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 prefer to keep my focus on the positive measures

Posted By: he HAS talked about and (sm) on 2008-11-07
In Reply to: If he even mentions raising taxes on - onlyinamerica

give the process a chance to unfold. Had enough of the prophets of doom.


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

There is no reason to resort to this measures - period
But because the current administration is not listening to the top economist, their answer is print money we don't have anything to back it up with. Your lack of education in economics really shows here. It does not matter how much debt someone inherits or makes themselves. You don't print money you have nothing to back it up with. You DO NOT add more debt by adding more trillions then turning around and blaming it on the previous administration. He needs to listen to the economists. "Please stop blaming the fact that we have to resort to these measures on the current administration" Resort to these measures???? Have IQ's dropped that sharply in this short amount of time. He has just increased our deficit in the trillions. This is nothing the previous administration did. This is something that the current administration did, and no fault of the previous administrations. They did this by themselves without the input of anyone with any sense. He didn't have to do this to our country and our children and granchildrens future but he did. So, yes, we are blaming the current administration. This was not the solution to get us out of debt - spend more money. Especially since the "more money" does nothing to stimulate the economy and create jobs. It has gone overseas to other banks and to the most wealthiest in this country. Once again we have another administration who cares nothing (by their own actions) about the American people and getting our economy back on track.
I know everyone's focus is on the financial...sm
news of the last several days just heard about a special on CNN tomorrow night and Sunday where Colin Powell, Madeline Albright, Henry Kissinger, Jim Baker and Warren Christopher engage in a forum and talk about foreign policy.  I heard a few sound bites and it sounds very interesting.  I am glad to see a forum where respected people from both parties with experience get together and express their views, agree or disagree respectfully.  I will definitely be watching.
Who put you in charge of focus, Sam?
x
Okay dear, you must focus............
Remember all those promises about cutting our taxes....funny how you conveniently push that aside when someone post a question as to where the tax cuts are. So what you're saying is you really didn't expect a tax cut from the big O in the first place; you knew he was lying through his teeth?

Don't start blaming states and local govt for extra fees. Focus on the one who made all the promises......that would be Obama......no tax cuts for me yet!!!!
I agree, take the focus off of middle name, etc.
I agree with these posts, that putting any focus on a candidate's name is just ... well... embarrassing. A few days ago a poster said Obama's name made them "shudder." ??? I'm blown away by the fact that so many people buy into the fear-mongering going on. I'm more apt to listen to someone griping about Obama not seeming to have enough of a plan ... but his middle name? his skin color? all the other bogey-man antichrist nonsense. This stuff about his name and middle name, makes me too not want to even read the posts too.


I heard a conservative radio talk show the other day (Glen Beck) laughing about getting some email about Obama being the antichrist. Even HE was embarrassed and laughing about the pure insanity of sending this tripe around. If you really want a laugh, Google Bush being the antichrist...


No thanks. This is the week we all focus on the pubs.
nm
I agree you have to focus on education
but how do you pay for it? I make as much as the teachers in my school system, but they all have master's degrees and spend years paying off those loans. It seems fair that they would make more than me, but they don't and in some cases make even less. Then there are people who say education is important but the teachers are overpaid. What kind of a teacher are you going to get if you pay them poorly?

Then there is always the argument that the school system wastes money. I don't see that where I live. My kids have gotten a quality education with buildings in great shape, gifted education programs, etc.

People complain that we have to pay for buses or sports now, so there must be waste in the system. But they are not taking into account the higher cost of heat, electricity, etc. They just think there should be level funding with no thought to increasing costs.
There are more important people you need to focus on
I know you really enjoy any information you find that you think will favor her poorly, but you should focus more of your time on the people in the DC crowd. There are some really bad people in office who make decisions that affect our every day life. People like Pelosi, Reid, Franks, Clinton, especially Obama, the people in charge of homeland security, the Patriot act (which by the way when Obama was running he said he'd do away or revise, but now he is increasing its power ever more). These are the issues that affect our lives, taxes, loss of jobs, loss of housing, etc.

