Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

I didn't see the show, but it doesn't

Posted By: surprise me - sm - Starcat on 2005-12-21
In Reply to: Oh, that makes perfect sense. - American Woman

Extremists are all the same. Pope JPII was against the Iraq war and tried to persuade Bush not to go through with it.

Along the same lines, see this article from over the summer:

Adoption agency rejects Catholic parents
JACKSON, Miss. (AP) — A Christian adoption agency that receives money from Choose Life license plate fees said it does not place children with Roman Catholic couples because their religion conflicts with the agency's Statement of Faith.

Bethany Christian Services stated the policy in a letter to a Jackson couple this month, and another Mississippi couple said they were rejected for the same reason last year.

It has been our understanding that Catholicism does not agree with our Statement of Faith, Bethany's state director Karen Stewart wrote. Our practice to not accept applications from Catholics was an effort to be good stewards of an adoptive applicant's time, money and emotional energy.

Sandy and Robert Steadman, who learned of Bethany's decision in a July 8 letter, said their priest told them the faith statement did not conflict with Catholic teaching.

Loria Williams of nearby Ridgeland said she and her husband, Wes, had a similar experience when they started to pursue an adoption in September 2004.

I can't believe an agency that's nationwide would act like this, Loria Williams said. There was an agency who was Christian-based but wasn't willing to help people across the board.

Bethany, based in Grand Rapids, Mich., has 75 offices in 30 states, including three in Mississippi. The offices are independently incorporated and are affiliated with various religions, spokesman John VanValkenburg said from the agency headquarters. He couldn't say whether any were Catholic-affiliated. The Jackson office is affiliated with the Presbyterian Church of America, he said.

Glenn DeMots, president of Bethany, said on Friday that the policy is open to interpretation. He said the national office does not ban adoptions to Catholic families, but does allow each branch to establish rules for the placement of children based on the agency's Statement of Faith.

Stewart told the Jackson Clarion-Ledger that Bethany's board will review its policy, but she didn't specify which aspects will be addressed.

The agency's Web site says all Bethany staff and adoptive applicants personally agree with the faith statement, which describes belief in the Christian Church and the Scripture. It does not refer to any specific branches of Christianity.

As the Savior, Jesus takes away the sins of the world, the statement says in part. Jesus is the one in whom we are called to put our hope, our only hope for forgiveness of sin and for reconciliation with God and with one another.

Sandy Steadman said she was hurt and disappointed that Bethany received funds from the Choose Life car license plates. I know of a lot of Catholics who get those tags, she said.

She added: If it's OK to accept our money, it should be OK to open your home to us as a family.

Bethany is one of 24 adoption and pregnancy counseling centers in Mississippi that receives money from the sale of Choose Life tags, a special plate that motorists can obtain with an extra fee.

Of $244,000 generated by the sale of the tags in 2004, Bethany received $7,053, said Geraldine Gray, treasurer of Choose Life Mississippi, which distributes the money.

It is troubling to me if they are discriminating based on only the Catholics, Gray said.

The Bethany spokesman, VanValkenburg, said the offices in Mississippi do not receive any public money, but that some offices in other states do, for example, because they are involved in foster care.
Copyright 2005 The Associated Press.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-07-16-adopt-catholics_x.htm?csp=34


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

Just goes to show everyone doesn't become wise with age. nm
x
Yeah....this show dates us, doesn't it...sm
I was a junior in high school when it came out, and thought it was a riot. I don't watch at all either, though, stopped sometime early ྌs.

How time flies, doesn't it. I know I don't feel old, so why do the years reflect it?


Show me proof that it didn't work......
Maybe you just got your history lesson from Faux Noise. The New Deal DID work until the Republicans pressured FDR into instituting tax cuts - then we went into a recession - after that World War II pulled us out of that. It sure doesn't look like Ws wars have helped our financial situation.......perhaps that's because he told us all to SHOP till we DROP instead of asking Americans to sacrifice like FDR did.........but. WWII wasn't based on lies, either......
Just goes to show the j@ckas@es/crooks running the show!
nm
Beck says - almost every show - that he is NOT doing a news show.
He does an opinion show - meaning HIS opinion. As such, he's entitled to stick pins in little Obama dolls for all I care.

