U.S. officials have shifted their view of Russia's collaboration with Iran and concluded that President Vladimir Putin has become a more constructive partner in trying to pressure Tehran to give up any aspirations for nuclear weapons.
The president plans to announce his decision at a meeting with Putin in St. Petersburg next Saturday before the annual summit of leaders from the Group of Eight major industrialized nations, officials said. The statement to be released by the two presidents would agree to start negotiations for the formal agreement required under U.S. law before the United States can engage in civilian nuclear cooperation.
In the administration's view, both sides would benefit. A nuclear cooperation agreement would clear the way for Russia to import and store thousands of tons of spent nuclear fuel from U.S.-supplied reactors around the world, a lucrative business so far blocked by Washington. It could be used as an incentive to win more Russian cooperation on Iran. And it would be critical to Bush's plan to spread civilian nuclear energy to power-hungry countries because Russia would provide a place to send the used radioactive material.
At the same time, it could draw significant opposition from across the ideological spectrum, according to analysts who follow the issue. Critics wary of Putin's authoritarian course view it as rewarding Russia even though Moscow refuses to support sanctions against Iran. Others fearful of Russia's record of handling nuclear material see it as a reckless move that endangers the environment.
You will have all the anti-Russian right against it, you will have all the anti-nuclear left against it, and you will have the Russian democracy center concerned about it too, said Matthew Bunn, a nuclear specialist at Harvard's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.
Since Russia is already a nuclear state, such an agreement, once drafted, presumably would conform to the Atomic Energy Act and therefore would not require congressional approval. Congress could reject it only with majority votes by both houses within 90 legislative days.
Administration officials confirmed the president's decision yesterday only after it was first learned from outside nuclear experts privy to the situation. The officials insisted on anonymity because they were not authorized to disclose the agreement before the summit.
The prospect, however, has been hinted at during public speeches in recent days. We certainly will be talking about nuclear energy, Assistant Energy Secretary Karen A. Harbert told a Carnegie Endowment for International Peace event Thursday. We need alternatives to hydrocarbons.
Some specialists said Bush's decision marks a milestone in U.S.-Russian relations, despite tension over Moscow's retreat from democracy and pressure on neighbors. It signals that there's a sea change in the attitude toward Russia, that they're someone we can try to work with on Iran, said Rose Gottemoeller, a former Energy Department official in the Clinton administration who now directs the Carnegie Moscow Center. It bespeaks a certain level of confidence in the Russians by this administration that hasn't been there before.
But others said the deal seems one-sided. Just what exactly are we getting? That's the real mystery, said Henry D. Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center. Until now, he noted, the United States has insisted on specific actions by Russia to prevent Iran from developing bombs. We're not getting any of that. We're getting an opportunity to give them money.
Environmentalists have denounced Russia's plans to transform itself into the world's nuclear dump. The country has a history of nuclear accidents and contamination. Its transportation network is antiquated and inadequate for moving vast quantities of radioactive material, critics say. And the country, they add, has not fully secured the nuclear facilities it already has against theft or accidents.
The United States has civilian nuclear cooperation agreements with the European atomic energy agency, along with China, Japan, Taiwan and 20 other countries. Bush recently sealed an agreement with India, which does require congressional approval because of that nation's unsanctioned weapons program.
Russia has sought such an agreement with the United States since the 1990s, when it began thinking about using its vast land mass to store much of the world's spent nuclear fuel. Estimating that it could make as much as $20 billion, Russia enacted a law in 2001 permitting the import, temporary storage and reprocessing of foreign nuclear fuel, despite 90 percent opposition in public opinion polls.
But the plan went nowhere. The United States controls spent fuel from nuclear material it provides, even in foreign countries, and Bunn estimates that as much as 95 percent of the potential world market for Russia was under U.S. jurisdiction. Without a cooperation agreement, none of the material could be sent to Russia, even though allies such as South Korea and Taiwan are eager to ship spent fuel there.
Like President Bill Clinton before him, Bush refused to consider it as long as Russia was helping Iran with its nuclear program. In the summer of 2002, according to Bunn, Bush sent Putin a letter saying an agreement could be reached only if the central problem of assistance to Iran's missile, nuclear and advanced conventional weapons programs was solved.
The concern over the nuclear reactor under construction at Bushehr, however, has faded. Russia agreed to provide all fuel to the facility and take it back once used, meaning it could not be turned into material for nuclear bombs. U.S. officials who once suspected that Russian scientists were secretly behind Iran's weapons program learned that critical assistance to Tehran came from Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan.