It would do you a world of good to get off of the Palin bashing and focus on issues that affect us. Nobody cares about Sarah Palin anymore, her daugter, future son-in-law or any of that. It doesn't affect our lives.

Funny how you will focus on her, but you say squat about all the other governors that are doing crooked deals. And believe me there any way many more than this trivial stuff about Gov. Palin. If you focus on Chicago/Ill alone you will have enough corruptness to keep you busy til the next election. I know you don't like Palin, and search as hard as you can trying to find one single thing wrong and then pick and pick at it, but the dems need to let her be and live her own live. If she decided to run again in the future then you can trash her and all the reporters and news crew will destroy her life like they did this past election, but for now just give it a rest.

You really do need to get over her and stop scouring the internet for any minute news that favors her in an unfavorable light.
Dems to focus on middle class..sm
Pelosi, Hoyer Say Their Focus Will Be on Helping Middle Class

Monday, November 20, 2006
Associated Press

WASHINGTON — House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi said Monday her new Democratic majority will extend a hand to Republicans in moving the agenda of relieving the middle-class squeeze. She said restoring the military draft will not be part of that agenda when Democrats take over the House in January.

Pelosi, following a strategy meeting with the next House majority leader, Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said she will meet with incoming House Minority Leader John Boehner and we'll find our common ground for the American people.

The principle of civility and respect for minority participation in this House is something we promised the American people. It's the right thing to do, she said.

Pelosi and Hoyer repeated that in the first 100 legislative hours of the new Congress that convenes in January, they will try to pass bills that directly affect the pocketbooks of working-class and middle-class people, including raising the minimum wage, cutting interest rates for student loans and allowing the Medicare program to negotiate lower drug prices.

Other top priorities for January are lobbying reform, implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and rolling back subsidies to the oil industry.

Pelosi said restoring the draft will not be on that list and was not something she supported.

The speaker and I discussed scheduling and it did not include that, Hoyer added.

Incoming Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., caused a stir by repeating a long-held position that a draft is the best way to ensure that all levels of society are represented in the military. Besides Rangel, there is almost no support in Congress for restoring the draft.

It's not about a draft, it's about shared sacrifice in this country, Pelosi said. She said Rangel is a strong voice for social justice in our country and his support for the draft was a way to make a point.

But focus on the real thing here...how your guy Obama...
answered the question. Socialism 101. No one forced him to do it. He could have walked away...he has dodged questions very artfully in the past. But he chose to answer this one.

And a state had a private citizen investigated because of a question he asked a presidential candidate. That does not alarm you???? The Patriot Act alarms liberals but this DOES NOT???
That is soooo telling.
The MSM did cover it, but all positive spin. sm
They said the troops were unarmed. No mention of FEMA thwarting relief efforts either.

Here is an article archived on Alex's page about some of it. Of course, since it did not come from Fox News it can't be believable.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/mexican_dutch_troops_sent_biloxi.htm

Didn't know she had any positive qualities

Nice to see positive posts about her.
nm
Funny! The only one with a positive net worth is the bum. :) nm
x
what a very positive and involved post!
By the way, how does one "speak" loudly on an internet board?
You just proved my point. Still nothing positive to say about Obama.
There you go. At least counter the argument with something positive about Obama. That is if there is anything. Otherwise its all just blowing smoke.
you're posts aren't positive either
x
intelligent, true patriotism, positive
not talking about the Chris Mathews of MSNBC. Not the one that gets a shiver up his leg for Obama? He is nothing but an Obama, DNC butt-kissing, too far lefty for any hope and I shudder of the thought of him having anything to do with this country's government. All he knows how to do is report one side of any issue and get a shiver up his leg for doing it.
so many attack - no real reason AND no positive info on Obama

