I guess it depends on your perspective...
Posted By: sam on 2008-08-14
In Reply to: Yes, by comparison...sm - CNN is conservative
if you are as far left as Obama, I guess CNN WOULD look conservative...lol. I guess it is in perspective. The point I was trying to make but obviously failed is that no one is going to learn anything if they only listen to one side...and people who automatically yell yeah you got that from Fox or Rush Limbaugh are exactly the kind of people I am talking about. You give an opinion, and if it differs from theirs it automatically came from Fox or Rush Limbaugh and that makes it wrong. I just wish people would not listen to the party line on either side and would use due diligence and research for themselves. The Obama website is not where to go to learn about Obama. The McCain website is not where to go to learn about McCain. Voting the party line is just too Pied Piperish for me. Although I am not and never was a Democrat, I have to applaud that PUMA bunch for having the gall to buck the system and fight for what they think is right. I am not crazy about their candidate either, but I admire their guts, and that is what America is about, by golly. Hil has every right to put her name in nomination at the convention and people who support her have their say. That being said, I noticed Obama caved on that and came out with that placating and to MY thinking condescending thing of "letting women and Clinton supporters feel vindicated." Yeah right...lol. He wants their votes. Period. Go PUMA!
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
I guess it depends on how you look
at it. There are so many things that I don't agree with Obama on that I want him to fail. If he is succeeds, I feel that our country will fail because we will go down a path that I don't agree with. I want America to succeed but if Obama does everything he wants.....I don't see how America can succeed. I mean no ill will to him and do not wish him any harm. I just do not like the way he is handling things, spending money, etc. The ideas that he has and the government assisted programs he wants to institute will not only bankrupt us even more but I feel are bad ideas because people shouldn't rely on government to live. They need to rely on themselves. I feel that these programs will not encourage personal responsibility or hard work. It will reward irresponsible and lazy people. It will crush the American dream. So yes....in that sense....I want him to fail. I don't want Americans to have to rely on government for everything. I don't like the idea of our government getting bigger and controlling more and more things.
I look at Obama and I see a typical politician. He did nothing but try and make everyone feel all warm and tingly about change and hope and all he has done since he has been in office is lie one right after another.
I feel that if Obama succeeds in his personal agenda....America will fail.
guess it depends where you live because...
where we live, the entire region, all I see are small businesses starting up, then they are gone within a year, one after another, ghost towns in all the cities of empty businesses being literally destroyed by Wal-Mart et al.
There has to be a middle ground, and there has to be more tolerance or there will always be division more and more, rich or poor, and there will always be revolution and unrest.
and what are you talking about 'sharing' with people. you think paying taxes and contributing to road work, infrastructure, everything paid by taxes should be on the backs of poor people and middle class, which excuse me if I am wrong, but does middle class even exist anymore in reality or just in people's own truths of what they want to see.
we see every day more and more people down scaling their lifestyles, sacrificing whether to buy groceries or gas, more and more people cannot even get jobs because of credit checks and background checks (guess working now is also only for the elite, well-off people, and no one should ever be forigven for their past or allowed to progress). who then is promoting social programs - seems to me right now people are being pushed into eventually making all the same pay, fixed income.
...and excuse me forefathers but do did they think they could enslave people, force them to leave their own countries and families, tie them up and bring them to America, abuse them, torture them, treat them less than animals, and then have no responsibility for them.
this what people are calling 'sharing' with people less fortunate than ourselves was created here and we are left to resolve it.
I would rather have a leader in this country who would at least recognize it, try to fix it, then to just have the same old rhetoric and division, pushing people farther and farther apart so only a few people can make profits..
gotta run -
I am not sure what your family above would have to 'share' but I do respect your point of view...
I guess it depends on what affiliation you have.
It seems to me that there is just as much, if not more, bashing by Republicans/conservatives as I see directed towards them. In actuality it is probably fairly evenly split.
depends on how you measure success I guess....
He only got a 4-5 point bounce in the polls and lost that the next week. Not all Americans were impressed with his "citizen of the world" speech. There are those of us who wonder where his real allegiance lies. No wonder.
By the way, when I say "hoohah" I don't mean the word you refer to. Apparently it does not mean the same thing in my neck of the woods. If I want to intimate the 4-letter word I would certainly do it more directly...not my style.
There is no way that little speech in Germany was "diplomacy." And gee, call me old-fashioned, but I think if you are running for Pres of the US, you should give your political speeches HERE.
I did not demand, nor have I heard anyone else demand that Obama admit the surge is working. It is obvious that it is. The fact that he chooses to ignore it does not give me any more faith in his ability to run the country or take care of national security issues, and makes me doubt his honesty. As to being true to his beliefs...didn't take him long to throw his lifelong friend and mentor the Reverend Wright under the bus for political expediency. There's that trust thing again.
