I see all the dems are out in force...keep it up ladies...sm

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

I came across this site Friday night. Sorry it's such a long url. I wish I had time to read all of the comments. Look at the range of ages and different states. Makes me proud to see so many strong, intelligent women express themselves about Sarah Palin. Glad to know I'm not alone in my thoughts about her:

http://tpzoo.wordpress.com/2008/09/12/women-say-%e2%80%9cno-sarah-palin%e2%80%9d-speak-out/

to convert to my religion. I don't kill in the name of my God. I am nothing like the Jihad extremists and for you to say that is just absolute BS and you know it. What you people seem to forget is that we are at war here. A war were people want me and you dead. I don't want to torture them for revenge but if we can get other names of people or any plot information to save American lives.....I'm all for it....including saving your atheist behind in the process. Doesn't quite sound like I'm a Jihad extremists or I'd say something like blow your butt up too since you won't convert to my religion but I don't see me saying that. So don't you EVER compare me to a terrorist.

Keep believing all the hype and the lies. That's your choice, but don't insult me because I can tell the difference.

This is about section 899A (3), developing home grown terrorists in our own land (civil defense).

"We cannot rely only on our military for our national security, we need to have a Civilian National Security force that is just as strong, just as well funded."

capable of making nuclear bomb. I have been reading about Israel and Iran every day and looks like one of these days we are going to hear a special report that Israel is attacking Iran. My question is if the US is going to help? I read Iran would attack the US if US tries to help Israel. I also read Iran has missels pointed in our direction to hit our oil refineries and power plants in the gulf coast states.

British troops will start a major withdrawal from Iraq next May under detailed plans on military disengagement to be published next month, The Observer can reveal.

The document being drawn up by the British government and the US will be presented to the Iraqi parliament in October and will spark fresh controversy over how long British troops will stay in the country. Tony Blair hopes that, despite continuing and widespread violence in Iraq, the move will show that there is progress following the conflict of 2003.

Britain has already privately informed Japan - which also has troops in Iraq - of its plans to begin withdrawing from southern Iraq in May, a move that officials in Tokyo say would make it impossible for their own 550 soldiers to remain.

The increasingly rapid pace of planning for British military disengagement has been revealed on the eve of the Labour Party conference, which will see renewed demands for a deadline for withdrawal. It is hoped that a clearer strategy on Iraq will quieten critics who say that the government will not be able to 'move on' until Blair quits. Yesterday, about 10,000 people demonstrated against the army's continued presence in the country.

Speaking to The Observer this weekend, the Defence Secretary, John Reid, insisted that the agreement being drawn up with Iraqi officials was contingent on the continuing political process, although he said he was still optimistic British troops would begin returning home by early summer.

'The two things I want to insist about the timetable is that it is not an event but a process, and that it will be a process that takes place at different speeds in different parts of the country. I have said before that I believe that it could begin in some parts of the country as early as next July. It is not a deadline, but it is where we might be and I honestly still believe we could have the conditions to begin handover. I don't see any reason to change my view.

'But if circumstances change I have no shame in revising my estimates.'

The disclosures follow rising demands for the government to establish a clearer strategy for bringing troops home following the kidnapping of two British SAS troopers in Basra and the scenes of violence that surrounded their rescue. Last week Blair's own envoy to Iraq, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, warned that Britain could be forced out if Iraq descends so far into chaos that 'we don't have any reasonable prospect of holding it together'.

Continued tension between the Iraqi police force, the Iraqi administration and British troops was revealed again yesterday when an Iraqi magistrate called for the arrest of the two British special forces soldiers. who were on a surveillance mission when they were taken into custody by Iraqi police and allegedly handed on to a militia.

For Blair, the question of withdrawal is one of the most difficult he is facing. The Prime Minister has abandoned plans, announced last February, to publish his own exit strategy setting out the milestones which would have to be met before quitting: instead, the plans are now being negotiated between a commission representing the Shia-dominated Iraqi government, and senior US and UK diplomats and military commanders in Baghdad.

Senior military sources have told The Observer that the document will lay out a point-by-point 'road map' for military disengagement by multinational forces, the first steps of which could be put in place soon after December's nationwide elections.

Each stage of the withdrawal would be locally judged on regional improvements in stability, with units being withdrawn as Iraqi units are deemed capable of taking over. Officials familiar with the negotiations said that conditions for withdrawal would not demand a complete cessation of insurgent violence, or the end of al-Qaeda atrocities.

