I said the exact same thing
Posted By: Me to a tee! on 2008-10-08
In Reply to: What a disappointment - me/Kaydie
Your post sounds like you were reading my mind and posting it here! I am clueless now. My husband's not even voting. This back and forth is driving me nuts. I really don't know who to believe.
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
the exact same thing sm
is going on up in Asheville!
I was going to post the exact same thing...
Absolutely President Bush had to justify everything he did no matter what it was. Same goes for Barry.
The exact quote is "What a terrible thing to
have lost one's mind, or not to have a mind at all. How true that is.".....Dan Quayle If you Google Dan Quayle, there are more quotes made by him which are very funny. Amazing how Americans form their decisions to vote for these people.
Your exact words....
 (quote)Believe me, If Scarborough is upset with Bush, there's a reason. He's always supported Bush.(unquote)
As for the exact nature
find them described in detail in the Blueprint for Change. Don't you find all that pessimism and fright exhausting? Give yourself a break and try to simply beleive that things can and will get better. Just how secure do you feel right at this moment in terms of the economy after 8 long years of clueless leadership?
The exact point is
as you said.......only 2 posters besides myself had anything to say as to what they would do but there is about a mile of posts going right back to the old Republican/Democrat posts that are really wearing thin......not an iota of substance to any of them.
25 million people to be exact
be afraid, be very afraid. It's the vast right wing conspiracy. Boo!
Geez....I repeat....Clinton had the exact same...
intelligence that Bush had...Bush inherited most of it from the CLinton administration along with Richard Clarke and George Tenet...and all the democrats were on board for it then, believed it then, LONG before Bush took office. That is fact. So if Bush lied, it is because Clinton lied first and Bush believed him. And one air force colonel is not going to change my mind on this. Do you have any sources but this colonel's book?
It is not weapons grade uranium, correct...yet. But it certainly could be enriched. Don't tell me Saddam kept 500 metric tons for peaceful purposes?
As far as the niger/yellowcake thing...Plame and her husband were right in the middle of that, and she claimed and it is documented that there was no evidence of yellowcake in Iraq at that time. Which we know is a lie, because they just exported 500 metric tons of it last week. So please...I don't buy what the Colonel is selling. You can if you like.
I do not dispute that abortion is legal in this country. I do dispute that the Supreme Court has the write to strike down a perfectly good state law and replace it with an "opinion." If you will check the constitution, it says only the congress can enact law. Not the Supreme court. Issue an opinion, yes. Strike down a law and replace it with the opinion of activist judges...no. It is unconstitutional and should be struck down. But then it would have to go to Congress to be voted into law, and so far congress has not been willing to legislate abortion. So activist judges did. They imposed their will on all of us. That is unconstitutional no matter how you look at it. Suppose conservative judges overturned Rowe vs. Wade, the same as liberal activist judges overturned the state law prohibiting abortion? Would you be as strongly behind that decision or would you be screaming you can't legislate from the bench like I am? LOL.
What is fact that in poll after poll after poll, over 50% of this country are against abortion. Those activist judges took the will of the people and said, basically, up yours, and forced their opinion on all of us. Unconstitutional, unfair, and so much for the majority will of the people.
You are right, it is not my choice. You speak for the right of the mother to choose, I speak for the right of the child to live...and I feel has as much right to life as any human being. Period. And I will fight for it, through legal channels, and hope that some day we may have a conservative majority to overturn Roe Vs. Wade and then put the question on state ballots where it belongs. Let the people decide, because Congress will not touch it with a 10-foot pole.
Geez, listen to ya. Morality is already legislated. We have laws against murder. We have laws against theft. We have laws against pornography. We have laws against child molestation. We have laws against rape. Hellooo....legislating morality. And you better be glad we DO legislate morality. What a statement...we can legislate morality when the American theocracy is established. Good grief!!! If it is all about choice, then why can't we choose to just take whatever we want, no matter who owns it. Why can't we just shoot people who annoy us or get in our way or hurt us. Why can't NAMBLA just grab up all the little boys they want? Because we legislate morality...that's why.
Good grief, we have laws against cruelty to animals, but it is okay to murder millions of babies in the name of "choice." Perhaps that all works in your mind...does not in mine.