How anyone can say, faced with all the info out there about him and how he handled the Wright thing (which was in name only, you don't stay in a church for 20 years that is built on black liberation theology if you don't believe it)...and say with a straight face he is being true to his beliefs.
Well, I take that back...he IS being true to his hard left socialist/Marxist beliefs. Already wants to redistribute wealth aka economic parity, a big element of the black liberatin theology...by taxing oil companies and redistributing their profits to people who did nothing to earn it. How much more socialist approaching Marxist could you possibly be? In that, yes, I would agree...he is being true to his socialist/Marxist beliefs. You got me there.
I guess it depends on your view of the beginning of
is life. I'm not advocating third or even second trimester abortions but believe me it's far better for a woman to abort a child than have one that won't care for it. Take Casey Anthony, for example...
You're entitled to your opinion. I guess it depends on what side of the spectrum you're on.nm
x
My perspective is not so
We could argue forever about whether the bible is historically accurate...
You're wrong; I see humans as more than animals, but what I said is that we are basically animals and therefore have the same basic instincts. As with animals, it is the quest for territory and power which have caused the rise and fall of powerful nations throughout history...not homosexuality. Also, you see Christians only as victims when, in fact, we've done our share of the murdering (the Crusades, the inquisition, the *discovery* of the Americas,the Holocaust, etc.) The old testament is just as violent. My point is this: we brutalize and kill each other for the same reason animals do - dominance over others...no matter the religion, no matter the country. That's where I think the NeoCons have pulled a fast one and many have fallen for it; under the guise of religion and being good American Christians, they've convinced many they are the ones to follow, when, in fact, their policies are in direct conflict with the interests and well-being of the average American i.e., healthcare, jobs, etc., and when in fact they are no more Christian than anyone else. It's all about POWER, as it has ALWAYS been....but make it sound like it's for God and suddenly you're drinking Kool-Aid.
Just a little perspective
I have seen portions of this video today, and let me tell you this is not mainstream Christianity. We are not worshipping images of George Bush nor are we working our children up into an emotional frenzy. I disdain what this so-called woman minister is doing to these children. My child would not come within 100 yards of her. It's not Biblical...it's almost cultish, but before you start parading this around as the Christian norm. It's not. This woman is developing a cult under the name Christian...she's got some deep seated theological issues.
Let's put this in perspective...
The report tracked donations of $200 or more. It found that 859 members of the military donated a total of $335,536 to Obama. McCain received $280,513 from 558 military donors.
I don't think this in any way reflects how the bulk of the military will vote...there are several thousand more than are reflected here.
For a different perspective....(sm)
you might want to check out http://nooga.com/
Pretty much all of the other media around is now republican owned.
another perspective
Um, do you guys realize that not all OB/GYN doctors perform abortions? Not that I'm an ob/gyn physician, but I believe you need training beyond residency to be certified in abortions. There are a many residencies that do not offer abortion training to its residents, for whatever reason. The point is, just because you're an ob/gyn doctor, does NOT mean that you perform abortions. Therefore, just because Bush's law is being repealed or whatever by Obama, doesn't mean that now every ob/gyn doctor out there is going to have to provide abortions or risk getting sued. Did that happen before Bush's law went into effect?
I think the concerning thing about Bush's law was that it permitted healthcare workers to refuse to even provide INFORMATION regarding abortions (like, who to refer someone to), based on their moral beliefs. Moral beliefs vary between people, and between providers, and are very subjective. What if a healthcare provider believed that ANY abortion, even in a case in which the mother's health was threatened, was immoral? He or she, under Bush's law (as I understand it), would be legally protected in not giving the woman information on who to go to to get an abortion. In a field where healthcare providers put patients first (and in the case of a mother's life or health being threatened, the mother always comes first for obvious reasons), it is unconscienceable, from a medical ethics standpoint, to refuse to offer that woman the resources she needs to protect her health and/or life.
That's an extreme example, and I truly hope no healthcare provider would make the decision to refuse information to a woman in that case, but under Bush's law, they would be protected. As far as I understand it.
Another MUCH more common example is prescribing emergency contraception, and even regular contraception. Under Bush's law, a pharmacist would have the right, legally, to refuse to fill a prescription for a woman seeking that if his or her beliefs indicated that such a thing (contraception - emergency or not) was immoral. This is especially relevant in rural areas, where women - often poor - do not have access to more than one pharmacist. Her right to contraception definitely trumps a pharmacist's beliefs - and I'll tell you why. Pharmacists don't (as far as I know) have access to doctor's notes explaining the reason for a prescription. They're smart and trained people who can look at your meds and deduct what medical problems you have, but how are they to know if you have antiphospholipid antibody syndrome and really, really shouldn't get pregnant? They don't. They might know if you're taking retin a orally and thus shouldn't get pregnant for that reason, but they don't know everything about your medical conditions. And even if they did, legally protecting these providers' decisions to refuse contraception CAN remove the right of a woman to make decisions regarding her own health. In a free society that protects individual autonomy, such a law goes directly against what it is supposed to protect - autonomy. A subexample - what if the woman in question is a victim of rape or incest and can't remove herself from the situation, for reasons that you and I don't know? Why should a pharamcist's beliefs - again, which are hard to legally define - trump HER decision to not get pregnant with the result of a repeated act of rape or incest? Furthermore, you and I don't know that she's being raped. You and I also don't know the reason why she can't remove herself from the situation. So, why should you or I make a moral judgement and/or a decision that impacts her health? I don't believe that we can. I know that *I* can't, because I really don't know this woman's story. As a pharmacist, and even as her doctor, I likely wouldn't know.
