I think it wasn't discovered earlier for several reasons. sm
Posted By: Anony1 on 2009-06-01
In Reply to: If the life of the mother is endangered or it is found - ()
Iwas a healthy 20-something, no risk factors nor known; no particular reason to do US. Back in the day, US wasn't done routinely like now.
If any good could have come from it, I would have let it go to full-term, but you are not allowed to donate organs from an anencephalic child after birth. Maybe that has changed.
As for Patty - wow, if you are an example of pro-life / christian values, I don't want in to *your* heaven. Why do you get to judge me? Isnt' that between me and God?
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
If Obama is discovered to be a fraud later, all his
nm
McCain wasn't desperate and wasn't behind in the polls
In fact, they have been neck and and neck, and McCain has been gaining in the polls while Obama has been slipping. McCain could have taken the easy way and kept the stable course and picked safer, sure. Instead, he picked a maverick leader like himself, who isn't afraid to get in there and make changes even if it goes against their own party. I believe he wanted to say that the Republicans are the party for change, and wanted to make a bold statement. I've seen statements at "other sites" as well where people are absolutely joyous at this pick.
I saw this earlier. sm
Practicing for martial law maybe? Notice the term 'homeland' - makes me think of Nazis and Communists.
Well, what he said earlier was
He wanted EVERYONE to have the same great health care plan everyone on capitol hill has.......then he did't say that anymore.....hmmmmm
Again as I posted earlier
UAW was offered pay rates as they are paid to American workers who work in the U.S. for foreign auto companies, i.e. workers in Indiana who work for Honda and Toyata. This would surely NOT be the same as our working for the same rates as Indian MTs. That would be crazy. Don't even suggest it.
I have brought it up earlier on here but
O lovers immediately jumped on the Palin bandwagon again. They are so worried about Palin being a "heartbeat away from possibly being president" but they couldn't care less than Biden may very well be just a heartbeat away....period!
They seem to think Obama will live forever, even though both his parents died young AND he was a heavy smoker, drugger, and drinker.
They seem to have no concern about that.
I saw this on TV earlier today...
... right before I threw my shoe at the TV set. 
this proves my earlier
post about the popularity of Fox News and the country being a majority of dullards. Not enough information to understand the debates on Meet The Press or other actual news programs, so watch 2 clowns argue. When finished, turn on the wrasslin' channel.
I am the one who replied to you earlier.
God forbid I step away from my computer to take my son swimming and didn't answer your post before I did so.
I am not a republican. I used to be until the past administration and now I've pretty much said to heck with both parties. If you wish to talk to terrorists and if that is what Obama wants to do....more power to you. I will say a little prayer that your head stays attacked to your body when you go to talk to the very people who HATE us. This isn't fearmongering....that is fact...plain and simple and YOU are so busy spewing democratic ideology that I'm about to vomit over here.
And for the last friggin time.....TERRORISTS ARE NOT COVERED UNDER THE GENEVA CONVENTION!!!!! Regardless of whether we captured them and held them forever, whether we tortured them, or whether we just said to he!! with it and shot them dead......they would still hate us. Us being all sweet and nice is making them think nothing more than we are a bunch of friggin pu$$ies and why should they worry about being captured because their pal Obama will take care of them. Give me a break. The next time you jump down someone's throat and give them he!! because you think they are spewing republican values.......why don't you look in a mirror and see that all you do is regurgitate the BS that MSNBC and mainstream media dish out. Oh....but don't watch Fox even though the ratings are way better than anything you watch because they obviously don't know what they are talking about even though more people seem to be relating themselves to that network than any other.
So go on with your democratic rhetoric about how Bush is to blame and Obama will not only save our country but the world and we will all be peaceful and harmonious with one another and skip around and giggling....oh happy day....yippee.......(PUKE)
I was thinking about this very thing earlier. sm
There is a great plan and things happen for a reason. I have faith and trust in Him, too. We are blessed! 
I heard that earlier. I believe he is sincere...
it is a historic thing that will happen and I think acknowledging it is the right thing to do. Good for McCain.
Yes you did, in an earlier post you claimed to be one
You posted this earlier today and got
But thanks for trying.
Poll from earlier today
I am encouraged by the responses to this poll. I think that SOME Republicans and those who support McCain/Palin are sincere in their beliefs the same as supporters of Obama/Biden are sincere in their beliefs. Those who just said "McCain" don't appear to have any reason other than I would assume, that he is the Republican candidate. There were also those who had reasons but then referred back to the rumors and repeated the charges of Marxist, Socialist, etc. etc.
What has heartened me is I am convinced we are all AMERICANS first and we all love our country. I alwo believe that "we the people" will come together after this horrible election and raise our voices until ALL politicians listen to us. That is my HOPE.
Good night all.