As to Bush's contempt
I can't remember the exact sites, but will do some more checking - sm
But I do know that 1 of them referred to an Anchorage newspaper article at the time of when it happened; I don't think it was like a recent article in the Anchorage paper. I am terrible, I read stuff and try to get it all straight and forget to write down or take note of where I saw it, but I will look for it again later when I am done working.
He denies it for the exact reason the interviewer said...
it is a basic tenet of socialism. They want socialism, they just don't want to say it out loud. And Obama is gifted at it. He taught the Alinksy course while he was doing his community organizing. It is patently obvious to most of us, but not to the ones he is pointing it at. He is not pointing it at us...he knows we know better. He is pointing it at his faithful and hoping there are enough of them buying into it to get him in the white house where he can go about his business of turning the US into a socialist state.
You heard him state those exact words? He has
nm
Pay attention. Said the exact opposite of what BT implies.
X
I am hearing the exact opposite about unemployment
I think what you have posted is absolute rubbish, scare tactics once again. I am hearing not just on the local news but national news about the work situation picking up. I think most repubs are literally cringing inside seeing just what a good job Obama is doing. I just heard from my husband yesterday his job has posting on the board his company is buying 2 additional companies which means more employees, heard about a company in the state building new plant that will hire about 600 people. Like I said, rubbish.
and I made that exact statement in several posts -
but, as I also stated, I do not think it would be awful to have mandatory service for this country in some form. Ya'll can get mad all you want to, but the rich benefit just as much as anybody else, but when it comes time to stand up for this country and defend it and keep it, they hide behind their money, their schooling, anything to keep from serving, so therefore only the poor people are ever at risk.
His exact quote was "Last week, they released
techniques and that was clearly a political decision and ignored the advice of their Director of National Intelligence and their CIA director".
**Outlining torture techniques**
Nuff said.
I agree. This is the exact reason why Colin Powell wouldn't run..sm
He didn't want his privacy or his entire family's personal life to be dug up and exploited by the media. He got a lot of respect from me when he chose to protect what was the most important to him...family.
Funny i heard the exact same line from the Obama campaign spokespeople...
this morning. Almost word for word. I would think being endorsed by an outfit under investigation for voter fraud in 10-12 and more states every day would not be a good thing...but that's just me.
Well as far as voter fraud my friend...so far it is all ACORN all the time, and ACORN is not registering Republicans. For a supposedly "neutral" voter organization....kinda tells the tale, don't you think?
I heard 1 time during this entire cycle about possible Republican voter fraud and that was on the part of 1 man. This is a coordinated, organized effort to steal an election.
Excuse me...in Ohio they registered and voted in a single day so there HAVE been votes cast. And when law enforcement investigates or indicts on voter fraud...they are pretty sure fraud occurred. ACORN has even owned up to the fact that yes, there will be fraud, but they can't monitor the people they hired (felons on work release in one state) and can't check every registration.
Obama DOES have a relationship with them. He spoke at their convention last year. He worked with them on Project Vote and helped train the folks going out to register.
Give him a pass, I don't care. Just don't call people cowardly or hate filled because they aren't on the Obama train. That makes you look hate-filled and cowardly...same thing you accuse others of.
But valuing over the price of a dollar is a right thing wing thing, so you are on the wrong board. n
x
I never said it's a bad thing, it is a good thing....nm
nm
one other thing though....
Agree with everything you stated, but I am profoundly disgusted also with Rove being able to expose a CIA agent, and nothing is going to be done about it in that I feel he committed treason, as Reagan did with Iran-Contra... Treasonous acts that are let to slide...no big deal huh? Who knows if someone is getting hurt because of his mouth, and yet, nothing... The silence is very annoying...as our country drops into a stinking sea of muck.
One more thing, gt. sm
Of all the people on these boards, YOUR opinion of me is the one I value the least.