Back to the subject of morality and the definition of morality. What if a healthcare provider believes that homosexuality is immoral, and allowing such a couple to have children is immoral? A case like that happened in California a few years ago, where the fertility clinic a lesbian couple went to basically either did not harvest the eggs, or did not give the proper treatments (I don't know the exact details), but executed acts that were based on a decision (a decision they admitted to) to not help these women conceive BECAUSE they believed homosexuality was immoral, and they allowed the women to keep coming to the clinic for months before it came out that they were not helping them because they were lesbian. Now, perhaps this was a Christian clinic, or perhaps everyone in the clinic WAS Christian. I don't know. I do know that the rights of these women to get fertility treatments was denied to them because a decision was made based on someone else's morals. Why should their health, and their control over their fertility, be impacted by someone they don't even know? We don't go into the healthcare business to make moral decisions for people. That's the job of our church, if we have one.
Basically, I'm writing here because I've gone through most of the comments, and people all seem to be under the misconception that doctors will have to perform abortions now if asked, and a) that's not the case, given that all doctors are not trained in abortions, and b) the main importance of the law (in my opinion) lies not in the actual procedure of abortion, but in the sharing of information to women about their LEGAL options. Which, in America and in many developed countries, includes abortion, like it or not.
another perspective
Um, do you guys realize that not all OB/GYN doctors perform abortions? Not that I'm an ob/gyn physician, but I believe you need training beyond residency to be certified in abortions. There are a many residencies that do not offer abortion training to its residents, for whatever reason. The point is, just because you're an ob/gyn doctor, does NOT mean that you perform abortions. Therefore, just because Bush's law is being repealed or whatever by Obama, doesn't mean that now every ob/gyn doctor out there is going to have to provide abortions or risk getting sued. Did that happen before Bush's law went into effect?
I think the concerning thing about Bush's law was that it permitted healthcare workers to refuse to even provide INFORMATION regarding abortions (like, who to refer someone to), based on their moral beliefs. Moral beliefs vary between people, and between providers, and are very subjective. What if a healthcare provider believed that ANY abortion, even in a case in which the mother's health was threatened, was immoral? He or she, under Bush's law (as I understand it), would be legally protected in not giving the woman information on who to go to to get an abortion. In a field where healthcare providers put patients first (and in the case of a mother's life or health being threatened, the mother always comes first for obvious reasons), it is unconscienceable, from a medical ethics standpoint, to refuse to offer that woman the resources she needs to protect her health and/or life.
That's an extreme example, and I truly hope no healthcare provider would make the decision to refuse information to a woman in that case, but under Bush's law, they would be protected. As far as I understand it.
Another MUCH more common example is prescribing emergency contraception, and even regular contraception. Under Bush's law, a pharmacist would have the right, legally, to refuse to fill a prescription for a woman seeking that if his or her beliefs indicated that such a thing (contraception - emergency or not) was immoral. This is especially relevant in rural areas, where women - often poor - do not have access to more than one pharmacist. Her right to contraception definitely trumps a pharmacist's beliefs - and I'll tell you why. Pharmacists don't (as far as I know) have access to doctor's notes explaining the reason for a prescription. They're smart and trained people who can look at your meds and deduct what medical problems you have, but how are they to know if you have antiphospholipid antibody syndrome and really, really shouldn't get pregnant? They don't. They might know if you're taking retin a orally and thus shouldn't get pregnant for that reason, but they don't know everything about your medical conditions. And even if they did, legally protecting these providers' decisions to refuse contraception CAN remove the right of a woman to make decisions regarding her own health. In a free society that protects individual autonomy, such a law goes directly against what it is supposed to protect - autonomy. A subexample - what if the woman in question is a victim of rape or incest and can't remove herself from the situation, for reasons that you and I don't know? Why should a pharamcist's beliefs - again, which are hard to legally define - trump HER decision to not get pregnant with the result of a repeated act of rape or incest? Furthermore, you and I don't know that she's being raped. You and I also don't know the reason why she can't remove herself from the situation. So, why should you or I make a moral judgement and/or a decision that impacts her health? I don't believe that we can. I know that *I* can't, because I really don't know this woman's story. As a pharmacist, and even as her doctor, I likely wouldn't know.
