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 do not understand what the agenda

Posted By: linda on 2009-06-26
In Reply to: A 12-vote margin out of 400+ votes suggests - it will have trouble in the Senate.

is when scientists around the world have already declared their findings do not support gore's. We are not doing anything to effect melting of ice caps on jupiter. The sun has just entered its new 11 year sun spot cycle with the peak about halfway through and as a ham operator I know what this does to communications. why is this myth persisting. what a bunch of youknowwhat. take the old nursery rhyme of "black sheep, black sheep have you any wool" and change it to black sheep, black sheep, have you any bull. yes sir, yes sir, 3 bags full". and before anyone even goes there, I have heard that in my mind for years and it has nothing to do with O. I do have a question for someone: On my phone bill since I came up to stay with Mother, I am being charged $5 a month for NOT using long distance. This is now taxed city, state and federal. Does this seem legal?


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

They have the same agenda. The only thing different sm
about Democrats and Republicans are the issues, and the issues are what divide us. The issues cause arguments, which distract us - the old divide and conquer tactic better known as the false left right paradigm. The Bush and Clinton families are quite friendly, even vacation together.
I merely posted who they are and what their agenda is...
that is not attacking the messenger. That is presenting the other side. Why do you object to presenting the other side?
Behind the Obama Agenda....sm




http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/election/546-behind-the-obama-agenda
a bold agenda

and worthwhile getting started but I believe you have to be dead 100 days or 100 years to get a national holiday. Something about historic prespective or some such.


 


Radical Agenda...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/25/boxer-seeks-ratify-treaty-erode-rights/


 


 


Since you seem to know, just what is the "conservative agenda", please? sm
..and kindly provide references from the conservative sources themselves, not from liberal sources that are a little too prone to misinterpretations and mischaracterizations.

Thank you. I apologize in advance if this request imposes a burden on you to get your facts straight, but you'll be better informed for having made the effort.
I'd appreciate it if you would leave my daughter out of your agenda.

I mentioned nothing of her political opinions or what she "thinks." I merely said I baby-sit for her occasionally and use her computer.  for you to try to drag her into your accusations is typical of what I have seen happen on the other board.  It's inflammatory and untrue, but it's how you people seem to create your "facts." I can assure you that my daughter has her own political opinions, and she and I don't always agree, unlike you, but we at least respect each other's right to their opinion and often have respectable, interesting, informative debates with each other.  She was taught respect and learned it very well. You can't hold a candle to the intelligent, respectful young lady that she is, so don't even try because you're way out of your league. As far as going back to the conservative board, thanks, but no thanks. I've already explained my reasons for not going back there any more. People are much more respectful of differing opinions on this board.


My post to gt was simply to tell her that I understand what it's like to be accused of all sorts of things simply because you post on a board.  It happened to me on the conservative board on my first (and last) visit there, which is why I won't return.


Do I think some of the things gt said were over the top?  I sure do.  Do I understand why she said them?  My guess is that she was trying to communicate with you in the only way you seem to understand, since civil attempts don't seem to work with some of you people.  I think I can "understand" her motives, just like some of you "understand" why Eric Rudolph murdered innocent people. And between the two, I'd much rather try to "understand" gt than "Eric" (as he appears to be affectionately referred to elsewhere on this board).


Americans tired of GOP agenda.
From pensitoreview.com where full story can be read:

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Sen. Nelson: Americans Are Fed Up with GOP
Posted October 5th, 2005 at 10:06 am by Jon

Boston.com:

The nation has become fed up with Republican leadership and the United States can still free itself of foreign oil in 10 years if it focuses on alternative fuel like ethanol, Sen. Bill Nelson said Tuesday.

In a wide ranging interview with reporters, Nelson, D-Fla., cited Republicans’ intervention in the Terri Schiavo case, the skyrocketing federal budget deficits and the war in Iraq as reasons why public opinion is turning against the GOP.

“It started with Terri Schiavo,” Nelson said. “I think what you’re seeing is a reaction — that people are saying I have enough of this intolerance and trying to cram their agenda down the people’s throats. People are getting tired of that.

He also points to the White House not responding quickly enough when Hurricane Katrina flooded New Orleans and Mississippi and failing to work with oil companies to reign in rising gas prices.

“I can’t tell you how many Republicans have come up to me and said ‘I am off the reservation because of the fiscal policies of this administration, spending so much money like a drunken sailor,’” Nelson said. “All of these things are coming home to roost.”
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Better late than never, I guess - now all we have to do is get rid of those hackable electronic voting machines and we can do something constructive about it.
No, it's not an evil agenda...I agree...sm
And in a perfect world America would be 100% Christian and we all would believe and think the same way, but we don't. Along with bringing their faith, our leaders have to bring the wisdom on how to be a leader for 100% of the people, and that includes the 49% that didn't vote for him.

Go to Obama's web site to see his agenda. sm
There you will find very detailed solutions that he lays out for America.  Of course experience is a good thing, but the trouble is the longer a person is embedded in the political establishment the more entrenched they become in "business as usual." Business as usual has netted little in this country, especially regarding the middle class.  I can't say Obama is the magic bullet here, after all he too is a politician, but a little less entrenched, and maybe it's worth a shot to see if someone with a little less "insider experience" could start to turn the country in a different and better, direction.  What do we have to lose?
And LOUDLY indicative of O's agenda! nm
nm
I no more understand it than I understand the extremely poor taste and blasphemous sm
post with pictures on the other board.  Are we clear now?
Freedom agenda in the Middle East?

Did Bush campaign promising a freedom agenda in the Middle East?  I must have missed that during the debates.  In fact, he specifically said he was against nation building when he debated Gore, although in all fairness, he didn't say he was against nation wrecking.