Oh, and one more thing, gt. sm
Clnton signed Kyoto in 1997, only because he knew that the Senate would not ratify it. He was right. They voted 95-0 AGAINST Kyoto. Why? Because it would have required signatory nations to significantly cut greenhouse gases resulting from the burning of fosil fuels. Because ratifying the treaty would have required a large reduction in the use of fossil fuels that we use to our our economy. Until there is an alternative fuel source that is better than gold old fashioned coal and oil, restricting our economy's ability to burn these fuels would CRIPPLE US AS A NATION. You are not seeing the total picture here, you simply cannot be seeing it. I know the left's hatred for capitalism has blinded them to the fact that without our economy, we collapse. It really is that simple. We would be reduced to a third world nation in a very short period of time and you and I would not be sitting here writing on our computers because our world as we know it would change. Yes, it really is all about oil. But not the way you think.
and another thing
we aren't controlling anybody. There are several countries in this world where you are controlled, but this ain't one of them.
One more thing:
I apologize for the length of my post, but so far, I still have freedom of speech.
Guess I just feel the need to get it all out before that freedom suddenly disappears, as well. The majority of Americans don't agree with Bush, and we all know how he/his thugs handle people who dare to disagree with him. If you don't believe me, just ask John McCain and/or Valerie Plame.
I'd like to add one more thing.
If these alleged WMDs are so widespread and so easily accessible in Iraq, why aren't any of them being used on our soldiers?
Honestly, that's one of the very first fears I had when I heard we were going to war with Iraq (when I still believed the reasons given by the president and supported the invasion based on those reasons). I had visions of massive troop deaths at the hands of Iraqis and these WMDs.
Did that happen? 
OK. Here's the thing...sm
Because we've been through this before and I feel a repeat coming on. I'm respectful and nice to everyone on these boards 99% of the time. People come over to the liberal board and pretend they are moderates or just want to *debate.* When all the time they are anti-everything liberal and have no intention of seeing the liberal point of view. In the end, they end up *insulted* off of the board and run to the other board and have a sling fest. Yawn. They have revelations over there contrary to the beliefs they portrayed on this board. So really I'm skeptical about debating with the like. You may be 100% different worldfan, but from your posts on the Conservative and News boards it would appear you would be more at home on the conservative board giving them a high five about what's going on over here. Just my observation.
I used to post on the conservative board but I left because they were getting too extreme for my liking. It's that simple. There are some topics over there that I would reply too, but I don't b/c of past comments made over there, which have made me stick to the liberal page. However, on quite a few issues I am far from liberal like abortion and fiscal spending.
I hope you get my points. If not, we don't have anything more to discuss.
Sorry. Here's the whole thing.
I was trying to avoid this but the link is not working for some reason.
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Tuesday, July 04, 2006 |
|
|
Headlines |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Britons Tire of Cruel, Vulgar US: Poll |
|
|
People in Britain view the United States as a vulgar, crime-ridden society obsessed with money and led by an incompetent president whose Iraq policy is failing, according to a newspaper poll.
The United States is no longer a symbol of hope to Britain and the British no longer have confidence in their transatlantic cousins to lead global affairs, according to the poll published in The Daily Telegraph.
...a majority of the Britons described Americans as uncaring, divided by class, awash in violent crime, vulgar, preoccupied with money, ignorant of the outside world, racially divided, uncultured and in the most overwhelming result (90 percent of respondents) dominated by big business. ![src=http://www.commondreams.org/images/endquote.gif]()
|
|
The YouGov poll found that 77 percent of respondents disagreed with the statement that the US is a beacon of hope for the world.
As Americans prepared to celebrate the 230th anniversary of their independence on Tuesday, the poll found that only 12 percent of Britons trust them to act wisely on the global stage. This is half the number who had faith in the Vietnam-scarred White House of 1975.
A massive 83 percent of those questioned said that the United States doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks.
With much of the worst criticism aimed at the US adminstration, the poll showed that 70 percent of Britons like Americans a lot or a little.
US President George W. Bush fared significantly worse, with just one percent rating him a great leader against 77 percent who deemed him a pretty poor or terrible leader.
More than two-thirds who offered an opinion said America is essentially an imperial power seeking world domination. And 81 per cent of those who took a view said President George W Bush hypocritically championed democracy as a cover for the pursuit of American self-interests.
US policy in Iraq was similarly derided, with only 24 percent saying they felt that the US military action there was helping to bring democracy to the country.
