I made a general observation relative to the post.

• Obama's response to Palin family baby stories - oya
  • in an mature and educated - bounder
    • Absolutely! Obama supporters seem get that now - Came out in force, stepped up to plate. nm
      • With the glaring exception of several posters on this board... - sam
    • So you still think that children are fair game... - sam
      • Would expect Obama to take high road. To expect this - from media and voters, delusional. sm
        • Maybe so, but it is personal choice how this is handled... - sam
          • Yes it is. That family off limits rule did not - Apply to the Obama/Kenyan brother story recently,
            • Have you ever seen me post anything about the Kenyan brother story? - sam
              • I made a general observation relative to the post. - Not always about you, Sam. nm
              • You're just very sneaky in the way you do it ...nm - ya just did
                • tsk tsk yourself....who introduced it? - sam
  • Obama's parents were never married. - EyesWideOpen
    • Oops. sm - sam
      • Except for the "oops" AKA "gotcha" - This was a decent post. sm
  • Obama - wooptee do
    • oh please like Bush EVER had an original thought - he doesn't even know which door to exit
      • Surely this can't be the same Bush...the one who never... - sam
        • One in the same. In like a lion, out like a lamb. - Did manage to find his way out of RNC. nm
    • None of them are really are they? - vote Obama...
  • I like Obama, but everything is a topic - when you want the job of running this country.
    • Actually, yes we can. Some among us take no joy - inn other's pain. He's one. nm
    • COuld be, but I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt,,, - sam
  • Good for him! Kudos to Mr. Obama! - sam

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Unfortunately there are many in the world who view a radical Christian Texan with a powerful military and nuclear weapons as a threat also.  My point is simply that culturally we all have different views of what constitutes a doomsday machine.

I think the US and the world also face a major threat environmentally (not just global warming) combined with the threat of overpopulation.  That's the threat that really worries me for my grandkids more than anything else.  This globe is limited in what it can support.  Just think if AIDS were able to be spread as easily as the common cold or flu...I think of Koyaanisqatsi -- "life out of balance" a Hopi Indian concept (and a film also).   But that's just my thoughts.

I can't thank you enough for such a compassionate post.  You're right.  I would give anything to not be in this position, though I am grateful that Medicaid exists for people like me.  It's the "people like me" caricature that causes my shame and self-disgust.  I was brought up to believe that only the dregs (sp?) of humanity are on Medicaid assistance.

To me, it represents a myriad of losses:  My loss of control over my own life and ability to earn an income, my loss of control over the devastating things my body is doing to me, my loss of control over my own self-reliance, and my loss of self-esteem.

If more people were as compassionate as you are, this country would be a much better place.

Thank you again for the kindest of responses I could have hoped for.

I can't thank you enough for such a compassionate post.  You're right that my absence on this board is a direct result of my health problems, and you're right that I would give anything to not be in this position, though I am grateful that Medicaid exists for people like me.  It's the "people like me" caricature that causes my shame and self-disgust.  I was brought up to believe that only the dregs (sp?) of humanity receive Medicaid assistance.

To me, it represents a myriad of losses:  My loss of control over my own life and ability to earn an income, my loss of control over the devastating things my body is doing to me, my loss of control over my own self-reliance, and my loss of self-esteem.

If more people were as compassionate as you are, this country would be a much better place.

Thank you again for the kindest of responses and wishes that I could have ever hoped for in this forum.  I can't even begin to explain how good you have made me feel.

Bye bye freedom of speech. 

FBI has better things to be working on and I'm afraid if this is any indication they are going to be bombarded with inappropriate statements. 

.....no amount of money would induce me to volunteer to be tortured (you know, beaten cut, burned - severe pain or harm).  But cut me a check (certified only, please) with a number followed by a whole lot of zeros and I would be waterboarded (strictly in the interest of science).  Our special forces are trained to withstand this and other 'harsh' interrigation techniques......  It's scary and unpleasant but way different from having your fingernails pulled out or a field generator and alligator clips used.