I can hear Chris Wallace laughing at you folks from here because it's pretty obvious whoever wrote that knows zip about Beck, or Wallace for that matter. In fact, I can't think what Wallace has to do with Beck anyway. Everyone of INTELLIGENCE who watches Beck and Wallace is perfectly aware that one does one type of show and the other does another.

But what do you expect from one of George Soros' puppet sites like Media Matters and Move Bowels.org?

You really should delete your Favorites list and start over.
Saw the show. It was a guest on the show....
not a commentator. Why don't you post the link to the clip so everyone can decide?
Show me who your friends are and I’ll show you who you are.’
This subject is not old, and is very, very relevant.



Obama's friends/associates (supposedly former friends and associates, only since this campaign):

Ayers

Wright

Dorhn

Michelle

Khalidi


The company he keeps:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YThjYTU1ZDBjNmQ2YzcwNzU1MmYwN2JiMWY0ZGI0NDA=



I find it very, very troubling, that this man has no visible friends, other than the ones above (not Michelle, although she has been kept under lock and key out of public sight for some time now, so as to keep her from embarrassing herself again).



Does this man not have any other friends/associates, other than the ones above?
Ayers doesn't regret the bombings, doesn't feel like they did enough sm

In a story that appeared in the Times on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, Ayers told a reporter while promoting his memoir "Fugitive Days": "I don't regret setting bombs...I feel we didn't do enough."


Mr. Ayers, now a professor of education in Chicago, was a founder of the Weather Underground, which bombed government buildings in the early 1970s. He was indicted on conspiracy charges that were thrown out for prosecutorial misconduct.


He served with Mr. Obama on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, a charitable organization, and, along with his wife, the former Weather Underground member Bernardine Dohrn, hosted Mr. Obama at his home in 1995 when he was running for state office.


Mr. Obama has called Mr. Ayers "somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8 years old."...so because it was 40 years ago, and Ayers is still proud of what he did, how is it justifiable for a US presidential candidate to now be friends with this man?  Unless he has the same view of America.


Let me rephrase that. It doesn't *seem like* my vote doesn't count...sm
It does not count because its in the bag that our 3 electoral votes will go to the republican party.
I didn't miss any part and didn't say...
anything either way. I just posted a link.
I know most of it's for show
But how does she get on TV saying things like she did about Jewish people? How does she sleep at night after saying something like that? She just gets more and more outrageous just to get a reaction - and yeah sometimes it works because what she says is hateful. I have no problem with anyone giving their views, but she's hateful about it and that is what I have a problem with (and no, as I've said before I don't condone hateful things on either board)
goes to show

even a stopped clock is right twice a day.


 


Just goes to show you that you need to ...sm
have an inquiring mind and not take as gospel what is spoon fed to you by either party. I particularly like the "fact checks" on both party's candidates. The perception is that we American voters are fools and will believe anything we are told.
Show me a pic
I can't find a pic with a lump on his jaw.
show me
show me refusal to acknowedge - I haven't seen it.
Goes to show you - sm
McCain is concerned about the people. Obama is concerned about himself.

McCain was absolutely right on the spot when he said there needs to be an investigation, just as there was when 9-11 happened, we need one now for this crisis.

One more plus to show McCain is interested and will work for us, while Obama....well Obama is for Obama.
Once again....goes to show

how people who get their tail feathers all ruffled after someone personally attacks an Obama supporter on the board, but they have no problem calling McCain supporters names and personally attacking them by stating they lack intelligence.


Look in the mirror....your hypocracy is showing.