According to the agreement under negotiation, each phase would be triggered when key security, stability and political targets have been reached. The phased withdrawal strategy - the British side of which is expected to take at least 12 months to complete - would see UK troops hand over command responsibility for security to senior Iraqi officers, while remaining in support as a reserve force.

In the second phase British Warriors and other armoured vehicles would be removed from daily patrols, before a complete withdrawal of British forces to barracks.

The final phase - departure of units - would follow a period of months where Iraqi units had demonstrated their ability to deal with violence in their areas of operation.

Blair will tackle his critics over Iraq in his conference speech, aides said this weekend, but would decline to give a public deadline for withdrawing troops. He is expected to make several major interventions on the war in the coming weeks, before a vote on the new constitution in mid-October, explaining how Iraq could be steered towards a sufficiently stable situation to allow troops to come home.

'What we are not going to set out is a timetable: what we are going to set out is a process of developing that security capability,' said a Downing Street source. 'We don't want to be there any longer than we have to be, the Iraqis don't want us to be there any longer than we have to be, but the Iraqi Prime Minister has made it very clear that our presence there is one that is necessary.'

It was revealed yesterday that an Iraqi judge issued the warrants for the arrest of the two rescued soldiers, accusing them of killing one policeman and wounding another, carrying unlicensed weapons and holding false identification.

The continuing preparations for a military withdrawal come, however, as officials are bracing themselves for a new political crisis in Iraq next month, with what many regard as the inevitable rejection of a new constitution by a two-thirds majority in three provinces, sufficient to kill the document and trigger new elections.

The same officials believe that a failure of the controversial constitution - which Sunnis say favours the Shia majority - would require at least another year of political negotiations, threatening any plans to disengage.

This really confuses me. It's my understanding that the Dems STILL haven't taken over. They need 60 in the Senate in order to prevent a fillibuster, and as I write this, the Republicans (still in control) are threatening to fillibuster the proposed auto maker bailout/loan legislation. Since the Democrats DO NOT have the majority they need, the Republicans may very well do that.

So please explain to me how the Democrats are in control because I keep seeing this and truly don't understand how that is.

like Bill being interviewed a lot. LOL! He is rather obvious that he is only saying Obama because he is following his political party and that he truly doesn't want Obama as president.

Oh well....for whatever reason Bill said what he did.....it is still nice to hear someone admiring both candidates, saying they are both ready to be president, and not cutting down one party or the other. It was a nice change for once.

They fight and carry on just as much as the pubs. They are like children, too. Don't forget, they put a lot of pork in these bills and then cry when the pubs vote against it.

No matter what you say, neither party is working for the people. It's time to vote them all out.

all these Obama supporters just sweep that under a rug. They continue to point fingers and blame others and yet they will take no responsibility at all for what they did. They will not give McCain credit for his warning. They will not admit that they ignored that warning. I'm tired of the media having their nose up Obama's ars. They call McCain a coward for wanting to postpone the debate when it was McCain who was pushing for the debate before until this and now he wants to be in Washington to help find a solution. He wants to put the country first instead of his own personal campaign. To me...this says a lot about McCain and yet the dems and the media can do nothing but downgrade. How in the world are we to have a fair election when the media is so obviously one-sided?

At this point, I really don't know that any candidate can get us out of this mess. I guess I've just lost hope all around. As for all those so-called plans Barry Obama promised.....he can't do a one of them....not that they would have worked in the first place but now it is impossible for him to even try. So now what, Barry? What else are you going to promise you will do that you can't deliver on?

Oh, I know all about her. First it was sad to me that voters don't do their homewordk and just believe what literally any politician tells them just because they're R or D. Savage really educates his audience on the San Franfricko "values" and how horribly corrupt they are out there. Take the Bologna case, where the illegal aliens/gang members who killed this poor woman's husband and 2 sons all in one sweep. There's just one example of the sanctuary city thing for ya.

The best way to educate people is to play their own words back for all to hear. That way I make my point and am not accused of being a right-wing hack.

By the same token, I've been literally wailing over Olympia Snow (snot job), Susan Collins, etc...the queen RINOS. They don't belong in the GOP and they need a royal flush. Hagel finally retired, fortunately.

The drivebys are so complicit in this crap, too. If we put out such a horrible product (like a report with only a small portion of the situation, or twisted it completely around), we'd be fired. These people work for us and only answer to their NE lib journalism pals. There are so many facets to this zirconia it's criminal.

I see all the dems are out in force...keep it up ladies...sm

Air Force chief: Test weapons on testy U.S. mobs