Back to the subject of morality and the definition of morality. What if a healthcare provider believes that homosexuality is immoral, and allowing such a couple to have children is immoral? A case like that happened in California a few years ago, where the fertility clinic a lesbian couple went to basically either did not harvest the eggs, or did not give the proper treatments (I don't know the exact details), but executed acts that were based on a decision (a decision they admitted to) to not help these women conceive BECAUSE they believed homosexuality was immoral, and they allowed the women to keep coming to the clinic for months before it came out that they were not helping them because they were lesbian. Now, perhaps this was a Christian clinic, or perhaps everyone in the clinic WAS Christian. I don't know. I do know that the rights of these women to get fertility treatments was denied to them because a decision was made based on someone else's morals. Why should their health, and their control over their fertility, be impacted by someone they don't even know? We don't go into the healthcare business to make moral decisions for people. That's the job of our church, if we have one.
Basically, I'm writing here because I've gone through most of the comments, and people all seem to be under the misconception that doctors will have to perform abortions now if asked, and a) that's not the case, given that all doctors are not trained in abortions, and b) the main importance of the law (in my opinion) lies not in the actual procedure of abortion, but in the sharing of information to women about their LEGAL options. Which, in America and in many developed countries, includes abortion, like it or not.
Historical Perspective
I heard many calls today on talk radio from these naturalized US citizens who said to just take a look at what happened to these nations.
Think what y'all want, but I'll never forget what they've done to take the $ I make and hand it over to some jerk who pays nothing in taxes. Yeah, that's really fair.
One clip was played where a lady said she's so happy that she'll never have to pay a mortage, car payment, and even gas for her car! So this is okay? Next time I need gas $ or something, I'll just put my hand out and y'all can just empty your wallets. So if someone owns 2 acres and I own only 1/2, you have to pony up to even out the difference. Enjoy it and don't bitch about it if you voted for this naked socialist.
Good luck to charitable organizations. It should be interesting to see how many people continue to give once they've been completely raped for all they've earned.
Jon always has the perfect perspective . . .
Hey Fox!! Paranoia will destroy 'ya!! TEE HEE!! 
Perspective. That is nothing compared to what we
nm
She only hates FOX because they give perspective
nm
Let me try this from a different perspective (long post!)
First off, thank you for your post. Thanks for not bashing.
Second, I HATE IT when you've typed a huge long thing and it gets erased! !!!!
Anyways, I want to come at this from a different angle. From one of very few conservative college students left.
As the campaign and election unfolded, the things I witnessed in this college town and across the nation did not remind me of the last presidential elections.
I watched as signs and Facebook statuses said "Barack the vote!" or "The White House is going to be painted BLACK B*T*HS!" or "My president is BLACK!!"
Very mature.
I watched as shirts were being sold that had a giant "O" on them resembling the "S" for Superman.
I watched as bars promoted "FREE SHOTS FOR EVERY STATE THAT GOES BLUE!" like they do for everytime UGA scores a touchdown.
I watched people who in 40 or 50 years have never once voted, but now go and register to vote for O. And I am not denying the historical significance of him running or being elected. But the simple fact is that there were quite a few black people who went out and registered to vote for him, not caring about what he stood for. There were also white people who went out and registered to vote so they could vote against him, but I do not believe the numbers were equal.
I decided to pull a Howard Stern yesterday in talking to one of my friends. I said "I'm so glad Obama is a Pro-lifer!" Her answer? "I know, isn't he great?!" ......?!?!?
This is my problem. Obama has been presented as a ROCK STAR, not a presidential candidate. Girls are swooning over his good looks. He threw a 2 million (probably more than that by now) Obamapalooza Tuesday night. The reaction to him is like one you might see if a college found out Green Day or 50 cent was going to come perform for them.
Everyone is so excited that the 18-24 year olds are finally getting out and voting and that we had record turnouts. Nevermind they don't have a clue what for. Nevermind that they probably voted Obama and then just randomly picked all the other names on the ballot. Nevermind that they didn't research the issues, or think past their four years in college.
If someone voted for Obama with understanding of what he was for and what his plans were, that is fine. I have no beef with that. That is what makes our nation so great. My problem is that the majority of NEW voters don't seem to have a clue. I watch on Facebook as classmates plaster pictures of Obama looking hot on the cover of Ebony. Or write I heart Obama! All over their cars.
This election just did not seem dignified to me. I really don't care that Mccain lost. He wasn't my No. 1 choice. What I do care about is that the majority of people voted on a Rock Star, not a President.
I know that we can't have quizzes or what not before voting because it would be similar to the Jim Crow laws, but their needs to be something. People shouldn't just be allowed to blindly vote for the highest office in our country.