Yeah, and she went a step further earlier and said...(sm)
in her own words *Can you not see what is happening? Hitler was elected into office during a democratic state. I am not saying that O is Hitler, what I am saying is that someone with such extreme ideas has been elected to the highest power and there are many signs pointing to the fact that we are going to see some changes that even those that voted for him are not going to like.* That's in the *I am a democrat* post.
Just because you say you didn't call him Hitler right after you did, doesn't mean you didn't do it in the first place.
You must have missed my earlier post.
There are plenty of places to go for accurate information on this, so quite whining about media silence. You just don't know where to look. Try the world wide web for a change.
Here ya go. Just a few examples for you to mull over.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAieKGwQp-s
In the flesh interview with Dr. Larry Hunter, influential conservative economist, talks about why he endorses Obama. Interview starts @ 1:25 into the clip.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2009-01-08-obama-economy_N.htm
Conservative economist Martin Feldstein agrees that "reviving the economy requires a major fiscal stimulus from tax cuts and increased government spending."
For now, most conservative Republicans who could try to block the new Democratic president's plan are willing to boost red ink. Armed with an electoral mandate and faced with a mammoth recession, Obama is being given a wide berth by the GOP. "We need to govern," says Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee. "These issues are so huge and are going to have such a devastating impact on our nation if they're not aggressively and boldly addressed, that we can't afford for this just to be a party-line event."
... but even conservative economists agree a huge stimulus package with a variety of spending initiatives is needed. "I have just two words: big and everything," says Martin Regalia, VP, Economic and Tax Policy and chief economist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE49U3DC20081031
The endorsement from the Economist (a virtual bastion of conservatives) raised a few eyebrows.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/113701/Majority-Americans-Favor-775-Billion-Economic-Stimulus.aspx
This kind of support is at least as significant as that of conservative economists.
Ain't cut and paste grand?
I saw the original of this earlier today. sm
I was so upset I wanted to call CNN and tell them in no uncertain terms that they needed to fire that wench and get somebody who would let the people talk without being interrupted. Personally, if it had been me she was haranging, I would be in jail because I probably would have swung at her.
That woman is worse than Rachel Maddow, Anderson Cooper, and others of her ilk. SHe gives the honest, hardworking reporters a bad name.
No wonder the alphabet soup and MSM groups have lost any and all credibility.
Earlier poster was right....America did NOT win!
nm
I was making reference to an earlier conversation...sm
Look it up.
So didn't somebody on this board state earlier that
*
One of the earlier "kill him" incidents happened
nm
Thank you, I alluded to the same thing in an earlier post...
why should those of us who have built something from our hard work and determination pay for those who have no ambition or drive and only feel a sense of entitlement, jealousy and anger towards those who are doing the right thing? Most people would be in much better financial shape and would be able to get through tough economic times if they just prepared before hand. Remember saving for a rainy day? Well it's pouring right now and I dare say a lot of people have not had to change their lifestyle because they were prepared. There is no incentive in socialism to work hard or save money. Laziness will be rewarded from the sweat of my back. You don't deserve my piece of the pie that I paid for!
I guess I missed your earlier post....sm
because I'm not the 1 poster who did respond, lol. I am an Independent who happens to be voting Rebulican this election year (but I guess that is no secret, lol).
I agree....If a person, no matter who it is, is found to be constitutionally ineligible to hold the office of POUS then he/she should be impeached on grounds of treason and jailed immediately.
Or at leat degrading ones like tried to be posted earlier
NM
For the same reasons
they're against gays, anyone of a different religion, a woman's right to choose and all the other things that Americans in general are in favor of. They're like all the other neocon groups who are not happy unless they can force everyone else to believe like they do. That's why I wondered if it was even real. Truth telling and honesty aren't high on their list of priorities, as we've all seen from other similar hateful groups that claim they are morally better than everyone else.
For several reasons
And I'm not required to answer to you for any of them since your only purpose here is to demean people who don't agree with you. (I see that yesterday Mystic left the door wide open and invited friendly, respectful, intelligent dialogue with you below, but you chose to ignore that in favor of continuing on with your rudeness to others in your other posts.) You remind me of a pesky fly that disturbs the peace surrounding the person it invades. If this is typical Israeli behavior, then maybe it's time to take a fresh look at why Israel is having so many problems coexisting in peace with its neighbors.
For any L-I-B-E-R-A-L-S who read the L-I-B-E-R-A-L board and are interested in my reasons for posting this, I'd be glad to list them. After reading this article, these are the questions that came to my mind, and I would appreciate it if LIBERALS would add to this list any questions that are raised in their minds after reading it.
1. I'm trying to understand Hezbollah's commitment to a cease fire. I'm wondering if they would spend the time, effort and money (Iran's) to begin to rebuild if they had plans to violate the cease fire.