I guess he doesn't understand that the decider created more suiciders than he got rid of.


I can't wait to see how his base spins the long awaited truth from Bush's own lips that there were no WMDs and that Iraq had no ties to 9/11.


May God help us all.


Bush had a personal agenda for this invasion.
Al queada is in 80 different countries, mostly Pakistan.

No, this is about the children. Because if we cannot get this country straightened out now, it could send the entire globe into a recession since it is a dollar based economy world wide for the most part. Imagine: Tube socks at Wal-Mart costing 55.00 rather than 5.99. Imagine, a dollar having the value of a nickel.
Imagine empty store shelves. This is what is at stake.

You need to read more books from both sides. Tune into all stations. I force myself to listen to Bill O'really and Rush ::gags:: when major events take place just to see what their perception of events are.

There really is two Americas and you and I, we live in the same one. McCain doesn't consider a person rich unless they have 5 million dollars - doesn't that say something?

did you watch the 9-11 coverage on national geo? Did you see the errors made prior to the attacks and during the attacks? It was due to an unsophisticated system which the military used. Two fighter jets were out over the Atlantic ocean while the 2nd jet flew into the 2nd tower. "We were confused" "fog of war" how many lives that would have saved.

No, militarily the U.S. is weak and just about every general has said this that wasn't hand picked by Bush as a puppet. And have you heard: Iraq has a 63 billion dollar surplus but is not paying back the U.S. because "they destroyed the country." What????

Beating a dead horse. I can hear you now.

There are even wealthy democrats who would like to see McCain win - for the tax cuts. I am very suspicious the delegates who voted for Obama may have considered that. Even Keith Obermann, who actually read Obama's speech minutes before he hit the stage, ruining the ability for the audience to experience a thoughtful speech. He read it off like it was a lunch menu. And he is supposed to be a liberal democrat.

When the rich are against the poor, a country ends up corrupt. And that is what McCain is representing, the wealthy class.

Republicans = the rich and the fools.
What exactly was President Bush's agenda for locking them up?

Somebody has to pay for 9/11.  Somebody has to pay for the USS Cole.  The right people are locked up.  Excuse me for not crying about their civil rights or worrying about how they are interrogated.  National security is why President Bush locked those terrorists up, national security and justice. 


And I do have a grip -- a firm grip on reality.  I don't live in Obama-land.


Ending the Hidden Agenda Behind Tax Cuts

by: Joe Brewer, t r u t h o u t | Perspective


photo
The way that taxation is viewed by the public has a lot to do with the way politicians frame the debate. (Artwork: inventions-guide.com)



    Something as simple as a metaphor can mean the difference between shared prosperity and widespread suffering.

    It's time to tell the truth about tax cuts. This phrase dominates political discourse and is coughed out every time a conservative public figure opens his mouth. It is treated like the basis of sound reasoning, yet no one points out what should be obvious - that "tax relief" and "tax cuts" are just code words for destroying the capacity of government to serve the public.

    We've heard over and over again that the source of society's problems is the government. The solution that follows is to "trim the fat," "cut out the waste," "shrink the government" and provide "relief" to millions of citizens who suffer the burden of exploitation by Washington elites. This story flies in the face of the facts, yet it makes sense to a significant portion of the US population. How can this be?

    The answer has to do with how we make sense of things in the world. Our experiences shape what seems legitimate by reinforcing (or undermining) our ideas about the way things work. So, for example, a progressive politician may speak honestly and forcefully about the positive role of government in our lives. But this will fall on deaf ears if our typical experience is at odds with such claims. This observation demonstrates a key element of what George Lakoff and I have dubbed the Cognitive Criterion for Public Support:

    An effective policy must be popular if it is to stand the test of time and it must be popular for the right reasons, namely because it promotes the right long-term values in the minds of citizens, reinforced through the lived experience.

    The reason many people accept conservative claims about taxation and government is that they hold up for many common experiences, especially when conservatives are in control of the government. Conservative officials enact policies that make life worse for people while claiming that things will get better. Then they draw upon these negative experiences to advance their agenda. No Child Left Behind is an excellent example. The strategy works like this (a more detailed analysis can be found here):

1. Declare that the agenda is to "improve" public education.


2. Pass legislation that cripples public schools.

3. Cry out for "reform" when people see how bad our schools are doing.

4. Get rid of public schools and replace them with private schools, especially schools that teach conservative ideology (e.g. elite charter schools, religious schools, etc.).


    This strategy demonstrates how *cognitive policy* works. Emphasis is given to how people understand what is happening. The goal is to ensure that our experiences are interpreted through a conservative lens. It is not literally the case that taxation is a burden (a provocative metaphor), but rather that our common sense is influenced by a combination of our experiences in the world and the interpretive filters that give them meaning. (A key feature of how the political mind works, as I discuss in The Great Political Blind Spot.)

    Back to the hidden agenda behind tax cuts; we can apply this insight to see that conservatives *want* people to have negative experiences with government. Why? Because it supports decades of propaganda - and an underlying belief that stems from their worldview - that government is the problem. In the early 1970's, conservative elites started investing heavily in the creation of idea factories to spread their views far and wide so that they eventually became the new common sense of our culture. They had to work tirelessly for years to change the underlying values of American citizens because our long history has been devoted to advancing our most cherished values, which happen to be progressive. But, as we can see by the pervasiveness of their ideas today, this effort has been catastrophically successful.

    Now is the time to nip their bankrupt idea about taxation in the bud. The way to do it is simple. Take their reasoning to its logical conclusion and see what happens if it is applied to the real world. We can test the conservative belief about taxation against our own and decide what's best by looking at the outcomes.