The 2002 disclosure that Iran had secret nuclear sites separate from Bushehr shocked both the U.S. and Russian governments and seemed to harden Putin's stance toward Iran. He eventually agreed to refer the issue to the U.N. Security Council and signed on to a package of incentives and penalties recently sent to Tehran. At the same time, he has consistently opposed economic sanctions, military action or even tougher diplomatic language by the council, much to the frustration of U.S. officials.
Opening negotiations for a formal nuclear cooperation agreement could be used as a lever to move Putin further. Talks will inevitably take months, and the review in Congress will extend the process. If during that time Putin resists stronger measures against Iran, analysts said, the deal could unravel or critics on Capitol Hill could try to muster enough opposition to block it. If Putin proves cooperative on Iran, they said, it could ease the way toward final approval.
This was one of the few areas where there was big money involved that you could hold over the Russians, said George Perkovich, an arms-control specialist and vice president of the Carnegie Endowment. It's a handy stick, a handy thing to hold over the Russians.
Bush has an interest in taking the agreement all the way as well. His new Global Nuclear Energy Partnership envisions promoting civilian nuclear power around the world and eventually finding a way to reprocess spent fuel without the danger of leaving behind material that could be used for bombs. Until such technology is developed, Bush needs someplace to store the spent fuel from overseas, and Russia is the only volunteer.
The Russians could make a lot of money importing foreign spent fuel, some of our allies would desperately like to be able to send their fuel to Russia, and maybe we could use the leverage to get other things done, such as getting the Russians to be more forward-leaning on Iran, Bunn said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/07/AR2006070701588.html?sub=new
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
Piglet: Kasparov calls Russia's elections...s/m
meaning the recent Putin reelection.....the *dirtiest* in their history.....
http://newsfromrussia.com/news/russia/03-12-2007/102126-kasparov_elections-0
Foreign investors. China and Russia insisted on Fannie Mac bail out.
dd
It was brought in because
the poster labelled him as being black. Strictly speaking, that is incorrect.
Well, since you brought it up......
Why the heck can't BLACKS be just plain AMERICANS like the rest of us???? I don't see myself going around saying I'm Irish-Native American-American. Let's let the racist crap go, shall we?
And by the way, I DID answer you. Sorry it wasn't quick enough to suit you.
VOTING FOR LOU DOBBS!!!!
He has brought it up
along with all the other questionable associations Obama has, but no answers have been given. Obama said that he did not agree with the things Wright said, but that was really all the explanation he gave and he refused to answer any other questions about it. I would like to hear answers about that, too, but I just don't see it happening - he's too much of a friend of the media to have to answer to anything.
Brought To You By......
http://www.google.com/search?q=Once+upon+a+time%2C+on+a+farm+in+Washington+DC%2C+there+was+a+little+red+hen+who+scratched+about+the+barnyard+until+she+uncovered+quite+a+few+grains+of+wheat.&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
Take your pick. By the way, your cut and paste job totally missed the first paragraph.
First of all, someone else brought up
smokers and I was just trying to explain how I can love and care for someone but hate what they do....so I used my father and his smoking.
As for smoking....it is too a sin. Technically anything that we take into our body that harms it is sinful. Our bodies are supposed to be temples to God. That is why for so many years ear piercing was bad and some people still consider tattoes bad.
the word should be *brought*
my fingers have a mind of their own...
The OP brought up her concerns....
I brought up mine. I find mine more concerning than hers. And I don't understand why Democrats accept certain behavior in their own and lamblast the other side for the same perceived weaknesses. Why is that?
I have brought it up earlier on here but
O lovers immediately jumped on the Palin bandwagon again. They are so worried about Palin being a "heartbeat away from possibly being president" but they couldn't care less than Biden may very well be just a heartbeat away....period!
They seem to think Obama will live forever, even though both his parents died young AND he was a heavy smoker, drugger, and drinker.
They seem to have no concern about that.
YOU are the one who brought up Mccain
I was just showing you that they both have said that.
You Obama supporters always say "give me fact give me proof" and then when someone does you get mad.
I never said Mccain didn't say that, just saying it isn't a very good argument because THEY BOTH have said it.
This pearl of wisdom is brought to you by
someone who proved herself ridiculous 500 posts ago....
I, for one, am glad this topic was brought up
You NEVER hear about this on the news. For most people, hearing about how much children are suffering would take the fire out of their battle cry real fast. I agree that a bullet shot by a 15 year old kills just as readily as one fired by an adult. But how do you blame a child for acting out in the only way it knows how? These kids do not know any other way. You cannot, however, go to these kids and tell them that the way they know is WRONG, you have to show the child there are other ways to do things and let THEM decide. Again, shoving ideals and religions down their throats will only make the situation worse.