A spokesman for the American embassy said that the poll's findings were contradicted by its own surveys.
We question the judgment of anyone who asserts the world would be a better place with Saddam still terrorizing his own nation and threatening people well beyond Iraq's borders, the paper quoted the unnamed spokesman as saying.
With respect to the poll's assertions about American society, we bear some of the blame for not successfully communicating America's extraordinary dynamism.
But frankly, so do you (the British press).
In answer to other questions, a majority of the Britons questions described Americans as uncaring, divided by class, awash in violent crime, vulgar, preoccupied with money, ignorant of the outside world, racially divided, uncultured and in the most overwhelming result (90 percent of respondents) dominated by big business.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse
### |
 Printer Friendly Version  E-Mail This Article |
|
|
|
FAIR USE NOTICE |
|
|
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would like to know the same thing.nm
12
The thing that got me was this...sm
This totally counts out everyday Joes. And those with a couple million to run. A half a billion dollars is a lot of money.
One last thing.....
Your argument might hold more water if I thought for one minute liberals understood that it was Michael Moore's OPINION and not the truth (but why should they, because he frames as the truth). I think, if you truly understand that, you are in the minority.
One more thing...
I asked the last poster to bring me one example of a Democrat who, when caught in wrongdoing, has resigned. Just one. She has not come back with one, even though I named several who should have. As I stated, the only Democrat I know of who resigned from anything resigned because he was coming out of the closet, and I find that ludicrous. The man should not have resigned because he was gay. For felony perjury, yes. For obstruction of justice, yes. Remember please the congressman who actually had a homosexual affair with an underage page (male). No Democratic outrage. He stood right up and said he was an adult and it was consensual and that had nothing to do with his job as a Congressman. No Democratic outrage. In fact, he was re-elected. Yes, that was several years ago, but all that proves is that the Democratic moral compass went wonky several years ago. It is not a recent thing, it is just getting worse and worse and worse. Stop please dancing around the subject, and please to bring forth one or two Democrats who have actually resigned and admitted wrongdoing? And while you are at it, Republicans who were caught and still hold office? I would be very willing to read and re-assess. Try for one minute to take off the liberal hat and look at it objectively. It is case after case after case...Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Alcee Hastings, William Jefferson, and on and on the list goes....in fact, Alcee Hastings was removed as a Federal Judge for bribery and perjury..see below.
In 1988, the Democratic-controlled U.S. House of Representatives took up the case, and Hastings was impeached for bribery and perjury by a vote of 413-3. Voters to impeach included Reps. Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, John Conyers and Charles Rangel. He was then convicted in 1989 by the United States Senate, becoming only the sixth federal judge in the history of the United States to be removed from office by the Senate. The Senate had the option to forbid Hastings from ever seeking federal office again, but did not do so. Alleged co-conspirator William Borders went to jail again for refusing to testify in the impeachment proceedings, but was later given a full pardon by Bill Clinton on his last day in office.
Ain't that special?? And just proves the point.
How did I get into this thing..
I have not said anything about regime change for months, years. I said Iraq was on the table before 9/11 solely to illuminate the fact that 9/11 set the stage for what some had been wanting to do for a long time. My intent was to emphasize that this administration used 9/11 as a way to garner support from Congress and the American people for the switch from Afghanistan to Iraq. If 9/11 had not happened, there would never have been support for a preemptive war in Iraq nor do I believe we would have supported going after bin Laden. It took something monumental for the American people to be willing to go to war.
How do you know Clinton is my favorite president?? I think he was a good president and I was doing a lot better when he was in office but you assume much here. In my lifetime I think maybe JFK was my favorite president (I was about 10 years old and I remember him as bigger than life) and one of the reasons for that was that he inspired us. I don't think anyone has really done that since, made us think and feel like we could do anything. It really has been downhill since Watergate.
I will cease and desist from regime change rhetoric if I never have to hear the words spew or ooze again.
How did I get in this thing....
I have not said anything about regime change for months, years. I said Iraq was on the table before 9/11 solely to illuminate the fact that 9/11 set the stage for what some had been wanting to do for a long time.