Again, I'm not saying that everyone did. If you knew what Obama/Biden stood for when you cast your vote for him, that's fine, unless you just say "he stands for change!".
Look, I hope I have to eat crow for the next four years. I hope he turns out to be the greatest bipartisan president I have ever seen and he just makes this country into an amazing place. But it's going to take an act of God for that to happen I believe. There will be a great uniting of liberals and left leaners, I am sure. But I feel like us conservatives who hold to tradition and God are going to become few and far between. There is already a shortage of true Christians in this nation. THAT'S what I fear. I fear the fact that talking against a group or religion is a hate crime, unless it's against Christianity. I fear the fact that I'm going to try to be forced to accept what is against my beliefs. I fear that in an effort to "unite" this country, we are going to be expected to compromise on our beliefs.
Like I said, I hope I am wrong. I hope that Obama turns out to be an amazing guy and puts this country on the right track. But there is a reason for a left and a right. We who lean right shouldn't be expected to go left, and vice versa. But as the president, he is representing ALL PEOPLE, and therefore needs to stay right in the middle.
I would like to see him elect some strong conservatives to his cabinet to balance out some of the strong liberals. I would like to see him elect supreme court justices that balance each other. These actions would cause me to give him some trust.
I will say this. This young conservative will be keeping a watch. And she will be writing him and anyone else she needs to when she feels that things are going to far to one side. Right or left.
From this point forward starts a blank page. Like I said before, He has a 0 with me right now. With the pick of Emanuel, he's leaning to the negative, but if he balances it out with a conservative pick, we'll be good.
Young Voters Fall for Obama’s Promises Without Any Historical Perspective..sm
Election 2008: Young Voters Fall for Obama’s Promises Without Any Historical Perspective
By Liz Peek
Financial Columnist
Today we will almost surely elect Barack Obama President of the United States. A new generation will vote for Mr. Obama –- a generation that has grown up with the Internet. This new crop of voters has access to more information than any that came before, and yet has swallowed Obama’s impossible campaign promises and contradictory policies just as trustingly as those who in earlier times looked for a chicken in every pot.
Welcome to the disillusionment of another generation. I don’t anticipate this inevitable consequence of today’s election with any glee, believe me. To see young people turning out in droves to vote for this eloquent, attractive young man is inspiring. To hear them buy into his promises, though, is sobering.
For instance, we are told that the image of the United States has suffered mightily under George Bush, and that Obama is going to usher in a veritable global love-fest. Would those falling over themselves to herald our new president include the peoples of South Korea and Colombia –- allies both — whose much-needed free trade agreements with the U.S. Obama has opposed?
How about our neighbors in Canada or Mexico; will Obama’s promised re-write of NAFTA endear them to the U.S.? Is it possible that Obama’s opposition to free trade demonstrates his gratitude to labor unions –- groups that aroused his ire by donating to the Clinton and Edwards campaigns but suddenly were much more warmly welcomed when they began shifting funds his way?
Over a year ago I wrote a tongue-in-cheek column defending the status quo against the pressing demand for “Change” writ large. While politicians of all stripes were heralding new directions, they were ignoring, for example, that the U.S. has been blessed for many years with low inflation. Voters in their 30s and 40s could not be expected to remember the devastating inflation of the 1970s. They couldn’t be expected to understand how double-digit price hikes threw the fear of God into retirees on fixed incomes and created the same kind of paralysis in lending that we are witnessing today.
They might not connect the dots between Obama’s enthusiasm for the Employee Free Choice Act, a resurgence of unionization, and wage-driven inflation. They might not realize that restricting trade with China, re-writing NAFTA and barring adoption of free trade agreements with Colombia and South Korea will indeed drive prices higher.
The United States has also enjoyed a period of stable employment. The new generation has never seen serious unemployment. True, they have witnessed shifts in employment as manufacturing jobs have been lost to lower-priced locales. But they have never seen unemployment rates go much above 6%, where it is now. In 1982, when unemployment reached 9.7%, Obama was 21 years old. I doubt he was much focused on the dismal state of the economy. Voters, however, were focused, and gave Ronald Reagan a mandate to set the country on a new course –- one which encouraged growth through lower taxes, expanded trade and deregulation.
That program was adopted by both Democrats and Republicans because it worked. People in their thirties and forties cannot imagine that raising taxes on successful people might harm the economy. That’s because they weren’t around to witness the exodus of talent from England –- a country wherein punitive marginal tax rates squashed incentives and drove out anyone who could locate elsewhere. Margaret Thatcher didn’t just join the Reagan Revolution –- she clung to it for dear life.
What young voters have seen, and have responded to, is the collapse of Wall Street. Because bankers, politicians and speculators conspired to create the worst investment bubble in modern times, we are about to abandon the policies that brought millions of people around the world into the middle class. Policies that gave people real hope –- not just its rhetorical facsimile. This is a tragedy.
http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/11/04/lpeek_1104/#more-2415
It all depends on how you look at it....