The more McCain/Palin's ratings are going up, the more the democrats are panicking, and the attacks about Palin are becoming more vicious - AND nobody is posting anything positive about Obama, like "I'm really excited about his health care plan or his energy plan or his housing fix plan or 100 other reasons we should be voting for someone.  No, nothing positive about him...AND I'm not even hearing anything negative against McCain's plan.  It's just vicious rumors, lies, and conjectures about Sarah Palin.  Let's see.  I've heard she hunts, she's for killing innocent soldiers and civilians in Iraq, she has a tanning bed, her daughter's pregnant, she didn't answer questions the way you would answer them (which in all fairness to her the interview was a bait & trap situation - especially when half the country was asking "what part is he asking her about?").  So for all those who say she didn't get it, neither did half the country (but those must be the people who cling to their guns and religion).  Let's see...what else.  She's selling her baby on e-bay, the father of her daughter's baby is skum, she believes in God, etc, etc.  Oh yes, the best one was someone didn't like her because she is pretty and was in a beauty pagent (although I can't decide whether that is the best or that someone believes she was selling her baby on e-bay).  Yet you refuse to list any of her good qualities like she cut out pork spending, she balanced the budget, she stands up to the big guy, she gave refunds to all Alaskan citizens who paid too much in money to the oil executives, she's smart about energy and she's for drilling here in the states (which will cut our gas and oil prices in half), and the numerous other good things she has done.  I've heard she's not experienced (but you won't admit that neither is Obama). Then of course when someone posts something positive about her you jump down their backs and are just really nasty.  And then what kind of comments do I hear about McCain?  He doesn't use the computer (someone was actually complaining about him not sending out emails himself on September 11th), and someone else was making fun of him because he doesn't comb his hair.  I hear that and think that there are people who have small minds.  He can't do either because he was beaten without mercy and he can't lift his arms up to do these activities (and you have the audacity to make fun of him for that?)  But you know what?  At least he can still put his hand over his heart when the pledge of allegience is being said and the national anthem is being played. 


You know, if your going to say something negative about someone at least have a comeback with something negative that is halfway intelligent and counter it with something positive from the candidate you support.


And for petes sake, use John McCain's real name, not the phony acronyms you like to use.  He was in a POW camp for five years beaten til near death every day.  He's earned the respect to at least call him by his real name.  Whether or not you hate him so much, he is not Bush and he is not more of the same.  His policies and voting record proves differently.  You can't say he voted the same as Bush because Bush doesn't vote.  Anything that's been voted on that you want to blame Bush for you need to take a look at the democrat congress.  Their the ones voting, and its the democrats who have stopped the impeachment hearing for Bush.  Why????  McCain's policies, health care plan, his reform plan, his economy plan, and everything else about what he will do when he becomes president is different than what Bush has done.  Bush is Bush, McCain is McCain.  If anyone is to be compared to Bush it would be Obama because the people who are directing Bush are also the same group that is directing Obama.


So, can we please be civilized adults, and come up with hard facts before accusing one candidate of something that is obviously false.  Stick to issues and no rumors.


Joint Chiefs Chairman "Very Positive" After Meeting with Obama
Joint Chiefs Chairman 'Very Positive' After Meeting With Obama
-

By Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 30, 2008; A01


Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, went unarmed into his first meeting with the new commander in chief -- no aides, no PowerPoint presentation, no briefing books. Summoned nine days ago to President-elect Barack Obama's Chicago transition office, Mullen showed up with just a pad, a pen and a desire to take the measure of his incoming boss.


There was little talk of exiting Iraq or beefing up the U.S. force in Afghanistan; the one-on-one, 45-minute conversation ranged from the personal to the philosophical. Mullen came away with what he wanted: a view of the next president as a non-ideological pragmatist who was willing to both listen and lead. After the meeting, the chairman "felt very good, very positive," according to Mullen spokesman Capt. John Kirby.


As Obama prepares to announce his national security team tomorrow, he faces a military that has long mistrusted Democrats and is particularly wary of a young, intellectual leader with no experience in uniform, who once called Iraq a "dumb" war. Military leaders have all heard his pledge to withdraw most combat forces from Iraq within 16 months -- sooner than commanders on the ground have recommended -- and his implied criticism of the Afghanistan war effort during the Bush administration.


But so far, Obama appears to be going out of his way to reassure them that he will do nothing rash and will seek their advice, even while making clear that he may not always take it. He has demonstrated an ability to speak the lingo, talk about "mission plans" and "tasking," and to differentiate between strategy and tactics, a distinction Republican nominee John McCain accused him of misunderstanding during the campaign.