My point was that it is not only *this* administration. Clinton felt strongly enough about Iraq and regime change, as did the Congress at that time, to enact a LAW calling for regime change. So Iraq was on the table then. The articles posted would lead you to believe that liberals/Democrats never called for regime change. They are the instigating part of the *some* you speak of. And if you will read Clinton's speech at the time, if you did not know he gave it, you would think Bush might have, because the content is eerily similar. It is just odd to me that liberals were on board for WMD, on board for regime change, on board for force, on board for ALL of it when Clinton was calling for it. How do liberals manage that massive flip flop? I remember Clinton's speech well. It was one of the few times that I agreed with what he was doing and saying.
My intent was to emphasize that this administration used 9/11 as a way to garner support from Congress and the American people for the switch from Afghanistan to Iraq. If 9/11 had not happened, there would never have been support for a preemptive war in Iraq nor do I believe we would have supported going after bin Laden. It took something monumental for the American people to be willing to go to war. Okay. I get it. 3000 people dying here was not enough to make liberals willing to go to war. What, in the name of the Almighty, is, I am wondering.
How do you know Clinton is my favorite president?? I think he was a good president and I was doing a lot better when he was in office but you assume much here. I was being facetious...he seems to be the posterboy for liberals. I apologize. I will not refer to him as YOUR favorite President anymore. Glad though that you validated what I have said on numerous occasions, that liberals are about what is good for them individually...I am glad you personally were doing better when he was President.
In my lifetime I think maybe JFK was my favorite president (I was about 10 years old and I remember him as bigger than life) and one of the reasons for that was that he inspired us. I don't think anyone has really done that since, made us think and feel like we could do anything. It really has been downhill since Watergate. Maybe it has gone downhill for you since watergate. Personally I think it started downhill then, and made a huge massive slide with Monicagate and a sitting President committing felony perjury. However, I do not hold the country responsible for that as you seem to. I hold the individuals...Nixon and Clinton...responsible. At least Nixon had a modicum of grace to say he was wrong and resign when caught. Clinton has done neither and his party has not expected him to and has in fact defended him. You will never hear me defend either of them.
I will cease and desist from regime change rhetoric if I never have to hear the words spew or ooze again. I believe it was one on the liberal board who started the *spew* and *ooze* and the only time I have used those words was again, being facetious, in reply to the ones who used them. I personally did not start the use of those. In fact, I think her words were *spew venom* (ick). As to cease and desist, go ahead with the regime change rhetoric if you like. We know it did not originate with Bush, not opinion, matter of law. No spin, hard fact.
Have a good day.
The right thing to do is...
allow everyone to vote. No one needs to step down. And I do not support either of them. I supported Ron Paul when he was in the race.
One more thing
He keeps flashing a pic of himself when he was a young guy in the military. Almost every commercial of him shows him when he was younger, and in fact one of his ads on this website shows him a young guy in the military. He's now old and he should have a current picture. What's next, Barack putting up adds with his high school senior pic? How about Hillary running with a picture of her in grade school. The guy is old and if he's so confident in himself he should have a current pic of him. He's no longer younger and he doesn't have the mind of someone younger.
You did no such thing since he never said that.
I did do my research and so did the author of "comparative drug use." above. FYI: Crack/free-base cocaine and cocaine hydrochloride are not the same. One is pure, the other a compound. The addition of hydrochloride gives the intranasal compound a completely different chemical make-up that does not have the same effect. It is slower on the uptake and clears the system much faster than the cocaine base (giving it less of an addictive potential) . The pure free base/crack cocaine DOES NOT WORK when it is snorted, since the absorption is obstructed when it is attacked by enzymes via the nasal route. Method of delivery does matter, in terms of drug effect, absorption, drug life and addiction potential. If you are an MT, you know where to go to verify this information.