It is unbelievably important that we leave these kids with the a better impression of America. They are the future of the Middle East and if there is ever going to be peace, those kids are the key.
No bigger than the backlash JM brought down
nm
You brought up some good issues
I don't like unessessary (sp?) bashing of anyone. That is disturbing to me hearing about the comments she made on the radio show. On one hand she'll say she's a Christian and on the other hand she will laugh at the expense of hurting others feelings.
As for what the candidates say during campaigning....it's happening on both sides. I don't like it. I don't like it when it happens to Obama, McCain, Biden or Palin. I think they are all doing the best job they know how to get elected.
With that said, everyone seemed to focus on Palins speech and how she took shots at Obama/Biden, but when I listened to their speeches last week during the DNC they were doing the same thing to Palin and McCain. Then the media made me totally nauseaus(especially MSNBC). They were laughing at what Obama, Biden, Michelle, and other speakers were saying, but when the republicans said something the media said it was appalling, they're attacking, etc, etc etc. Everyone is saying things about the other side. Some of it may not be funny and a lot of it may not be true but I guess seeing as its an election I can understand why they are doing it.
The constituents who brought her their concerns...
does freedom not extend to them also? They don't have a right to at least ask about the books? Which is what they did...and she took their concerns to the city council, which is her job as mayor. Why do you seek to curtail others' freedom in the name of freedom? They did not get what they wanted, but they certainly should have the freedom to ask and be heard. Isn't that exactly what you are saying we must protect??
glad you brought up Gorelick
She's a real dandy, dontcha know.
Another one of the NAGS, carefully hidden away until "time."
We have brought home 2 soldiers
recently to our town, unfortunately, it was too late for them.
I have pictures of O being brought up in Kenya
where he went to school and going to school there costs a lot of money. I am talking about K-8 grade, not in America and that is during his younger years.
Ok, you brought back credibility to yourself LOL
I'm glad you laughed about my remark. I was waiting to get blasted. :-)
I read the link you provided. Good article. DH reads AOL. I won't read Fox or MSBNC or the others that have an agenda. I think she's a very smart woman and at least she understands the economics we are facing.
I do care about what she says and does in her state. I do hope we see more of her and am sure she has learned a lot because of the campaign. DH & I were saying that when she was running that if McCaina and she lost we would think about moving to Alaska to have her as our governor. However, winter is settling in up there and it's just a bit too cold for us (we would absolutely freeze).
Thanks again for the link - you restored my confidence in you. HA HA
They haven't been brought to trial yet....(sm)
because a) some of them would be innocent and would have to be set free, and b) Bush obviously had no plan for those who would be found guilty. Actually, about half of them haven't even been charged yet, much less had a trial. I honestly think the whole point of Gitmo is torture. I think that Bush actually thought it was a viable means for gaining information, which has been proven to be incorrect. Basically, the longer they can keep them there, the longer they can torture.
You brought up a great point. (sm)
I agree, we MUST purchase these things under law or under terms of a mortgage agreement.
But the premiums we pay are in line with what we're insuring. For example, we're not forced to pay the same premium for a two-bedroom home that a multimillionaire would pay for a 56-room mansion. We're not forced to pay the same premium for a 1980 Chevy that a multimillionaire would pay for a Rolls Royce.
That distinction doesn't hold true with medical "insurance," and that's partly where the problem lies.
You brought up a great point. (sm)
I agree, we MUST purchase these things under law or under terms of a mortgage agreement.
But the premiums we pay are in line with what we're insuring. For example, we're not forced to pay the same premium for a two-bedroom home that a multimillionaire would pay for a 56-room mansion. We're not forced to pay the same premium for a 1980 Chevy that a multimillionaire would pay for a Rolls Royce.
That distinction doesn't hold true with medical "insurance," and that's partly where the problem lies.
I am so glad you brought this post to my attention!
It was beautiful and summed all the things that are in my heart that worry me and that I was too clunk-headed to write so eloquently.
I hope some little bit of it penetrated the conservative psyches on the other board to maybe bring us all a little closer together in our caring and concern for what's happening in our world.
Our party's not the 1 who brought nation to its knees.
nm
HA HA HA - had to laught at the picture that brought to mind
ya know people there sure is a lot more to a relationship than just sex. Companionship, trust, admiration, being happy every single day of your life, going out and doing things together that you both enjoy doing, the list goes on and on and on. My belief is that the creator put a man and woman togther to have a child (but luckily now a days childless couples whether it be man/woman, woman/woman or man/man can have a child). I'll take someone I can relate to, laugh with, cry with, work with, etc no matter what gender they are. So if you want to have kids by all means the number #1 way to go is sex, but if you want to spend the rest of your life together no matter what gender you are I believe in marriage.