    First, we'll need to be very clear about just what conservatives and progressives mean by taxation. Then we can apply these understandings to the world to see their consequences. (The insights that follow come from linguistic analysis of cognitive "frames" that shape political thought.)

    Taxation as Conservatives Understand It

    I've already alluded to an interesting metaphor that helps make sense of conservative thought about taxes, which I'll call Taxes Are a Burden to make it explicit. The understanding of taxation that follows from this metaphor can be seen in this story:

    Hard-working Americans are in need of some tax relief. Years of mismanagement by tax-and-spend liberals have taken money out of the hands of working people and put it into bloated government programs that serve special interests. We need to cut taxes, return fiscal responsibility to government, and put money back in the hands of taxpayers who know best how to spend it.

    This perspective is grounded in two beliefs: (1) The world is comprised of individuals; and (2) People are inherently bad and must learn right from wrong through self-discipline. I like to call this the "Me First" perspective because it assumes that people must help themselves before thinking about others. It can be summarized with the declaration, "You're on your own!" The Me First perspective assumes that any assistance from the community would be "coddling" or "spoiling" us. This claim is asserted as truth in the conservative worldview.

    Taxation as Progressives Understand It

    Progressives have a different understanding of taxation that can be expressed through a variety of metaphors: Taxes Are an Investment, Taxes Are Membership Dues, Taxes Are Pathways to Opportunity, Taxes Are Infrastructure and Taxes Are a Duty. (Read more about progressive taxation in "Progressive Taxation: Some Hidden Truths") Reasoning that emerges with these metaphors can be seen in this progressive story:

    Our great nation was founded on a promise of protection and opportunity. Through our shared wealth, pooled together by taxation with representation, we have invested in the public infrastructure that makes possible the creation of new wealth. We have a sacred trust to keep this promise alive throughout our lifetimes, expand it as we are able, and pass it along to our children.

    This perspective is grounded in the beliefs that (1) Individuals are influenced significantly by our communities; and (2) People are inherently good and benefit from cooperation with others. I like to call this the "People First" perspective because it assumes that people must help each other in order to enhance their ability to help themselves. It can be summarized with the declaration, "We're all in this together!" The People First perspective assumes that we are greater than the sum of our parts and that new opportunities emerge when we make wise investments with the common wealth we share.

    Truth and Consequences

    Now that we have a clear sense of what taxation means to conservatives and progressives, we can see what happens if these different ideas are used as governing principles for shaping society. This analysis accomplishes two purposes. First, it reveals key truths about taxation that complicate arguments made by conservatives, truths that don't get talked about nearly enough. And second, it exposes a covert agenda that deceptively exploits real concerns of people to advance an otherwise unpopular agenda.

    What happens if the Me First perspective is applied to taxation? Just look to the world we find ourselves in today. A problem defined as "too much spending" leads to budget cuts. This results in a diminished capacity to provide vital services. Public goods like education, civil and criminal courts, road maintenance and fundamental scientific research are too costly for individuals - or even multinational corporations - to afford. So these services are cut and people lose their jobs. Thousands of teachers no longer cultivating young minds. Countless construction workers laid off when city and state governments halt infrastructure projects. Graduates with advanced degrees unable to find work because public agencies are "tightening their belts" and cutting back on grants to academia, nonprofits and the private sector.

    Beyond the direct human suffering of disrupted lives, there is substantial reduction in government programs that protect the public against harm. The FDA cannot staff enough inspectors to keep toxic peanuts out of the food supply. The EPA lacks capacity to keep drinking water clean in cities and towns across the country. The SEC is unable to keep a watchful eye on runaway speculation and our economy spins wildly out of control. Bridges crumble and levies break because funds are in short supply.

    The consequence of conservative ideology is a self-fulfilling prophecy. People are forced to be "on their own" with no protection against serious threats and no assistance to get them beyond their current means. When disasters strike, there is widespread suffering and death because the tapestry of society - our precious safety net - has withered and decayed. Think I'm exaggerating? I'll just say one word - Katrina.

    And despite their claims to the contrary, conservative leaders want this to happen.

    Contrast this with the People First perspective. Again, we can let experience be our guide. A decade of rampant deregulation, perpetrated by a conservative mindset about the relationship between government and the economy, led to the great stock market crash of 1929. A visionary progressive leader, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, stepped in and vastly expanded a wide variety of public programs. The flood of revenues accompanying this expansion was enough to put millions of unemployed back to work. New programs that embody the spirit of progress emerged in the decades that followed. Social Security, the GI Bill, Medicare and the FDIC are a few examples of the legacy this pooling of resources delivered to the American people.

    Along with this massive investment in societal infrastructure, Americans experienced tremendous growth of shared prosperity. For the first time in our history, an entire generation of children from working-class families moved up the economic ladder with college degrees in hand. Home ownership skyrocketed. Literacy rates went through the roof and new skills emerged to expand the capacity of markets. And two generations of people experienced the benefits of cooperation in their daily lives, codifying the ethic that we're all in it together as a bedrock of sound reason.

    I can attest to this from personal experience. Both of my parents came from working-class families. I was the first to get a college degree. Federal and state scholarships delivered me from the rural farm to the hallowed halls. And now society gets to benefit from the fruits of my labor as I work to transform our political system for the betterment of society. The cognitive policy of the People First perspective is a foundation of my identity in the world.

    The Hidden Agenda Exposed

    The progress of our nation is being held hostage by a malicious metaphor. Treating taxation as nothing more than a burden is tantamount to declaring that citizenship is nothing more than getting all you can for yourself … everyone else be damned. Conservative elites have undermined the responsibilities we have to one another to advance their agenda. They are fully committed to crafting the world in their image, as we've seen all too clearly these last eight years and throughout the current debate about economic recovery under the Obama administration.