Obama has been careful to separate his criticism of Bush policy from his praise of the military's valor and performance, while Michelle Obama's public expressions of concern for military families have gone over well. But most important, according to several senior officers and civilian Pentagon officials who would speak about their incoming leader only on the condition of anonymity, is the expectation of renewed respect for the chain of command and greater realism about U.S. military goals and capabilities, which many found lacking during the Bush years.


"Open and serious debate versus ideological certitude will be a great relief to the military leaders," said retired Maj. Gen. William L. Nash of the Council on Foreign Relations. Senior officers are aware that few in their ranks voiced misgivings over the Iraq war, but they counter that they were not encouraged to do so by the Bush White House or the Pentagon under Donald H. Rumsfeld.


"The joke was that when you leave a meeting, everybody is supposed to drink the Kool-Aid," Nash said. "In the Bush administration, you had to drink the Kool-Aid before you got to go to the meeting."


Obama's expected retention of Robert M. Gates as defense secretary and expected appointment of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of state and retired Marine Gen. James L. Jones as national security adviser have been greeted with relief at the Pentagon.


Clinton is respected at the Pentagon and is considered a defense moderate, at times bordering on hawkish. Through her membership on the Senate Armed Services Committee -- sought early in her congressional career to add gravitas to her presidential aspirations -- she has developed close ties with senior military figures.


Some in the military are suspicious of "flagpole" officers such as Jones, whose assignments included Supreme Allied Commander at NATO, Marine commandant and other headquarters service, and who grew up in France and is a graduate of Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service. But Jones also saw combat in Vietnam and served in Bosnia.


"His reputation is pretty good," one Pentagon official said. "He's savvy about Washington, worked the Hill," and at a lean 6-foot-4, the former Georgetown basketball player "looks great in a suit."


Although Jones occasionally and privately briefed candidate Obama on foreign policy matters -- on Afghanistan, in particular, as did current deputy NATO commander Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry -- he is not considered an intimate of the president-elect.


But as Obama's closest national security adviser, or at least the one who will spend the most time with him, Jones is expected to follow the pattern of two military predecessors in the job, Brent Scowcroft and Colin L. Powell, who injected order and discipline to a National Security Council full of strong personalities with independent power bases.


Although exit polls did not break out active-duty voters, it is virtually certain that McCain won the military vote.


In an October survey by the Military Times, nearly 70 percent of more than 4,000 officers and enlisted respondents said they favored McCain, while about 23 percent preferred Obama. Only African American service members gave Obama a majority.


In exit polls, those who said they had "ever served in the U.S. military" made up 15 percent of voters and broke 54 percent for McCain to 44 percent for Obama. "As a culture, we are more conservative and Republican," a senior officer said.


Obama has said he will meet with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs as well as the service chiefs during his first week in office. At the top of his agenda for that meeting will be what he has called the military's "new mission" of planning the 16-month withdrawal timeline for Iraq. Senior officers have publicly grumbled about the risk involved.


"Moving forward in a measured way, tied to conditions as they continue to evolve, over time, is important," Mullen said at a media briefing four days before his Nov. 21 meeting with Obama. "I'm certainly aware of what has been said" prior to the election, he said.


The last Democratic president, Bill Clinton, clashed with the chiefs during his first sit-down with them when they opposed his campaign pledge to end the ban on gays in the military. The chiefs, some of whom held the commander in chief in thinly veiled contempt as a supposed Vietnam draft dodger, won the battle, and Clinton spent much of his two terms seen as an adversary.


But Mullen came away from the Chicago talk reassured that Obama will engage in a discussion with them, balancing risks and "asking tough questions . . . but not in a combative, finger-pointing way," one official said.