I am aware of what he said and did not say in his book. I have nothing to add to the "comparative drug use" post in that regard. Furthermore, there is nothing inaccurate in my original post. There is a pervert on a right-wing fringe blog who made these unsubstantiated claims about his witnessed account of "sharing" cocaine with Obama and having homosexual sex with him. He has also been discredited and has a wrap sheet a mile long. Does not seem like a credible observation from a credible source. That's all I said. I did not deny, nor did I acknowledge whether or not Obama used cocaine. My comments referred to how information is extracted from legitimate sources (in this case, straight from the horse's mouth), twisted and manipulated by perverts and right-wing blogsters in desperate efforts to smear somebody's character when they are unable to engage themselves directly in legitimate policy issues. The "character" card, whether played by one party or the other, is really a lame strategy that prevents productive, progressive approaches to issues and solutions to problems of dire importance to us AS A NATION, not as party affiliates.
That is the best thing you
can come up with? Let us forget Obama's association with Ayers or his 20-year membership to a church that preached hate messages......let's just focus on McCain calling his wife a C unt shall we. Sheesh......If he thought so little of women, he would never have chose one to run as his VP.
In all seriousness though, why is c unt such an offensive word? Who dictates words and which ones are bad? Who decided that the F bomb was bad? Who determined what words were considered swear words? If I called someone a poop head and then called someone a c unt, they are both supposed to insult...are they not.....so why is one worse than the other and who determined that?
At least she is doing the right thing
She is going to have the baby and not kill it
well, the one thing that the VP has is...
the deciding vote if there is a tie in Congress, and with a majority dem congress that is not a bad thing.. :)
Yep, I agree with the "gimme" attitude. I call it being all about me, me, me. Don't get me wrong, I believe some social programs are necessary because there are people who, through no fault of their own whether mental disability or physical disability, cannot work. And I think we should take care of our fellow man to that extent. However, those who are fully capable of working and choose not to, and we have to subsidize their housing, their groceries, and give them a check every month...that needs to stop.
Have a wonderful day!
yes, SP did the right thing!!
x
One more thing....sm
McCain isn't "my hero" per se.... -- my first choice was Romney, and we all know where that went....lol....
But John McCain is this country's hero, whether you agree or admit it. He simply is, and was. Period. You can't take that away from him.
And I'll tell you who "sat around and watch a city drown." I think that pretty much covers what the entire nation did, as the nonstop coverage of that event was depicted...actually, I think the whole world watched, not just us. One of our tragedies, but you can't lay that completely at McCain or Bush's feet. It's been covered before her ad nauseum, and I think most agree, if the dem gov and dem mayor would have acted preemptively, as happened this weekend in both LA and TX, a lot of that would have been averted. No need to cover this ground again, really. I get your point of view though, so no need to expound.
Bummer....now I betcha won't answer my other question on SNL....rats, I really wanted to know too....lol....I used to love SNL with the first crew was on there with Chevy, Belushi, Gilda Radner, and all those first not ready for prime time players.
LOL! I can add one more thing to that -
To paraphrase the Beach Boys:
'and she had fun, fun, fun,
'til her mommy took her condom a-wayyyyyy!!!'
Is that a bad thing?
Should he have just attacked, attacked, attacked? Doesn't matter what he does, it is wrong, I guess. I would rather have somebody who can say Yeah, we disagree on some things, but here is where we agree. Isn't that what bipartisanship is about?
Whatever they do there is one thing for sure
It will not benefit "we the people." This bail-out is absurd. Our local bank president is a personal friend. Talking to her the other day she said there are no problems there and it's business as usual, loans being made just the same. Now that doesn't add up to the scare tactics we hear from the jerk-off politicians. JMO but I think this is G.W.'s last great assist to his Wall Street buddies. One party is as bad as the other and they all benefit from what goes on on Wall Street. They'll pass some kind of bail-out and this country will be bankrupted. No money, no jobs. Their bail-out is not going to help the situation any more than the rebates did. Just borrow more money and throw it away. I hope eventually enough people will get totally disgusted and then maybe we can take back our government. Everyone wants "help." Well, those who bit off mortgages they couldn't afford, tough toenails, suffer the consequences. We may as well start learning to spell GREATER DEPRESSION, worse than the 30s because, folks, that is what is coming. The Republicans will keep on blaming the Democrats and the Democrats will keep on blaming the Republicans. ALL of our elected politicians ought to be tried and hung for treason!! The best I know to do is vote against EVERY incumbent. I am far from excited about Obama but I will vote for him because he is not a Republican. Any Democrat running for anything I will vote for the Republican. That's the best I can think of at the moment to try to change. We all need to quit bickering about "Republican" and "Democrat" and start thinking as AMERICANS! If someone can build a better mousetrap than what I plan to do I'll be first in line to buy it. Something HAS to be done and we don't need to start in arguing about who should get a free handout. The truth is NO ONE should get a free handout, other than the aged and infirm!