I had in mind more like $500,000, but yeah, for enough money I would certainly consider that an offer I couldn't refuse. 

in the article you posted, nor did I see the word *impeach* anywhere in the article.

I agree with your comments and with the article you referred to, and I understood the comments of LOL to mean that the article was responding to some sort of "talking points" and using the word impeach often, when in fact, it can't be found once in that article.

As far as impeaching Bush, I believe time will tell.   I personally believe he's guilty of war crimes, and that his war will be judged to be illegal before the end of his "reign as King of the USA." (if we all manage to survive that long).

The mere fact that he led us into this war based on lies should be enough to impeach him.

If I offended you, then I truly apologize.  I agree with you and I'm glad you posted this article.  I surely wouldn't have referred you back to the very article you obviously read and posted and tell you to educate yourself, and in no way, shape or form do I believe you are ignorant; far from it.

If you posted the LOL statement below, then I apologize for misunderstanding what you meant by it.

I made a mistake when posting my post, and instead of winding up under the intended post, it wound up under yours instead.  Again, I'm sorry if I offended you.

It was very clear.  Don't know how to make it any clearer.

I agree 100% with what you had to say.  Too many Americans have been brainwashed by fear, and I think many Americans who are against universal healthcare are just buying into the Chicken Little syndrome that is so prevelent in this country lately.  The sky will fall if all of our citizens have access to affordable healthcare!

As you said, using France's system as a model does not mean we have to do everything exactly as France has, but they are a great example of a system that is working.

Sorry, but I haven't been able to post lately due to some problems, but the FOIA report I posted and said to pay attention to certain pages....Clinton KNEW there were WMD's in Irag in 1996! Did he do anything? Nope. He left the country he was visiting right before a bombing; i.e., he knew it was going to happen. The jist I got of the report was that he knew and did nothing.

Did you read that report?  Don't want to dredge up old presidents but you seem to do it every chance you get, so I just have to respond to that. Bush also knew but did nothing because the CIA,DOJ, FBI and whatever other departments were to keep him informed but never worked together on anything so he got conflicting reports all the time. Was he a mind reader? Doubt it or 911 would not have happened.

Sorry, but this post does not hold water IMHO.

I would agree that Obama is a pop culture thing.  However, if you sit back and look at it you will see why.  The younger generation typically gets it's news from shows like Saturday Night Live, The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, etc.  All of these are slanted to the left.  The Obama campaing used the internet very successfully as well to reach the younger generation.  The republican party has done nothing like this to reach the younger voter.  Why?  If I were a young person I would look at it like, well, I guess the republican party doesn't want to take time out to actually reach us, so he must not have our interests at heart. 

This is also mirrored in the not-so-young group.  Obama was everywhere including, again, the internet, predominantly black churches, labor unions...the list goes on.  His campaign was inclusive of many.  He also had the benefit of more money which allowed for more visibility through commercials.

The McCain camp on the other hand went for predominantly white churches, less commercials, and very little internet.  I'm sure there are more than this, but I personally did not see any, and I live in TN (if you can believe that)...LOL

I think if you look at both sides you will see people just spewing out what they've heard in commercials or in speeches.  Not everyone watches cable news like most of us do.

The funny thing to me is that America voted in an African-American citizen with one parent from Africa, who admittedly not only smoked marijuana but also inhaled because *that was the point.*  ROFL.  I think it's obvious that the majority of people in this country want change.  They may not know what that change is, but they do know that what is happening now is not working.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/25/AR2006062500764_pf.html

Democrats Cite Report On Troop Cuts in Iraq
Pentagon Plan Like Theirs, Senators Say

By Michael Abramowitz and Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, June 26, 2006; A01

Senate Democrats reacted angrily yesterday to a report that the U.S. commander in Iraq had privately presented a plan for significant troop reductions in the same week they came under attack by Republicans for trying to set a timetable for withdrawal.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said that the plan attributed to Gen. George W. Casey resembles the thinking of many Democrats who voted for a nonbinding resolution to begin a troop drawdown in December. That resolution was defeated Thursday on a largely party-line vote in the Senate.