The president-elect's invitation to Mullen, whom Obama previously had met only in passing on Capitol Hill and whose first two-year term as chairman does not expire until the end of September, was seen as an attempt to establish a relationship and avoid early conflict. While some Pentagon officials believe an Iraq withdrawal order could become Obama's equivalent of the Clinton controversy over gays, several senior Defense Department sources said that Gates, Mullen and Gen. David H. Petraeus, head of the military's Central Command, are untroubled by the 16-month plan and feel it can be accomplished with a month or two of wiggle room.


These sources noted that Obama himself has said he would not be "careless" about withdrawal and would retain a "residual" force of unspecified size to fight terrorists and protect U.S. diplomats and civilians. The officer most concerned about untimely withdrawal, sources said, is the Iraq commander, Gen. Ray Odierno.


Even as the Iraq war continues, defense officials are far more worried about Afghanistan, where they see policy drift and an unfocused mission. With strategy reviews now being completed at the White House and by the chairman's office, an internal Pentagon debate is well underway over whether goals should be lowered.


Although Gen. David McKiernan, the U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, has requested four more U.S. combat brigades, some Pentagon strategists believe a smaller presence of Special Forces and trainers for Afghan forces -- and more attention to Pakistan -- is advisable.


Bush's ideological objective of a modern Afghan democracy, several officials said, is unattainable with current U.S. resources, and there is optimism that Obama will have a more realistic view.


A number of senior officers also look with favor on Obama's call for talks with Iran over Iraq and Afghanistan, separating those issues from U.S. demands over Tehran's nuclear program.


One of the biggest long-term military issues on Obama's plate will be the defense budget, currently topping 4.3 percent of gross domestic product once war expenditures are included.


Obama has said he will increase the size of the Army and the Marine Corps, finding savings in the Iraq drawdown and in new scrutiny of spending, including on contractors, weapons programs and missile defense.


"They know the money is coming down," a Pentagon official said of the uniformed services, and many welcome increased discipline.


But it's neither the military's nature nor its role to volunteer the cuts, the official said. "It's for Congress and the administration to say 'Stop it.' "


Polling analyst Jennifer Agiesta and research Editor Alice Crites contributed to this report.


I prefer Olive Oil myself. Anyone? NM

What term would you prefer? I am sure you have
nm
Neighborhood I would prefer
Well, the one I would prefer I can't afford but that ain't the rich guys fault. We live within our means and don't blame everyone else. I ain't a hate all rich people kind of person. Those RICH people you so detest employ people who actually work for a living. Who do you think the folks you know would be working for if not someone with money to start/open/run a business?


Would you prefer he receive a

declaration of war from these leaders?  He can't possibly be responsible for RECEIVING letters from people.  This is ridiculous and serves to do nothing but fan the flames of hate and fear.  Please open the link I provided and look at the graphs.  George W. Bush has completely destroyed any trust, respect or credibility the United States once had.  The WORLD wants a leader they can trust.  The WORLD simply doesn't trust the Republicans after eight years of Bush.  Open the link and see for yourself.


And the thread you started above is simply false.  Public service will NOT be mandatory.  He's trying to bring back a "Peace Corps" style attitude to America and wants to REWARD those who CHOOSE to perform community service with help paying for their college tuition.  The rich kids can still float through and don't have to do anything, but the poorer families -- and they are increasing in the USA every day with every job lost -- are offered a way to help pay for college tuition.  That's hardly sinister.


"Ask not what your country can do for you.  Ask what you can do for your country" used to hold a positive meaning in this country. 


Maybe some Americans have gotten too greedy and spiteful for those words to mean anything today, but they still hold meaning for many of us.


I think I would prefer Germany,
Austria, Greece, or maybe even Moldova.


I would prefer to teach my

child about it and explain to them that even though this lifestyle is not acceptable, they are people too and we should not treat them poorly.  If parents don't teach their children and they bully gay people, dorks, dweebs, smelly kids, etc........the school has every right to punish them for acting that way whether it be writing sentences over and over, calling the parents, etc.  You do not have to single out homosexuality and teach this to children as an example of tolerance. 


Besides, I said below that on the news they keep talking about how same sex marriage is more accepted by people.....particularly younger people and yet here you are saying that this should be taught in schools because younger people aren't tolerant?   So which is it?