    I say enough is enough. Let's call this tactic out for what it is. People are hurting in every corner of the land and they're looking for help where they haven't dared to look for quite some time - in the service of our representatives in the federal government. Conservatives will try to convince us that our hardships are caused by excessive government. The truth is that we are suffering under excessive conservative ideology of governance, which is a very different beast. They continue to claim that we can't get ahead because we're overtaxed. This claim is absurd!

    Not a single home foreclosure throughout this crisis has been caused by excessive taxation. The misfortune of illness in a dysfunctional health system has burdened people with horrendous debt. Where did this problem come from? Profit-driven health care created under the Nixon administration.

    Banks haven't failed catastrophically through oversized personal W-2 forms. Radical deregulation is the culprit. Who deregulated the market? Conservative ideologues from both political parties. (This is what the word "centrist" really means - conservatives who've infiltrated the Democratic Party.)

    Companies haven't been driven to huge layoffs because their tax burden is too high. They are victims of an unraveling market. What undermined the integrity of the global economy? An extremist philosophy of governance that is blind to the role of the regulatory frameworks that give stabilizing structure to our markets.

    What can we do to stop the conservative agenda? Call it out for what it is. When someone says, "People need tax relief," respond by letting them know that "We really need to invest in one another." Make it clear what the consequences of tax cuts really are - the destruction of our mechanisms for protecting and empowering one another. And let's stop taking their language for granted just because everyone is doing it. That logic didn't make much sense in middle school. It's all the more dangerous to follow as adults. Challenge the conservative meaning of taxation directly. Declare that we are decidedly NOT on our own. Point to the benefits we've taken for granted too long, things like education and schools and roads and courts.

    We mustn't stop with a critique of their ideas either. We need to fervently argue for our own. Together we are greater than the sum of our parts. A prosperous community is a place where neighbors pool their efforts for the greater good. Taxes provide resources for investments larger than anything we could build on our own. And these benefits create a space for new ideas to take hold and expand our wealth.

    Ideas matter. Words are important. We cannot afford to let a radical minority set the tone of public debate any longer. The time is ripe for moving beyond the era of misguided individualism. Let's take the momentum we've built in the last few years and place the United States back on a course that resonates with our deeply held values - caring for one another, expanding freedoms to the marginalized, and recognizing that our shared prosperity is at the core of our success as a nation.


They aren't pushing a "gay agenda"...(sm)
They're pushing TOLERANCE.....something you could obviously use a lessen in.
EPA slants analysis to favor Bush's agenda

Report Accuses EPA of Slanting Analysis
Hill
Researchers Say Agency Fixed Pollution Study to Favor Bush's 'Clear
Skies'



By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday,
December 3, 2005; A08


The Bush administration skewed its analysis of pending legislation on air
pollution to favor its bill over two competing proposals, according to a new
report by the Congressional Research Service.


The Environmental Protection Agency's Oct. 27 analysis of its plan -- along
with those of Sens. Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.) and James M. Jeffords (I-Vt.) --
exaggerated the costs and underestimated the benefits of imposing more stringent
pollution curbs, the independent, nonpartisan congressional researchers wrote in
a Nov. 23 report. The EPA issued its analysis -- which Carper had demanded this
spring, threatening to hold up the nomination of EPA Administrator Stephen L.
Johnson -- in part to revive its proposal, which is stalled in the Senate.


The administration's Clear Skies legislation aims to achieve a 70 percent cut
in emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide after 2018, while Carper's and
Jeffords's bills demand steeper and faster cuts and would also reduce emissions
of carbon dioxide, which are linked to global warming. The Bush plan would also
cut emissions of neurotoxic mercury by 70 percent, while Jeffords's bill reduces
them by 90 percent.


Although it represents a step toward understanding the impacts of legislative
options, EPA's analysis is not as useful as one could hope, the Research Service
report said. The result is an analysis that some will argue is no longer
sufficiently up-to-date to contribute substantially to congressional debate.


The congressional report, which was not commissioned by a lawmaker as is
customary, said the EPA analysis boosted its own proposal by overestimating the
cost of controlling mercury and playing down the economic benefits of reducing
premature deaths and illnesses linked to air pollution.


EPA estimated the administration's plan would cost coal-fired power plants as
much as $6 billion annually, compared with up to $10 billion in Carper's measure
and as much as $51 billion for Jeffords's. It calculated that Bush's proposal
would produce $143 billion a year in health benefits while Carper's would
generate $161 billion and Jeffords would yield $211 billion. Carper's measure
would achieve most of its reductions by 2013, while Jeffords's bill would enact
even more ambitious pollution cuts by 2010.


EPA spokeswoman Eryn Witcher said the agency based its cost estimates on
mercury controls by gathering comments from boilermaker workers, power companies
and emission control companies, whereas the Research Service used a single study
to reach its conclusions on mercury.


Clear Skies delivers dramatic health benefits across the nation without
raising energy costs and does it with certainty and simplicity, instead of
regulation and litigation, Witcher said. Because of our commitment to see this
become a reality, EPA went above and beyond to provide the most comprehensive
legislative analysis of air ever prepared by the agency, so it does a real
disservice to this discussion to have a report that largely ignores and
misinterprets our analysis.


But aides to Carper and Jeffords said they felt vindicated by the
congressional study.


The CRS report backs up a lot of what we initially said about EPA's latest
analysis, that it overstated the costs of controlling mercury and understated
the overall health benefits of Senator Carper's legislation, said Carper
spokesman Bill Ghent. The report clearly states that there's no reason to settle
for the president's Clear Skies plan because the legislation doesn't clean the
air much better than current law.