Don't believe it. Show me. nm
.
You show me anywhere where he said...
95% of American workers WHO PAY TAXES. SHOW me where it says that. But, supposing that is what he means...there are still that 30-40%. Those people pay taxes. Then they get deductions and credits. They get back every dime they paid in and THEN some. They are part of that 95% who "pay taxes." Got it? And about 30-40% of the working public fall into that category. so it is back to square one. Yes, they "pay taxes." Taxes are deducted. Then they file. They get the deductions and the credits and whatever (I am talking about NOW). They get back every dime they paid in. These people technically "pay taxes." If you work one day a year and have deductions, you "pay taxes" and will be included.

I understand that you don't see it. I understand that you are filling in the blanks that he left open. I don't see it the way you see it. He is counting on people seeing it the way you see it. So be it.

YOu can yell BOGUS until you are blue in the face. I will yell NAIVE just as loud.



"He is assuming it is understood." Well, he is hoping that everyone will understand it the way YOU understand it. I am not so enamored of him that I cannot read between the lines. And frankly, as BOGUS as my line of thinking appears to me, YOURS is naive at best. So we will agree to disagree. If he went on television and told you tomorrow that he was going to cut checks to people who don't pay taxes because it is the right thing to do, you would be on this board defending the decision tomorrow night.






You show me where he says it is not.
You assume it is not. I assume that it will be. Based on everything his history is, based on everything he has said, including starting at the BOTTOM. Just where do you think Mr Obama perceives the bottom to be? What is your assumption on that?
Please show me where....(sm)
Obama has said that he will "give to those who would not [work]."  And by the way, does that include Social Security? 
OK show me
Where does it say the Secret Service blames McCain/Palin?

There were people who spoke about potential threats to Obama before he even became the Democratic candidate. To act now like it's all because of McCain and Palin stirring them up is ludicrous.

Bigotry is out there. Or do you honestly believe no one would have noticed that Obama is an African-American?



I don't like her either, but she has every right to be on the show
I don't like Ann Coulter at all. I think she's obnoxious and arrogant. But then again I don't like the View. I think it's filled with old "has been" housewives and mothers who just sit and gab and give their opinion and put down anyone who doesn't agree with them (i.e. anyone who is not a liberal). I watched the View a couple times and there was nothing interesting or entertaining about it. If they don't like a guest they won't even look at them (Joy Bear (or however you spell her last name) is such a pig! - I can explain and prove that in another post if anyone is interested). Anyway...for anyone to come out and say there is no reason to have someone (no matter who it is) on their show is a bit Nazi-ism. Who are you to say who they should have on and who they shouldn't. Her opinion of Barbara Walters is just that, her opinion. I didn't see the show, but when she said that I'm sure she was jumped on by the others. None of them can stand any person who is not a liberal and they try (and I use the word loosely), try to ridicule them. Luckily it doesn't work. From my understanding of what I've read on this board and elsewhere is that Ann Coulter says things to inflame others. She says things for what they call "shock value". I'm sure Barbara Walters is a big girl (I like Barbara Walters - just can't stand the others on the show), but Barbara is a big girl and can stand up for herself. She's smart and a quick thinker so I'm sure she had an intelligent comeback. But as for Ann Coulter saying things, that's just the way she is and they all know that and knew well before hand that she would most likely do that. Besides they do have a script they follow to some degree with questions prepared ahead of time and what they say and how they plan to cut down a non-liberal.

But for you to come out and say there is no reason to have such a person featured on TV? That is a bit too Nazi-ism for me. Everybody deserves to go on whatever show they want to. Her views have no value? According to you and other liberals they may not, but there are others who like her and would like to hear her interviewed. And certainly the View wanted her on the show otherwise she would have not been there.

I'm just glad your not in charge of who is allowed to go on what shows, or what books we can read (burn all those you don't agree with) - sound familiar?
Just goes to show ya
Fringers can't recognize a clean election when they see one and don't have a clue what the word "mandate" means. Uninformed? You seem to have cornered the market on that one.
same old show

Don't fret.