You're being rude and obnoxious and I prefer to not

who simply doesn't "get it."


If you feel that invading Iraq is protecting our borders with Mexico, then you are direly in need of a geography course.


Buh-bye.


I simply prefer not to post here. SM
I have a hectic and stressful enough life as it is, as many MTs do.  I don't know anything about the other issue. I use to go to MTDaily and there was always trouble there with the ISP thing and their own prejudice.  So I don't go there anymore.  I suggest that might be an option for you if you feel the way you do. 
I prefer to think of them as straight thinkers.
Because, unlike you and others on this board, they understand and realise the dangers we face and have chosen to not make it political.  Theirs is not a blind Bush loyalty, much as yours is a blind Bush hatred.  That virulent malignant hatred has put all of this fine country, not my own, but fine nonetheless, at great risk. Somehow, despite contrary facts that are palpably clear in the historic record, American and European leaders have managed to convince themselves and the world that the most terrible wars of the 20th century occurred because nations didn’t do enough talking to resolve their differences when, in fact, they occurred because shortsighted, peace-minded leaders (think Jimmy Carter) allowed good intentions and wishful thinking to take the place of an accurate assessment of the identity and intentions of their adversaries.  Unless the West adapts more quickly than do canny Islamic terrorists in this constantly evolving war, cease your internecine fighting and stop forgetting what we’ve learned about our enemies—there will be disasters to come far worse than Sept. 11.  Sometimes I believe you almost wish for it.  I might also add that your incessant q/Bush lied/q mantra is no defense for your actions.  But we do know, especially after events in Lebanon and the foiled British bomb plot, that we’re in a war in which failure is not an option and for which repeating ‘Bush lied’ is not a strategy. Americans will not put in power a party that accepts the proposition that global warming is a greater threat than terrorism, that thinks Wal-Mart is a plague on the poor and that wants to repeal the job-creating, economy-boosting and deficit-cutting Bush tax cuts. They will not put in power a party that thinks death is a taxable event and that success should be punished. They will not pass the reins to a party that denies us access to energy reserves offshore and in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge and which thinks energy independence means building windmills and hugging caribou. If you want your party to win, stop the constant litany of complaints, with which this board is riddled, and do something constructive.  A litany of complaints is not a strategy.
I would prefer her as HIS running mate, but...
I would be fairly happy with either!  I have mixed feelings about Hillary, but like I've said, I'm sure she would do a fine job.  I just happen to reeeeally prefer Obama.
and you would prefer what, that he say, yes, I am a rock star
x
I'd prefer someone less prone to lying.
Not saying that MO doesn't either. Just saying I would like the First Lady to be more truthful.
I said I prefer to wait for the investigation and
Letting an official process play itself out is what open-minded, objective people do before they make judgments.
Americans prefer O tax plan

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/08/27/despite-cnn-distortion-americans-prefer-obama-tax-plan/


I prefer Muslims to Christians!
I find the Muslims I know to be well educated, polite, family oriented, and very gentle people. I cannot say the same for the Christians I have met. This is based on my own personal experience, so there is no need for flaming from the right-wing Christian fanatics.
I would prefer that the government not tear down
even dishonest citizens.
I'd sure prefer lobster to crow. LOL n/m

I prefer my jokes to be funny.
Nothing funny about that post. The only way to describe it is pathetic.
Most of us grownups would prefer to skip the HM
get down to business.
and I prefer the ganja green tea.....nm
x
I prefer Ron Paul..........over Obama or anyone else
__
Would you prefer Obama's arena be less than it was in Germany?

The guy has a great audience and my only fear was he would take on the black agenda when our country if falling apart - There is so much to do. 


Yeah, give the man a stage that at least is proportionate to foreign countries' stage given to an American politician.  Geesh.  


I didn't see crowds gather for anyone else.  When a crowd that size gathers for a person, they can have any darn stage set they want.  As they deserved it. 