One other thing to think about . . .
Also need to think about the what if . . .? What happens if Obama is elected and all these crazy radicals/extremists/racists in this country take him out, or GOD FORBID, if McCain is elected, (and I don't think an 80-year-old man is going to make it through 4 years), then that thing he picked as runny mate would step in as president? Let's see, Palin or Biden? There's a no brainer!!! Mark my words, Palin beliefs would regress his country 30-50 years. We don't need a self-righteous religious fanatic in the White House. What ever happened to separation of church and state??
they run the whole thing
It's the old line "you get what you pay for" here. Imagine it changes to SM tomorrow. You wouldn't have the option to stay with the physicians you now have (unless a pure accident or coincidence). Gone would be the choices you now have, which are pitiful as the system is now. I still long for the days when we purchased our ins. the same as we do our car ins., cable co., etc. In the ྌs and beyond I had BCBS. I selected the doctors I wanted, and didn't worry about looking for who was on my (my list? ha!) list closest to my home, etc.
A friend of mine lived in Canada for awhile and while there her daughter got DXd with cancer and ended up with an amputated leg. She said it was a horrible system, and would never again do it...and she didn't. She had no control over her choices up there. No doubt you've heard of the many people who come here for surgery, etc. for the same reasons. Again, everyone's trying to get IN to the US, not out...
Does that help? Please don't be swayed by the spin. Anytime the gov't controls something, whether it be your healthcare to your home, you're no longer in control of it.
My thing is
that God gives life, not us. We are merely the vessels. Therefore what he gives we cannot take away. Well, excuse me, should not.
I think that if someone doesn't believe in God they are still very much bound by his laws, they just break them left and right.
I have quite a few reasons for not voting for Obama, but on the instance of abortion, I don't believe it is our right to put away what God has brought into being.
What really bothers me though is that Obama supports the "just born abortions" (I can't remember what they are called). To me, if your going to carry the child for 9 months, why kill it at the end? If you've gone through all that, at least give it up for adoption and give it a chance!
I completely agree, Mccain is not much better. I'm sure for the most part it will end up being politics as usual. I think he would like to make changes, but to me the President has become nothing more than a mouthpiece. He will fall in line with the majority. Obama, on the other hand, bothers me because for one, he rose to the top way to quickly. Two, he is not very patriotic and neither is his wife. Three, I think in his pursuit of getting "the people" to cheer him on he is going to do some very stupid things (like sitting down with terrorists. So what, then they can kidnap him and hold him ransom?) Four, there is no way he got to the top that quickly on his own. Therefore, he owes people. It bothers me to think of which ones he owes.
There are others but I'll stop there since a lot of them have already been beaten to death on this board.
To bad we as Americans couldn't all band together and put "one of our own" in there. Write in a middle aged lower-middle class construction worker from Tennessee, or an old cowboy from Texas (not related to Bush of course!) Someone without money, or a background in politics, or a personal agenda. Then we would really see change!
And another thing
What is he going to do about exporting jobs out of our country? Have you checked the job seekers board lately? Over 2000 hits on some of the ads. Read the company board? Seems no one has any work. And McCain promises to be the biggest free trader of all times. Yup, that's very good for the economy.
The thing is....sm
she is trying to show everyone that Obama has terrorist links. Bottom line is no matter what he SAYS he is going to do, if he is a terrorist, you should not believe him. Of course a terrorist would say what you want to hear. Of course they would send someone with the appropriate appearance and eloquence of speech. At this point it does not even matter if McCaine does anything he says at all...because ANYTHING beats having a terrorist as our president.
The sad thing is...
It's so true no matter who gets in!
here's another thing
i have voted, i don't remember them ever checking my ID... they may tighten things up a bit this year but who is to say that someone won't try it twice? In the bigger cities, I've heard it's pretty easy to get a fake ID. ?
|