We get the same old show no matter what party is in office. It is a continual ball game with Republocrats versus the Democans. It keeps the American sheeple amused, cheering and fighting for its favorite team while the big boys play games with the global elite, keeping the spectators slaves to their greedy ideas. Been watching this show too long.......


But it would at least show that he

was attempting to keep his promise whether he was overrun by congress or not.  If that is the case, then let congress take the fall for it and we can vote those fools out as soon as we can.  But for him to just go along with it after he made promises to us.  The only reason Obama turned his back and broke his promises to the American people is so that he kept the support of the dems in congress. 


For once, I want a president who will stand up to his party and the other party and say....you know what....I promised the American people and they come first because WE work for them.  Instead we continue to get liar after liar in office with a government system that is more interested in how much money they can spend with our tax dollars. 


All this does is show him, as you said...for what he is.
a corrupt power-hungry politician, just like the rest of them. "Yes we can.." uh, no, "Yes I can." And he certainly is...lol, priceless. As they have sown....so shall they reap. Problem is, we are going to have to reap right along with them. Thank all of you who so ill-advisedly cast your vote for this charlatan...(tongue firmly in cheek). Next thing you know he will be asking us all to work for nothing like British Airways did...LOL.
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.



 


The show and Powell

I thought the show was wonderful and illustrated very clearly how bits and pieces of intelligence were selected and manipulated and turned into something they weren't.  (They referred to it as a "Chinese menu" that the administration used to pick and choose from.)


I taped this show and watched it a couple times.  As far as Powell is concerned, it did show how Powell's relationship with George Tenet began to disintegrate.


It further showed how Tenet was, at Bush's father's urging, kept as CIA director when Dubya took office, and all the events leading to his resignation.  He was one of Dubya's sacrifical lambs.  I guess Bush thought giving him the Medal of Freedom made up for that.


Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, Powell's chief of staff, said that Powell told him, "I wonder how we'll all feel if we put half a million troops into Iraq and march from one corner of the country to the other and find nothing."


Powell said, "I will forever be known as the one who made the case. I have to live with that."  (That made me feel really bad for Powell, who I have always trusted and considered to be an honest, ethical man.  His association with Bush really dragged him down, and his statement about having to live with that just tells me that he's still an honest, ethical man, the kind of man who had a spectacular military career, actually had the guts to go fight in wars himself, someone who truly IS Presidential material, someone who doesn't belong in an underhanded, lying, foolish administration like Bush's.)


The show also pointed out how if you are someone who works for this president and you discover something not right or in alignment with his "plans," if you tell him, you'd better be prepared to resign or be fired. 


This show clearly illustrated how Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq, and all he needed was a reason, even if he had to invent a fictional one.


Again, I thought it was an excellent show, and if you ever have the opportunity to watch it or obtain a transcript of it, I would highly recommend it.


Where did gt do that? Show me please because I can't find it.


It's COMEDY show
and the last I watched he was an equal opportunity offender....
I saw a show on TLC about this family...
To each his own, especially if you're footing the bill yourself, but this family is just uplain creepy.  The children are all homeschool and virtually isolated from any other children other than another family or two who share the same nutty religious convictions.  They even have their OWN church at home.  The girls all wear these horrid sad-sack Little House on the Prairie identical plaid potato sack dresses that look like they were made from discarded curtains and when asked their only aspirations are to have lots of children and to be a mother.  The boys also dress identically in little Leave it to Beaver short-sleeved dress shirts.  It's called Full Quiver parenting, as in having as many kids as you get before you get to menopause or your uterus falls out, whichever comes first.  I find the whole thing rather odd, but who am I to judge I suppose.
Again, please show me where I was disrespectful. Thank you.
Who is they?
Bush should take in a show
So funny, well neocons (cause I KNOW you are reading our board, just cant help yourselves), all I meant by **you got that right Abe** was that Bush should take in a show, oh my gosh, his job is so stressful he would really enjoy taking in a play..LOLOLOLOL..if you  thought otherwise, then you are the  **terrorist** in my opinion because you  are thinking that someone wants to destroy our dear elected president..I have never wished that, thought that or advocated that..
It doesnt show up..nm