© 2005 The Washington Post
Company

Well at least the blame agenda is still alive in the liberal movement. sm
Nice to see some things never change. 
What I find wrong is that he's pushing his own ego-driven agenda
regardless of what anyone thinks. I think this is called FALSE reassurance.
Okay, but you didn't answer the question... What was Bush's agenda?
?
I guess it is the idea that in the spirit of Christmas the NRA is pushing their agenda...sm
Is nothing sacred? And that goes beyond politics.

Santa with a gun. Right over baby Jesus. Insinuating that Muslims want to blow up Christianity. All in the name of being able to bear arms.

I can't name ONE act of terrorism in American history in the last 100 years that a citizen bearing arms would have saved ONE person from a terrorist.

A gun wouldn't have helped anyone in the trade center, can't take them on a plane so wouldn't have saved any of the passengers, Oklahoma bombing, nope a gunn wouldn't have helped those victims. Just another scare tactic, exploiting 9/11 to push their agenda that was here before waaaayyy before the fact.


Also can understand...

I was also accused of being the notorious gt also.  Not sure what their obsession is with this, perhaps they are hoping that all the posters who do not agree with are one in the same. 


 


What I understand you to be saying....

What I hear you saying is that this board's posts need to reflect your personal ideology and that it is your role to call our attention to posts that you consider too liberal. 


In looking back at your protests on this board, particularly a post where you have repeated the word hate over and over, combined with your delusions of grandeur that this board should operate according to your political agenda, I think you are mentally unbalanced.  As a result of mental illness I doubt you will be able to comprehend any reasonable explanation of why what you are doing is misguided.


I suggest that if you want full control of a political board and the ability to censor each post that you create your own website.


Also, I am not sure why you have been allowed to run amuck on this particular board. 


You know what I don't understand?
If we are so wacko, why do they keep coming here to read *liberal* posts and then slither back to insult us on their board?

PK,you're very welcome. Have yourself a lovely afternoon/evening wherever you are.






I don't understand....

How does one person's possibly tactless comments excuse another person's comments?  This line of thinking doesn't make sense.  So you're saying it's okay for Ann Coulter to be a brutal witch with her comments because if you look hard enough you can find comments from the opposing side that were also of questionable moral character?  So what?  LIke I always told my kids when they were little, just because other people are doing it doesn't make it right.


Besides, Ann quibbles that the widows are using their grief to promote their political agenda, well, my thought is that every time some family member of a war casualty goes on the local news saying how proud they are of what the military is doing  in Iraq, etc., isn't that ALSO promoting a political agenda?


I do not understand why anyone would believe there were WMD....sm
IF there were any thread of truth this administration would have announced it at first notice to redeem themselves from the *unjust war* criticism. Unless they are holding on to this tad bit of information until closer to electoins, which I doubt. I would not be so quick to jump on board with Santorum with his *classified document.*


What I think I do understand.

After much research, I feel I can comment on this.  Embryonic stem cell research has more than one goal.  There is the harvesting of aborted babies stem cells, but there is also the stipulation in small writing that embryos can be cloned in the lab and those stem cells used for research.  There is also this article, not released for general knowledge. I am sure that Michael Fox, as young as he is, and being the father of small children, would like to believe that embryonic stell research is going to be the be all and end all for Parkinson disease. I would want the same thing.  But it just isn't and there are sinister forces at work just waiting for this bill to pass and for all heck to break loose.  If it sounds dramatic, I don't think it is dire enough warning.  An informed public is a forewarned and armed public.  Here is the article I mentioned above. 







Stem cells might cause brain tumors, study finds





Sun Oct 22, 3:22 PM ET



Injecting human embryonic stem cells into the brains of Parkinson's disease patients may cause tumors to form, U.S. researchers reported on Sunday.


Steven Goldman and colleagues at the University of Rochester Medical Center in New York said human stem cells injected into rat brains turned into cells that looked like early tumors.


Writing in the journal Nature Medicine, the researchers said the transplants clearly helped the rats, but some of the cells started growing in a way that could eventually lead to a tumor.


Various types of cell transplants are being tried to treat Parkinson's disease, caused when dopamine-releasing cells die in the brain.


This key neurotransmitter, or message-carrying chemical, is involved in movement and Parkinson's patients suffer muscle dysfunction that can often lead to paralysis. Drugs can slow the process for a while but there is no cure.


The idea behind brain cell transplants is to replace the dead cells. Stem cells are considered particularly promising as they can be directed to form the precise desired tissue and do not trigger an immune response.


Goldman's team used human embryonic stem cells. Taken from days-old embryos, these cells can form any kind of cell in the body. This batch had been cultured in substances aimed at making them become brain cells.


Previous groups have tried to coax stem cells into becoming dopamine-releasing cells.


Goldman's team apparently succeeded and transplanted them into the rats with an equivalent of Parkinson's damage. The animals did get better.


But the grafted cells started to show areas that no longer consisted of dopamine-releasing neurons, but of dividing cells that had the potential to give rise to tumors.


The researchers killed the animals before they could know for sure, and said any experiments in humans would have to be done very cautiously.


Scientists have long feared that human embryonic stem cells could turn into tumors, because of their pliability.


Opponents of embryonic stem cell research cite such threats. Many opponents, including President George W. Bush and some members of Congress, believe it is immoral to destroy human embryos to obtain their stem cells.



*****

Finally, I will close with President Bush's words about embryonic cell research because I agree with him 400%.  I suppose the division lies between conservative and liberal in defining the meaning of life. 

 

(quote) believe America must pursue the tremendous possibilities of science, and I believe we can do so while still fostering and encouraging respect for human life in all its stages. (Applause.) In the complex debate over embryonic stem cell research, we must remember that real human lives are involved --both the lives of those with diseases that might find cures from this research, and the lives of the embryos that will be destroyed in the process. The children here today are reminders that every human life is a precious gift of matchless value.(unquote)

 

Amen, President Bush, Amen.