Obama actually has 166,186 vote lead over Clinton in the popular vote -- 17,267,658 to 17,101,472. If Michigan's primary is included, where Clinton received 328,307 votes and Obama none due to the fact he removed his name from the ballot, Clinton takes a 162,123 vote lead.
It depends on who you believe.
nm
Depends on who you ask. It is okay according
nm
All depends on what you think a nut is, eh.
He is a well-respected researcher and author, who has gained a lot of confidence and respect of some of the finest minds on this planet. Sure he may have some books you don't agree with, but there are a lot of authors like that. Some books you enjoy others you don't. And if you don't do the research yourself how can you discount anything anyone who has spent 20 years researching has to say. Probably the same crowd that discounts scientists and climatologists who have been at their jobs for 40 and 50 years as kooks because they come out and tell you Algore doesn't know what the he!! he's talking about. I guess people would consider them "nuts" too. David Icke has a website where you can learn a lot of useful information.
I guess before JFK was assassinated if people were told there would be an assassination and it would come from within, people would have called them nuts too.
Actually, the people I consider nuts are the ones who will only listen to what is fed to them through the boob tube (Olberman, Matthews, Maddow, Limbaugh, Hannity, Colmes, etc) and the ones who will not listen to issues of importance but just follows the leader with their eyes closed, and anything they don't agree with or like they call nuts. I guess in their own minds by making fun and ridiculing others who don't agree with them they must feel elevated above all others - just another elite nut to me.
Sometimes you have to look with both eyes open to get to the truth.
Depends
what the definition of 'lobbyist' is. Same as it depended what the definition of 'is' is.
depends on what poll you are looking at
I've seen recent polls that put both Clinton and Obama about even with McCain when matched up together and others that show both of them come out ahead of McCain 5-10 points. Others then show McCain ahead. Polls are so subjective that you have to take them with a grain of salt. The most telling thing to me is that Democratic vote turnout has been twice that of Republican turnout in some areas, so no matter what people are saying in the polls, getting them to the voting booths in November is a different matter. The Democrats are energized and enthusiastic, flocking to the polls. The Republicans overall are leukwarm on McCain (and the party in general) and it's showing in unenthusiastic turnouts. This will play very well for whomever the Democratic candidate is in November.
It depends on the situation
I voted for Bush the first term. He was running against Gore. The country could not afford another 4 years of Clintons. I voted for Bush and I'm proud I did because it helped keep a known bafoon who didn't know squat diddly out of the white house. After Bush was elected a lot changed. I didn't want to vote for him again, yet the best the dems could do was give us Kerry???????? There were so many qualified people running. How that ninny got in there (must have been all those purple hearts). So I voted for Bush again. However I wasn't voting for Bush, I was voting against Kerry. That doesn't make me and others morons, it makes us well-informed voters. If it meant four more years with Bush in there then so be it, but I'll tell you something. With everything that has happened in the world these past eight years the US is lucky that Gore and Lerch were not in office. That's the way a lot of people feel.
Now we're in a totally different election. Both McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden are very different from their usual party people. This year is an unusually difficult election. Times are quite different than they were 4 and 8 years ago.
To tell someone they are a moron because they didn't vote for democrats? The other choice would have been even more moronic to vote for.
With everything that has happened I'll take Bush over Gore or Kerry anyday. And before anyone goes blaming him for everything that's happened - He's just a talking head being told what to do. If you want to blame anyone, blame the bafoons in his party (Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc to include the people who tell Bush what he's going to do).
I suppose it depends on who says it...sm
If she said it referring to herself....who cares.
If someone says it about Sarah Palin.....who cares, it will bounce off, as she is neither of those words.
What about when Obama talked about all the small town bitter people holding on to their guns and religion, in his San Francisco speech?
Was that bad? I think it was, and he disenfranchised a whole group of voters, to this day, who would not consider voting for him....
That is perhaps, the phrase that deRothchild was comparing to...not sure, but perhaps...
Sooooo.....to answer your question? which word is worse? Well, both of them are, and there's been plenty of name calling lately. It's getting tiresome, really.
Petty, spiteful, little name calling, which has run entirely too rampant lately in the media, not to mention on this board from time to time.
depends in which poll you look at....
and all within the margin of error.
I think that depends on your definitition (sm)
of a *nice neighborhood.* I don't judge neighborhoods by the cost of the houses, I judge them by the people who live there. At present I live in an average-to-small house on a double lot. Plenty of room for the backyard garden, cookouts, etc. I have neighbors who I would not trade for the world. So, if I had that kind of money I would probably stay right where I am. I may, however, change that tile in the bathroom to marble and put that koi pond out back that I've been wanting for years....LOL.
Depends on location.
If it is Podunk, Nowheresville--probably. If it is NYC or Boston or even someplace like Wichita--not so much.