Just trying to show how silly all of this is.
Why not think of ways to make the world better on your own instead of cooking up stuff.  That's all I am saying.
For those who show no remorse, SM
They should never see the light of day again. Never.
Sometimes posts show..
up in between posts; how many times have we said, **that was supposed to go under blah blah blah.** I know you didn't post the chickenhawk piece but I am still interested in what any of your definitions of winning **the war** are. When we will know we have won? How will we know we have won?
Show our support

A friend sent this to me........ but like she said, please don't do this!  It's just all in good fun....


Show Your Support 


 

    There are less than eight months until the election, an election that will decide the next President of the United States. The person elected will be the president of all Americans, not just the Democrats or the Republicans. To show our solidarity as Americans, let's all get together and show each other our support for the candidate of our choice.










It's time that we all came together, Democrats and Republicans alike.



 


If you support the policies and character of John McCain, please drive with your headlights on during the day.
 If you support Obama or Hillary, please drive with your headlights off at night.














 


did you even SEE the Daily Show?
x
Too afraid to show up at RNC.
nm
Actually, I show 50 to 46, which is good,
nm
Can you believe how long this show has...sm
been on and always with high ratings? Almost 40 years? It tells us that we need to be not so serious and laugh at ourselves and take a break from being so serious all the time. My favorites are still the originals but haven't watche it much the last few years,
Link did not show....here it is again...
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/outsourcing-outrageous-obamas-rhetoric-versus/story.aspx?guid=%7B96669C6B-1325-4F21-B44D-8CD419127655%7D
Show our support
Show your support.  The person elected will be the president of all Americans, not just the Democrats or the Republicans.  So: To show our solidarity as Americans, let's all get together and show our support for the candidate of our choice.  It's time that we 
all came together, Democrats and Republicans alike and let our candidates know we are behind them. 

 So, until the election, if you support the policies and character of Barack Obama,  please drive with your headlights on during the day.   If you support  John McCain, please drive with your headlights off at 
night.  

 

Thank you for your participation in this  patriotic endeavor!  Let's let our candidates know we are behind them.

You ashamed to show us your name?
I guess I would be too if I were you. You talk about rants! Shucks, guess I am just being obnoxious again.
Show me something...anything...that confirms HC and Ms O
x
Believe it or not, the Today show
spent some time on this issue this morning. I was surprised since it's supposed to be buried. They cited all the lawsuits from the different states. But, since I was a bit shocked, my ears went dead and I didn't hear the rest of the story.
No. Show me where he has said the tax CREDIT will
Becuase if it is not a refundable credit (like he earned income credit is) then it can only apply toward tax LIABILITY...meaning you cannot get it unless you owe tax. This is not the same thing as a tax cut. A tax CREDIT has more value than a tax cut, because it is paid directly against owed tax liability.

With regard to the tax CUT, this is simply a TAX RATE DECREASE. He is not proposing to send every man, woman and child $500 or $1000. In fact, the language clearly states "up to" $500 for an individual worker and "up to" $1000 for working couples. This is a top cap limiting the benefit on can receive from the adjusted tax rate.

An economic stimulus is a SEPARATE ISSUE...as I have pointed out below and as SAM herself has referred to. It is a one-time issuance of monies that will be paid to 95% of workers. The stimulus would be structured very similar to the one we have already received under Bush.

Now here this. The ONLY WAY that a person who has no tax liability could receive any benefit would be if the tax CREDIT (not tax cut) is a refundable credit. THAT is the language I am looking for. Where does it say that the tax credit is a refundable credit?
Show me the moolah!
Yes, I worked hard (full time) last year and made a measly (rounded off) $10,000!!! Pass the plate to me! :)
Why don't we all just come together and show our love
xx