Okay....although I still do not understand...
but as you said, I don't have to. It seemed a very simple observation that if you found fault with Bush showing up at VA Tech and not at a soldier's funeral...I could not attribute that to anything but a strong dislike (I will not use word hate) of Bush. And no, I do not hate any of the people you mentioned. And had any one of them shown up at VA Tech, I would not have criticized them for being there because they had not gone somewhere else I might have felt they should have gone. I would have been glad they showed up to try to help those kids heal. I suppose you might call me naive, but I took it at face value, just like I did when Bill Clinton came to OKC after the Murrah bombing. As I said, he is not a person I like, respect or admire, but he was the President and he did come and I was very, very glad to see him there, he seemed sincere and I took it at face value. And, as I have said many times, there are a lot of things I do not like about this administration, I do not agree with everything Bush has done. However, on that same note, I was appalled at the pork the Dems wanted to hang on the troop funding bill, so I am not a big fan of the Democratically controlled Congress either. Nancy Pelosi broke the law by her Lone Ranger visit to Syria, and Harry Reid...I think he is a coward, I think to publically announce the war is lost when men are still on the ground fighting is at the last ill-advised, at the most tantamount to treason, emboldens the enemy and was from a personal standpoint hateful and very, very mean-spirited. I think when I see him, please do not tell me you support the troops and in the same breath tell them the war is lost. I think that is supremely arrogant, like he had a clue whether or not the war was lost. I am ashamed of him, and I have not been that ashamed of a politician since Bill Clinton's shenanigans. All that being said, as a person, I still like George Bush. I believe he is sincere and I believe his heart is in the right place. I think he is genuinely a good person, and that is probably why he is not a good politician, because there are very FEW who, in my estimation, are both. But that is just me. I think this war has taken a toll on him, and I think people who say he couldn't care less about the soldiers dying do not know what they are talking about. I have seen him shed tears on numerous occasions talking to families and talking to soldiers in the hospitals. The last President I remember shedding a real tear was Ronald Reagan. I think it is a sign of strength when a man shows his emotion like that. Again, you may perceive that as naive.

Basically I am looking for a hero this round. A man (or woman) with the courage of their convictions who will administer not to get rel-elected, but for what is good for the country. If such a person exists, now would be the time. I frankly have not seen that person in the running right now.

Yikes! Too much information.

God bless!
I really don't understand that, either....
I have been coming to these boards for a very long time and I have never seen a conservative post that liberals should stick to their own board. But they are really quick on this board to say things like "neocons need not apply" and "this board is for liberals." All that says to me is that they don't want to debate, they want only one viewpoint, theirs, and want validation from everyone for their viewpoint. The moderator has said that we could post on either board as long as we kept it respectful. This is America for Pete's sake. Each is entitled to his opinion and to support it. Sigh.
I understand
That is a whole lot more than I make, too! I live in an area where I have to pay $1,000 a month to rent a studio apartment. I thought this was outrageous! Then, my mother started a traveling job and has been telling me how much it costs to live in D.C. and some places in California. Even Vermont (sorry, don't remember what town) was more expensive! In these cases, a lot of that 88,000 would be eaten up by rent/mortage payments alone. Don't get me wrong, I do NOT think that someone living in a 3,000 sq foot house with a huge mortgage should get assistance - obviously their priorities would be out of whack. But for those in areas when it costs way more to live, that may not be unreasonable. Anyway, that was just my thought. On the site that I found, it does not mention that cap, it only says that states would set their own cap. If I recall, the 88,000 was mentioned by New York, who wanted that as their cap. I would imagine living in NY would be insanely expensive (anyone know #s?). I'm not sure how they would work out a maximum allowable cap - that doesn't seem to be written into the proposal.

I was just curious for reasons. Thank you for sharing!! :)
I understand what you are saying...
my experience totally different. My husband served in Somalia fighting AL Qaeda there..before 9-11...when Clinton was President. We have been in the military for many years. So, of course, we know soldiers...my husband was a member of the 10th Mountain Division. He was retired by the time Iraq came around (he still works for the Army in civilian capacity), but the 10th Mountain was instrumental in Afghanistan...he knew many of those who were deployed and he knows many who have ben to Iraq...needless to say our roots in the service run deep. And all the young/older servicemen we have come in contact with hold the opposite view...they understand the need to fight the enemy there so we don't have to fight them here. They believe, as do I, that keeping Al Qaeda busy in Iraq is one reason we have not been hit here again in a big way. The surge is working; casualties are down dramatically for both civilians and soldiers...the data is there if you look. Still, we will not get into a war debate but I will say this...no one WANTS war. I would like to have them home today too, but what I don't want is for America to become like Israel with car bombs and human bombs in malls, schools...I don't want to hear about something like that every day. I believe our being in Iraq helps keep that kind of thing at bay, and if we can leave a free Iraq we will be one step closer to keeping Al Qaeda at bay.

I saw a man on TV a few nights ago...a man who has interviewed several jihadists, including Al Qaeda...I wish I could remember his name. Will have to Google for that too. He said that most Americans really did not understand the threat. He said that there was a common thread in interviewing all of them, whether it be Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad...they said themselves that we did not understand. They are in this for the long haul. They intend that the world be converted to Islam, and those who do not convert will die. They will not stop until it is done. They intend to start in Europe and extend it to the US. When asked why could we not have a dialogue, they all said in essence: "There is no dialogue. There is nothing to discuss."

That should tell us what we are up against. And it should chill us all.

Have a good night!
I understand what you are saying but..