It all depends upon the culture.
The hand-holding custom among Arab men as they walk does not signify that they are on a 'date' but is a symbol of mutual respect and/or friendship.
As far as greetings go, a handshake with direct eye contact is becoming more acceptable, but some ethnic customs do persist. The European double-air-kiss is a greeting between equals (and pretentious New Yorkers). Among Japanese the relative depth of bows acknowledges who has the superior rank, but both bow. Bowing of one Arab to another or one European to another (not to be confused with a smart click of the heels and bob of the head, a sort of antiquated European salute) is a sign of subjugation. I am acknowledging you as my superior in rank. I am your humble subject.
There was only one guy bowing. It was our president, and his upper body was nearly horizontal to the ground, far lower than shaking hands with a shorter man would seem to require. I don't mind if Obama thinks he needs to appear friendly, I just don't want him acknowledging subservience.
It depends on the legs! Why should and would
a woman with ugly legs expose them? Then it gets indecent and fugly. If the legs are nice it's acceptable.
Regarding what you state that the IQ depends
solely on the DNA, similar to the color of the eyes, height, etc.... ..I disagree. disagree. Therr is this theory that the realtive IQ score is already set at the age of 7 and cannot be improved. In my opinion it can be improved by ongoing education.
You should definitely try it.
When life begins depends on
someone's religious beliefs. Not all people believe that life begins at conception.
I don't think the beliefs of any religious group over another religious group should be shown preference when it involves the law.
Depends on what part of California - sm
it's like 2 states sometimes. The central portion of the state: Central Valley in the north, Orange County in the south, chock full of narrow-minded midwest transplants, many of whom are evangelical christians. The coast and mountains have more progressive and free-thinking people. (Also the more highly-educated, as a rule). You couldnt pay me to live anywhere but on the Calif. coast.
Depends on who he campaigned or voted for
If he wanted O in, it will probably be one-sided like all the rest. If he wanted McC in, it will be one-sided, too. If he remained neutral, like newspeople SHOULD be, then it should be interesting. I do like him, though.
We need to vote as if our entire future depends on it,
x
All depends on what news you watch, polls
are all over the place
Depends on what you call racist I suppose
@
I didn't say that depends on what the definition of "IF"
There is a big difference between IF and WHEN. IF I said "...If I go to the store" or "...when I go to the store" IF means I may go to the store, WHEN means I WILL go to the store.
The other poster said that Mccain was saying he was going to be president and I pointed out that so did Obama and I gave PROOF from his OWN site.
It all depends on what news station you listen to
I talked to my best friend the other day (whom I met when I was in the Army). Her husband is in Iraq. Her son is in Afghanastan, and her daughter is in Iraq. None of them like war (who does) but the consensus among them and their fellow soldiers is that it is worth it. Do they want the war to end, heck yeah. Do they want to come home, heck yeah. Do they want to give up everything they've been fighting for. NO WAY! They say if they leave now everything they have done to help the people of Iraq will all have been for nothing. They want to stay until the job is finished and not any sooner. They say if we don't do this it will be left up to our children, our nieces and nephews to take care of when they get older.
It all depends on who you listen to for news. Of course MSNBC, CNN and other liberal news agencies say its a mistake we should not be there, need to come home now. But my freinds said her husband and two kids and all their fellow soldiers say stay until the job is done. For every soldier on video saying we shouldn't be here, etc, etc., there is another soldier like the one in the OPs link that say, don't tell us its not worth it.
Depends on the mistake. Making the case for war in Iraq on a stack of
lies from Curveball, not your everyday ooops.
As if.
Diaper Dave in airport rage "Do You Know Who I Am?" umm...depends
Report Of Vitter In Airport Rage: Do You Know Who I Am?!!
Roll Call reports that Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), the staunch social conservative whose career became bogged down in the 2007 D.C. Madam prostitution scandal, was sighted this past Thursday night having an incident of airport rage at Dulles Airport.
Vitter arrived 20 minutes before the plane was scheduled to depart, and found the gate locked. He then opened the door, setting off the alarm and inviting the attention of an airline worker:
Vitter, our spy said, gave the airline worker an earful, employing the timeworn "do-you-know-who-I-am" tirade that apparently grew quite heated.
That led to some back and forth, and the worker announced to the irritable Vitter that he was going to summon security.
Vitter, according to the witness, remained defiant, yelling that the employee could call the police if he wanted to and their supervisors, who, presumably, might be more impressed with his Senator's pin.
But after talking a huffy big game, Vitter apparently thought better of pushing the confrontation any further. When the gate attendant left to find a security guard, Vitter turned tail and simply fled the scene.