So true - also, are these the same people who brought us the last 8 years?
and they want another free pass? I suspect the people supporting McCain were also all diehard Bush supporters. It would be interesting to see how they defend both who as per some are supposed to be on opposite sides now. how does that work now...
as far as democrats being represented, in all honesty I think they just probably move on because there is no debate, but trust me they are out there. it just gets tiresome being called names and being brow-beaten...
whenever I speak up (I am an independent) I usually get the attacks on myself personally, you know, I am naive, or like those people who think they are being so coy but are actually calling you stupid, or worse.
pretty soon we will have to change USA to DSA, the divided states of america.
not a tolerance from the right and too much separatism...
in my opinion
I'm surprised more of the right-wing MT's haven't brought
all of us, and our careers. (HAVING a career, vs having that career 100% offshored). This is one of the major issues my vote is hinging on this year, because unless we have SOME hope of companies not being given free rein, and in fact INCENTIVES for doing what they're doing, before long MT in America will DRY UP, because none of us will be able to afford any longer to work for what they pay, simply because they can get away with it.
Having a candidate in office who is for reining in this offshoring incentive may not solve the problem, and in fact nothing at all might happen. But if the winning candidate is FOR taxing heavily the MTSOs and other companies whose greed has ruined a good, respectable profession in America, then at least I can get up in the morning the day after the election with some shred of HOPE. If a pro-big-company profits, pro-offshoring candidate wins, there may be no other choice for many of us than to leave the U.S. in search of work.
you brought back a dear memory for me
My late Mother, who was Pres. of the County RNC (with 6 kids, mind you), used to tell us kids, "you just wait." Boy, was she ever right. I was going to fund-raisers for Goldwater in grade school, so that gives you an idea how old I am (51).
Anyway, Mother had these stickers s she'd put on letters saying "America is a Republic, not a Democracy."
The bulk of the the
Yeah one indictment and you think you've brought the Republicans down
Stupid should hurt. As much as ya'll scream and whine it must.
Everytime you end up with egg on your face. It's really hilarious to sit back and watch liberals have a victory party before there's even any court hearings or before the political chips can fall. Oh the chips are going to fall, but I doubt they'll be where you want them to be.
Please don't bring this up again - brought up a lot of unhappy posters about this post
This was one topic that I took such a big offense to. I'm not voting for Obama, so you would think that I would be happy to "chime in", but when ever you start bringing the similarities in names between a known horrible horrible terrorist that committed horrendous crimes against the american people and start linking the name to an american running for president it sure stirs up a hornets nest. I know you are not comparing the two people together (OBL and Barack & Joe) but when you (or others) try to say oh what a coincidence, the first thing that comes to my mind is that deep down you are saying - hey everone Barack Obama and Joe Biden's name are so similar to Osama Bin Laden there must be a connection.
I was deeply offended the last time this was posted and still am. Would it be okay if this topic didn't come up again? Thanks.
1) Jobs (and our medical records) brought back from
3) The rich & big corporations pay their fair share.
4) Bring more honesty into the healthcare/HMO industry.
5) Address ILLEGAL immigration... it's out of hand.
6) Incentives for those who come up with clean & viable alternatives to oil & gasoline.
you did hear correctly and glad you finally brought it up
I'm so tired of hearing about poor Hillary. She did have people bused in from other states to vote (who weren't from that state). I know it because I was watching it on the news (CNN of all stations). Reporters were seeing out of state vehicles and other stuff.
For all the Hillary supporters take a look at just part of her resume:
1. Firing and prosecuting the White House Travel Office employees so she could enrich her friends.
2. Breaking the law on her cattle futures deals as she engaged in insider trading.
3. Having Bill pardon convicted Puerto Rican terrorists to get votes for Hillary in New York.
4. A record of shenanigans in the Whitewater deal which sent the Governor of Arkansas and numerous other people to jail.
5. Trying to reverse the American Revolution with her health care plan (would have given the Labor Department the authority to raise taxes on workers with NO approval from Congress and no limit would have been placed on the tax hikes either.)
6. Her health care task force was fined $250,000 for meeting in secret and violating government opens meetings laws.
She sickens me and I'm tired of her funny numbers. She did not win no matter what she and her followers want to believe. The voting system has been in place since anyone can remember, and now when she doesn't win she wants to change everything to go in her favor. Like I've said before. She needs to go back to the hole she crawled out of and stay here.
This attitude is exactly why we are in such a mess and the country was brought down in the past 8 y
nm
|