It seems that over time the majority of politicians who are supposed to be looking out for the people of this country have decided it is more profitable to concentrate on a certain constituency - those who have wealth and connections, no matter which party they represent.  I'm just kinda tired of always seeing Obama slammed - if he blinks wrong, does not say the 'right' thing, carry himself in a certain way - people are all over him negatively.  He cannot be any worse than what we have had in office the past eight years, and I am willing to see what he does without maliciously tearing him apart. 


I understand everything you said
There is no way to deal with these people. Everything we do is a catch-22. We go to war - we are intolerant murderers. We don't go to war - we are weak. My personal opinion on this is that we need to bring as many troops back as we can and do everything humanly possible to keep this country safe. I am afraid that with so many troops in Iraq, we are not safe. Other countries recognize this. Look at Iran. What would we do if we HAD (and I say had because I would hope that we would exhaust every other option) to invade Iran? Our poor troops are exhausted and weary. Who would fight any other threats? I think it is important to gain strength here at home. Secure our borders. Thoroughly investigate anyone coming into our country. I think that is the best we can do because fighting really doesn't get us anywhere in the grand scheme of things.
what I can;t understand

If repubs are the minority being attacked by the all-powerful liberal media, why can't we have a liberal talk radio network?  You got yer Hanninity, Limbaug, shrieking harpie Laura whats her name, Michael Savage, etc.  You can't be a minority and still have all the radio programs . ... don't make no sense.


 


Understand what exactly?
Are you looking for justification for leaning toward conservatism? Your prose is rhetorical and exhausting. Can we get some fair liberals, aka, fellow Democrats who would like to discuss issues, candidates, etc, on this site?
I understand what you are saying...
I am just not sure universal health care is the answer. In every country I can find who have it, the cost is catching up and they are contemplating cutting services or raising taxes out of sight...many Canadians now pay 50-55% of their paycheck in taxes. I do not want to see this country go down that road. That will only force more and more people onto assistance, and that is going backward, in my opinion. Bottom line is, we need to figure out a way to get health care costs down, or it does not matter what kind of plan whether private or government-provided...we will not be able to afford it. Gotta get costs in control and keep them down. That is what I want to hear a candidate talk about...now throwing more money and raising taxes for yet another entitlement. Look at the money coming in now and prioritize. If free health care for everyone is what is most important, fund that first. It might mean cutting some other services or entitlements, but sometimes choices have to be made. What is most important? Do we really need to drive up everyone's taxes yet again? And how come no one is stating what universal health care will cost? Because the figure would scare us to death is my guess.
I understand what you are saying....
but what is the worst that could happen? Some of them go back to being jihadists. But if we can turn one heart, one life...who then might turn another...isn't that worth it?

We cannot change anything that has been done in the past. We can, however, learn from it, and hopefully give these kids hope. That is what they need desperately...hope for a better time, a better life. And if we can help with that...we should.
I don't understand........
if you are currently living in the United States, George W. Bush is YOUR President. You may not like him, you may enjoy calling him names, but he is my President and yours.

George W. Bush is not retarded, George W. Bush is not retarded, George W. Bush is not retarded.

Thank you.
I understand what you mean
I think voting because its your right and if you feel really strongly about voting because its our right as a citizen then that's kind of different, for me though because I know my vote doesn't count, I feel like I'm not giving up my rights, I'm "exercising" my right to not vote. Sounds a little quirky I guess, but it beats joining a bunch of protestors. Besides I've got so much more stuff to do than go stand in a crowd, punch a ticket or whatever the means of voting and then watch whoever I don't vote for get picked. Our next president has already been chosen, so I figured why waste my time.
I understand that but I still don't think its right
I don't think its right for someone who wins over another to ask their supporters to help pay off the debts of the person they were voting against. These politicians bring in enough money that their debt would be paid off within a few months. What they want (and its not just Hillary, its others too), but they want everything and they don't want to pay for anything. If I'm donating money (which I didn't) but if I'm donating money to Barack's campaign because I want him to win, why in the world would I give any money to his competitor (wether it be Clinton, Edwards or anyone else who ran against him). So that they can keep all of their money free and clear. Heck, all Clinton has to do is give a couple speaches, write another book and their debt will be paid off. They're just greedy and want it all. So just because it's been done before doesn't make it right. Also, I don't remember hearing about this in past elections. I can't ever remember hearing the winning candidate openly campaign for funds to pay off the debts of the people who tried to knock them out of the race. Maybe it was done, but I never did hear anything about it.
I understand everything you are saying...
and I did not mean that 5 years in a POW camp alone qualifies him...but it does build the character, integrity, selflessness, and patriotism that I think are essential. We know this about McCain. I don't know that about Barack Obama. There is nothing in his history or his resume that gives me that feeling about him. McCain also commanded men in war time. McCain has been a senator many more years than Obama has. If you put there experience side by side...absolute evidence of integrity, patriotism, selflessness, the willingness to buck the "party" if they feel the party is not correct...all those things make me feel that McCain is better qualified for the job, and the 5 years in a POW camp, the fact that he never caved and endured horrible torture because of it...is definitely part of that qualification.

I don't agree that McCain is 4 more years of Bush. The two are nothing alike. Bush has caved to the Repub hierarchy when I think he should not have. Anyway...that's just my take on it.

I do understand yours, and you SHOULD vote for who you believe will be the President. That is what America is all about. I know I AM! :)
I understand what you are saying....
but choice does have a lot to do with debt. No all, but in the majority of cases. Part of the reform McCain/Palin will be looking at is predatory lending. A main reason Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae collapsed is the so-called "reform bill" the democrats wrote and passed this year...forcing them to offer mortgages to low income and middle income people whether they were creditworthy or not...using those adjustable interest rates. When the bottom started falling out, interest rates went up, the people were in over their heads and defaulted. Who is picking up the tab? You and me, for people taking on a mortgage they could not afford, ignoring the fact that if the interest rate went up (and they almost always do in adjustable rate mortgages) they could not pay the mortgage. That is what I am talking about. Yes, I know the American dream is own your own home. I had to wait until I was middle-aged to be able to afford it.