Not 'spoiled & lazy' just prefer not to live in their

I prefer the definition of economic meltdown.
Ignore it and your campaign will go down in flames.
I prefer to strengthen the Independent Party
nm
You would prefer he not have staff on day 1? Or have a plan of action? sm
He has done nothing that previous Presidents-elect have not done in the days between election and inauguration.
Perhaps you would prefer the "original" I got prior to my editing.....

The Little Red Hen called all of her Democrat neighbors together and said, 'If we plant this wheat, we shall have bread to eat. Who will help me plant it?'



'Not I,' said the cow.



'Not I,' said the duck.



'Not I,' said the pig.



'Not I,' said the goose.



 



 



 



'Then I will do it by myself,' said the little red hen, and so she did. The wheat grew very tall and ripened into golden grain.



 



 



 



'Who will help me reap my wheat?' asked the little red hen.



 



 



 



'Not I,' said the duck..



'Out of my classification,' said the pig.



'I'd lose my seniority,' said the cow.



'I'd lose my unemployment compensation,' said the goose.



 



 



 



'Then I will do it by myself,' said the little red hen, and so she did.



 



 



 



At last it came time to bake the bread.



'Who will help me bake the bread?' asked the little red hen.



 



 



 



'That would be overtime for me,' said the cow.



 



 



 



'I'd lose my welfare benefits,' said the duck.



 



 



 



'I'm a dropout and never learned how,' said the pig.



 



 



 



'If I'm to be the only helper, that's discrimination,' said the goose.



 



 



 



'Then I will do it by myself,' said the little red hen.



 



 



 



She baked five loaves and held them up for all of her neighbors to see. They wanted some and, in fact, demanded a share. But the little red hen said, 'No, I shall eat all five loaves.'



 



 



 



'Excess profits!' cried the cow. (Nancy Pelosi)



 



 



 



'Capitalist leech!' screamed the duck. (Barbara Boxer)



 



 



 



'I demand equal rights!' yelled the goose. (Jesse Jackson)



 



 



 



The pig just grunted in disdain. (Ted Kennedy)



 



 



 



And they all painted 'Unfair!' picket signs and marched around and around the little red hen, shouting obscenities.



 



 



 



Then the farmer (Obama) came. He said to the little red hen, 'You must not be so greedy.'



 



 



 



'But I earned the bread,' said the little red hen.



'Exactly,' said Barack the farmer. 'That is what makes our free enterprise system so wonderful. Anyone in the barnyard can earn as much as he wants. But under our modern government regulations, the productive workers must divide the fruits of their labor with those who are lazy and idle.'



 



 



 



And they all lived happily ever after, including the little red hen, who smiled and clucked, 'I am grateful, for now I truly understand.'



 



 



 



But her neighbors became quite disappointed in her. She never again baked bread because she joined the 'party' and got her bread free. And all the Democrats smiled. 'Fairness' had been established.



 



 



 



Individual initiative had died, but nobody noticed; perhaps no one cared...so long as there was free bread that 'the rich' were paying for.



 



 



 



EPILOGUE



 



 



 



Bill Clinton is getting $12 million for his memoirs.



 



 



 



Hillary got $8 million for hers.



 



 



 



That's $20 million for the memories from two people, who for eight years, repeatedly testified, under oath, that they couldn't remember anything.



 



 



 



IS THIS A GREAT BARNYARD OR WHAT?


I prefer the Dorothy Parker version

(Look it up, they prolly would not let me use the words here....)


If you prefer your pols to speak AND THINK in sound bites, then W's your man!
you've gotten exactly what you deserve. It's unfortunate for the rest of us -- those who can process whole ideas -- that we got what you deserve as well.
Al Gore is a brillliant, articulate, experienced politician who speaks the truth. This oountry is a train wreck. Intelligent, thoughtful public discourse has been replaced by jingoism. A president spouting platitudes and repeating the same refrains over and over again in answer to serious issues brought us the debacle that is Iraq and the tragic spectacle of the Superdome after Katrina.
I'm pretty sure that what I have to say is going to go over the heads of some of the posters on this board, because it's your fear of real ideas that got us where we are.

I prefer watching re-runs of Colin Powell's
nm
Exactly. Some people prefer sticking their fingers in their ears to
x