Late Update: Vitter is now responding to the story, after a spokesman declined to comment in the initial reports:
"After being delayed on the Senate floor ensuring a vote on my anti-pay-raise amendment and in a rush to make my flight home for town hall meetings the next day, I accidentally went through a wrong door at the gate," Vitter said in a statement. "I did have a conversation with an airline employee, but it was certainly not like this silly gossip column made it out to be."
Good don't guess. It's my guess though.nm
x
My guess would be
THREE!
guess what
Now you know how it feels, don't you?
That's anybody's guess. sm
But I think it is an educated guess to think most democratic voters in this election were against the war and most republican voters were for the war. Just my guess.
I guess your'e in the 39%
Bush approval rating dips to 39 percent - poll
Wed Oct 12, 9:47 PM ET
President George W. Bush's job approval rating has fallen to a new low of 39 percent in an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released on Wednesday.
Bush's approval rating dipped in the poll below a mid-September ranking of 40 percent. The survey also found only 28 percent of respondents believed the country was headed in the right direction, NBC reported.
Bush's political challenges have been piling up in recent weeks, from criticism over his handling of Hurricane Katrina, to growing unease over rising gas prices to conservative discord over the nomination of Harriet Miers to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Many conservatives are outraged that Bush picked the White House insider with no judicial experience instead of a judge with clear-cut conservative credentials who could be counted on to move the high court firmly to the right.
Twenty-nine percent of people surveyed said Miers was qualified to serve on the highest court in the United States, while 24 percent thought she was not qualified and 46 percent said they did not know enough about her, NBC said.
The poll also found that strong majorities did not believe that recent charges against former House Republican leader Tom DeLay of Texas or a federal investigation of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican, were politically motivated, NBC said.
DeLay has been indicted in Texas on money-laundering and conspiracy charges linked to campaign financing. Frist is being investigated over a stock sale.
With the 2006 congressional elections a year away, 48 percent of respondents said they preferred a Democratic-controlled Congress, compared with 39 percent who said they preferred Republican leadership, NBC said.
The 9-point difference was the largest margin between the parties in the 11 years the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll had been tracking the question, NBC said.
The poll of 807 adults was conducted from Saturday to Monday and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.4 percentage points
where are you? I guess some way
from Houston, too close to it myself! you are right about the crime wave, up just about everywhere. have your kids told you what Sugarland and Ft. Bend County are like now?
Anyway, nobody is going to hire a medical Transcriptionist with 143 days experience on her resume and I don't feel inclined to hire a president with that, either.
Immigration is not the problem; invasion is, lawbreakers are a problem. We just had a pastor on TV in Houston who has had 5 wrecks, all caused by uninsured motorists and that is the least of it. I personally have seen what is happening to our ER's, unfortunately, the media says little about it. I understand 87 hospitals in southern California have folded. No private hospital can withstand the onslaught of all this clinic business. But, of course, the actual clinics designed for this are only open during regular business hours. Well, just a few thoughts of mine.
To Guess Who?
Sam,
Here, here! Couldn't have said it better myself! We ALL have our own personal experiences with illegals. Where is the mention of all the illegals that come here with drugs, and murder and rape our people?! Did I mention the pedophiles?! Just watch the news and it's all over the place! Just yesterday, they were talking about an illegal from Mexico in SanFrancisco that killed a father and his 2 boys, over a traffic incident!!!??? He was part of a gang! He previously was in trouble with the law before, and nothing was done! Now 3 people are dead, and a wife and 2 other children are forever torn apart by this low-life piece of sh*T that couldn't care LESS about life, liberty, and the pursuit!!!! Same story just a few months ago in LA. Another gang member (illegal) shot a young teen and he is now dead! These are just 2 of the MANY stories out there! Even the people that are coming here "for a better life", I can understand that. What I don't understand is them coming here and getting FREE medical, FREE housing, etc. etc. etc.... Why the hell are THEY entitled, but we, as natural-born citizens are not, because we may "make too much money?!" My dad is 62 years old, and probably will work till the day he dies, because he isn't "entitled" to any of this, he doesn't have savings or 401K to fall back on. My husband busts his butt, and pays a LOT of $ every month so that we all have medical, why? so they can come here and drop a kid for free, at the expense of OUR tax dollars?! BS!!! You wanna come here, fine! Then WORK for your OWN medical, housing, food, etc. etc.! I agree with the above, as for the lawbreakers, molesters, murderers, gang-bangers, let them all rot on an island together! And don't come here and wave your Mexican flag, or any other flag for that matter! If you went to other countries with your American flag, you would most likely be shot!
So please, Guess Who, get a grip and a life!
To everyone else, have a lovely day!
Guess what?! At 17, you should not
be having sex! Duh! My mother started working outside the home when I was 12. She gave me VALUES of responsibility, of self-respect, and the consequences of my actions. I never had to be told not to have premarital sex. Unreal! If this stuff was coming out about Chelsey Clinton, you all would be all over it! What a meltdown!
You must be, I guess....nm
x
|