Same way with those high-rate credit cards to people with less than stellar credit. I don't think most credit cards are maxed because of using them to live on. I do not say that none of them are...but I would venture a guess that they are not.

Respectfully, if we want jobs to stop going offshore we need to stop taxing our businesses at an astronomical rate. Our business taxes are at least 10% higher than anywhere else in the world. That makes it very difficult for our businesses to compete, and it sometimes forces businesses to go offshore to get out from under the huge tax burden. That is economics 101. Now Obama wants to hit small business owners not only by keeping the business taxes at all-time high, but taxing the business owners' personal income even more, taxing capital gains even more, and raising the death tax even more (which forces the closure of many businesses when the principal owner passes away). In my opinion, the death tax should be stopped, period. All the money in the business has already been taxed, and the government wants to tax it AGAIN when the owner dies. Talk about piling on.

The government needs to learn to live within its means. Find out what programs are not working and stop them. Monitor spending programs better...the waste is astronomical. Attach a job to a welfare check. Make the objective getting the people back to work, not dependent on the government and taxpayers to support. That being said, those truly disabled physically or mentally, we should take care of. But someone physically and mentally able to work should have a job or job training attached to that check, and it should not be open-ended. JMO.
I understand....however....
while I think Bush is great on the war on terror, and I think he is a good man and his heart is in the right place....I don't agree with some decisions he has made...being realistic. Same with any President. He was President in 2005 and I think he should have listened a little closer to McCain at that point. I stop short of saying, tho, that it is all his fault. It's not. It's the Dems in COngress who blocked what McCain wanted to do.

Obama is up to his eyeballs in the Fannie/Freddie thing...as is CHris Dodd... and Biden has gotten all kinds of failures from MBNA.

And isn't it funny about Charlie Rangel and Pelosi refusing to remove him from chairman of ways and means committee while he is under investigation for improprieties? If he was a Republican they would be calling for his head on a platter. LOL. Amazing.
Well I can understand they want to win, so do we
But we don't chew up Obama and Biden like they do Gov. Palin. Just all worthless.

Thanks for the post. I have to read it when I get back later. Just was checking to see if anyone answered. It's been up all day and I see lots of people read it but none that will admit that absolutely hate her - and for no good reason.
Here is what I understand
I will try to find links to validate what I say, but this is what I have read and heard.

Palin did not fired people to give their jobs to her friends. I believe that was proved incorrect (again I will try and find the link). That's about as accurate as the story about her banning books from the library. Everyone seems to think she banned books from the library (because it was put out by the liberal media) and Harry Potter was one of the books listed. The problem with that story was Harry Potter hadn't even been written yet when they claimed she banned it.

If your talking about people firing and hiring people I would look directly at the Clintons. When Bill was President and Hillary was first lady I'm sure you remember what they called Travelgate. They fired people who worked in the White House Travel Office (for no reason) so they could hire on their friends.

I will try and find the links later (won't be back on til tomorrow), but I would just say if your reading a story and it comes from the liberals I would definitely research it more and read both sides (liberal and conservative) with an open mind and a grain of salt because 99% of the garbage the liberals have been putting out there is just that, garbage (i.e. - Palins daughter is the real mother of Sarah's baby, Todd Palin had sex with his daughter, and the list of lies goes on and on).
They should also understand....
he was not convicted of anything and his involvement was minimal. But you did not post that. It is also not a felony, which our friend Bill Clinton committed. And Bill CLinton continued as President anyway, and on most Democtats' estimation, he did just fine. I would hope anyone reviewing this issue would take both into account.
Sure I understand it. sm
Bush may be a soft dictator, but he is a dictator. McCain is no different. Are you telling me we do not have those things in the US?

14 points of fascism.

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm
I understand that
that's why I am making a point of trying to study different versions and in questionable areas I look up the Hebrew words and what not. I do know that humans make mistakes (duh, lol) but I honestly believe that God has control over the Bible, and he wouldn't let it get as widespread as it is in the condition it is if it wasn't acceptable. Kind of like if someone wrote a book about everything you said and then changed it, you would get rid of that changed version real quick. I'm without a doubt that God has the power to do that.

So do you believe that you still go to Heaven when you die? Or do you still go to Paradise because the Messiah hasn't come yet? (I'm not sure if that is a Christian or Jewish teaching, I'm pretty sure it's old testament but if our OT and Jewish OT are different, then that might be too)

I am firm in my beliefs, but I still want to learn about others. I think it's closed minded not to. Just because you know what you believe doesn't mean you shouldn't learn what others believe, right?

I think that is where tolerance gets misconstrued. People say tolerance is believing that everyone's beliefs are correct. But tolerance is accepting that other people have other beliefs, not accepting that they are just as correct as you (that was to anyone in general, not you.)

Thanks for clearing it up though, I have been curious about it but I don't know many (or any really) Jews here in our little town. Everyone is pretty much Baptist or Methodist. But doctrine is a whole 'nother thing. I always tell everyone I'm only Southern Baptist by marriage! (My father-in-law is a preacher, yes, I married "the son of a preacher man")and they are every bit as bad as everyone jokes. Fortunately God reeled him back in and me along with him! :)
what I can't understand is...
Why do people take time to argue here rather than getting out and making calls or something else that would be more profitable for the candidate of their choice. (This is my very 1st time to ever post on this site.)
I understand that they do but they don't like being
@@