That means the only people who have fought us and fought us against the timetable, the only ones still saying there shouldn't be a timetable really are the Republicans in the United States Senate and in the Congress, Boxer said on CBS's Face the Nation. Now it turns out we're in sync with General Casey.

Sen. Carl M. Levin (Mich.), one of the two sponsors of the nonbinding resolution, which offered no pace or completion date for a withdrawal, said the report is another sign of what he termed one of the worst-kept secrets in town -- that the administration intends to pull out troops before the midterm elections in November.

It shouldn't be a political decision, but it is going to be with this administration, Levin said on Fox News Sunday. It's as clear as your face, which is mighty clear, that before this election, this November, there's going to be troop reductions in Iraq, and the president will then claim some kind of progress or victory.

At issue was a report yesterday in the New York Times that Casey presented a private briefing at the Pentagon last week in which he projected that the number of U.S. combat brigades -- each with about 3,500 troops -- would decrease from 14 to five or six by the end of 2007. About 127,000 U.S. troops are now in Iraq, including many support troops beyond the combat brigades.

White House and Pentagon officials declined to confirm the projections, saying only that Casey met with President Bush on Friday to discuss how the military might proceed in Iraq after Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki forms a new government. Bush has often said the U.S. military will stand down as Iraqi forces become adequately trained to handle security.

One White House official said there was no formal plan presented or signed off on in Casey's meeting with Bush, only a discussion of various scenarios to guide their talks with the new Iraqi government.

We are entering a phase where discussions with the Iraqis will begin to practically define what 'stand up, stand down' will look like over the next two years, said this official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to discuss internal conversations.

This official dismissed the suggestion by some Democrats that Casey's approach resembles their approach. A conditions-based strategy outlined by our generals on the ground is a far cry from politicians in Washington setting an arbitrary date for withdrawal, the official said.

A Pentagon official said his impression is that Bush and Casey had no lengthy discussion about troop reductions, and that any projections of specific numbers remain speculative. This source noted that Casey had said that he hoped U.S. force levels would be substantially reduced this year but has decided against such a move because of the continuing violence in Iraq.

I think there will be a modest decrease between now and the end of the year, the official added. But, he concluded, Nobody really knows.

U.S. commanders have long wanted to cut the size of their force in Iraq. But plans to do so have proven difficult to realize.

Before the U.S. invasion in March 2003, the Pentagon's war plans called for a swift reduction, from about 150,000 to 30,000 by the early autumn of that year. Paul Wolfowitz, then the deputy defense secretary, told a congressional committee that the thinking behind this was that it is hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam [Hussein] Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam's security forces and his army -- hard to imagine.

That plan was shelved when a fierce insurgency broke out in the summer of 2003. That fall, top commanders hoped to cut the U.S. presence to about 100,000 by the next summer. But a major escalation in violence in the spring of 2004, along with the collapse of the new Iraqi police force and parts of the new army, forced that plan to be discarded as well.

The result is that the United States has kept about 135,000 soldiers in Iraq for the past three years, with occasional fluctuations to as high as 160,000.

The widespread expectation inside the Army is that the U.S. presence will be cut to about 100,000 by the end of this year, with further reductions in 2007 to perhaps 50,000 to 75,000. That size could be maintained almost indefinitely by the Army and the Marine Corps. But whether those new plans will be realized will depend on events in Iraq, which have proven difficult to predict.

Casey's meeting with Bush followed an eventful several weeks in Iraq that included the death of insurgent leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and the completion of a new Iraqi government. It also followed particularly rancorous debates in the House and Senate, in which GOP lawmakers -- with the encouragement of the White House -- went after Democrats for being insufficiently supportive of the war effort and said decisions about issues such as troop deployments should remain with the president.

Coming so soon after the congressional debates, the report of Casey's briefing served to keep the debate going another day.

Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), who co-sponsored an unsuccessful resolution setting a July 1, 2007, deadline for the removal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq, issued a statement saying the Casey plan looks an awful lot like what the Republicans spent the last week attacking. Will the partisan attack dogs now turn their venom and disinformation campaign on General Casey?

But Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, played down the significance of the reported briefing. The department's drawn up plans at all times, but I think it would be wrong now to say that this is the plan that we're going to operate under, he said on Fox News Sunday.

Warner counseled patience. We have struggled and made tremendous sacrifice to give this nation its sovereignty, he said. They are now beginning to exercise this sovereignty with a young government. Give them a chance to move out. We will consult with them. I'm confident our government will not let them make mistakes that would reflect adversely on troop withdrawals.

Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, voiced some skepticism that the administration can reach the conditions set for withdrawing troops.

Given current events in Baghdad, in particular, reported on every day quite apart from Anbar province, the violence is horrific, he said on Face the Nation. So getting to the plans either of General Casey or Maliki are a broad sweep. But it is good news to know that there are contingency plans.

People rarely speak of the majority you mentioned. Invading Iraq was a huge mistake since Iraq and Iran were basically enemies, working against each others interests.  Now, thanks to US, the area has been split wide open with positive Iranian influence now present in Iraq, something Saddam Hussein had fought.

Approximately 65% of the posts on this board are made by you.  I have read some of your posts, and in one of them you state that you come here, as a conservative, mainly to read and learn.  Are you certain that this is, in fact, your main purpose for coming here? It would seem from the sheer number of your posts, well over 50% of them being made by you here, that your purpose is not to read and learn, but rather to dominate and monopolize. Just an observation....

Got this email this morning...

George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years. The first SIX, with a conservative majority, the economy was fine.

A little over one year ago:
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) the unemployment rate was 4.5%, the lowest in decades.
4) the DOW JONES hit a record high—peaked over 14,000
5) American's were buying new cars, taking cruises, vacations overseas, living large!...

But American's wanted 'CHANGE'! So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic Congress and we got 'CHANGE'.
In the PAST YEAR:
1) Consumer confidence has plummeted;
2) Gasoline is went over $4 a gallon & STILL unstable!;
3) Unemployment is up over 5.5%;
4) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12 TRILLION DOLLARS and prices still dropping;
5) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
6) And THE DOW is probing another low~~$2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS has evaporated from their stocks, bonds, and mutual fund investment portfolios.

Let’s not forget, the President has little control over any of these issues…ONLY CONGRESS.
And what has Congress done in the last two years?.....NOTHING!

NOW the candidates CLAIM they are going to really give us change…along with this same democratic Congress????

I don’t think we can stand much more 'CHANGE' like this….

What's y'alls' take on it...??

I came here at first to debate. It took two posts of acting people to be reasonable in debating (all can be found on this board) before I was labeled by gt.  Since then, after multiple attempts at trying to debate, I have come to point out that while you may think you have taken the higher ground, you have indeed created a cesspool.   So proud that the conservative board is "quiet and peaceful" when those who made it otherwise are posting here daily.  Most of the posters on the convservative board afforded you the decency and honor of not posting here.  But that favor was never returned.  You (and I mean others, I have no idea who YOU are since everyone picks the name of the moment) bullied, brow-beat, denigrated and beat to a pulp any poster who dared to post on the Conservative board.  And it wasn't just AG and Nan and MT. It was anyone.  Well, you have your wish now. You are queens of everything  Masters of your domain.  Live in the land where NO ONE DARES TO DISAGREE with you.  Happy now?  As if.

So if someone called me a big, fat, smelly, ugly, loud-mouthed, foul hag that could qualify as an observation (in your words) and would therefore be acceptable?  I mean, technically someone could say they OBSERVED these traits in me.  When does something cross the line and become a personal attack?

My take on all this is that if it originates from one of the C-posters it's an observation.  If it originates from an L-poster it's an attack.  Not always, but in general.  Could be due to the whole political board system have a very very far right-leaning slant........