2. I'm wondering what impact their doing this will have on other nations of the world in relationship to how they will view Israel and the United States. Will they garner more support, and is it justified?
3. In furtherance of #2 above, will their role in the Lebanese government grow as a result of their concern (be it real or fake) for the Lebanese people whose homes have been destroyed?
4. Finally, I was wondering how long it would take the two-headed snake known as the Bush administration to compete with Hezbollah in the rebuilding of Lebanon, after arming Israel with some of the weapons that caused the destruction, and whether or not Israel will feel betrayed as a result. As you will see below, not long. (Think of all the money we spend there that could be much better used here to truly fight terrorism by keeping our ports, borders and rail systems safer. Is that really where you want your tax dollars to go? Do you want your tax dollars used to supply the weapons to tear down a nation and then supply the money to rebuild it a month later in this cat and mouse game that Bush is playing in the Middle East?)
U.S. Hopes to Rival Hezbollah With Rebuilding Effort
Administration officials say quick action is needed in response to the militant group's reconstruction plans.
By Paul Richter
Times Staff Writer
August 17, 2006
WASHINGTON — The Bush administration is scrambling to assemble a plan to help rebuild Lebanon, hoping that by competing with Hezbollah for the public's favor it can undo the damage the war has inflicted on its image and goals for the Middle East.
Administration officials fear that unless they move quickly to demonstrate U.S. commitment, the Lebanese will turn more fully to the militant group, which has begun rolling out an ambitious reconstruction program that Washington believes is bankrolled by Iran.
American officials also believe that the administration must restore its influence to keep a newly assertive Syria from undermining U.S.-supported reformers in Lebanon.
A major rebuilding investment would put the United States in the position of subsidizing both the Israeli munitions that caused the damage and the reconstruction work that will repair it. Such a proposal could meet with resistance from Congress, but administration officials said that the need for action was urgent.
People have been seized by the need to do more, in a tangible way, and they're working feverishly on this, said a senior administration official who asked to remain unidentified because he was speaking about plans still in development. They know we're in a race against time to turn around these perceptions.
U.S. officials and private experts agree that the administration faces an uphill effort trying to outdo Hezbollah, which has a broad local base, well-developed social service programs and the confidence of many Lebanese.
Hezbollah is deeply integrated into Lebanese society, said Jon Alterman, a former State Department official who is head of Middle East studies at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
We're coming in when there's a sense that we stood by the destruction of Lebanon by an ally, with U.S. weapons, and didn't complain. So we may be too late.
Even so, Alterman said he supported the idea of trying to rebuild U.S. influence in Lebanon at a time when the political situation there is in flux.
The United States has only $50 million in the pipeline for relief and rebuilding in Lebanon, a figure dwarfed by multibillion-dollar estimates of the need. The U.S. is lagging behind some other contributors, such as Saudi Arabia, which has pledged $1.5 billion. An international donors conference is to be held Aug. 31.
But American officials say they expect to expand the effort, which is largely focused on rebuilding the airport, restoring electric power, cleaning up environmental damage and reconstructing some of the estimated 150 destroyed bridges.
The U.S. effort is aimed in part at supporting its allies in the fragile Lebanese central government, which is competing with Hezbollah for influence. Moving rapidly, Hezbollah officials fanned out across the country this week, canvassing the needs of residents and promising help. In some areas of the south, Hezbollah already had fielded cleanup teams with bulldozers.
The U.S. official said talk of a deeper rebuilding role was one of several discussions underway within the administration. He said there was talk about launching a broader diplomatic and economic initiative for the Middle East aimed at increasing involvement in mediating the Arab-Israeli conflict, as well as in regional economic development and politics.
Officials are focused on the idea that things better change, or we're going to have serious problems, he said. Many people in the region believe the United States was a co-combatant in the war, he acknowledged.
With Congress on its August break, lawmakers have not explicitly taken positions on funding for rebuilding. But some influential members have given indications.
Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has said he would like the United States to take a lead role in the rebuilding by giving generously and organizing meetings of donors. He has argued that the U.S. missed an opportunity by failing to do more in Lebanon last year, as Syria withdrew its troops from the country, leaving a partial vacuum.
Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, voted for a resolution that called for a postwar donors conference. But he made it clear that there should be careful planning before the U.S. committed large sums, an aide noted.
Alterman, the analyst, said providing aid posed complicated challenges in Lebanon, and that the money could easily be wasted without the United States getting any advantage from it.
Lebanon is a tough commercial environment…. It's tough coming from the outside, trying to identify reliable people, he said. We could end up getting no credit — or, worse yet, it could end up in the bank accounts of the very people who are trying to get us out.
That's just one of many reasons why I'm
3 reasons
1. He fights for us.
2. He admits his mistakes (keating 5)
3. He isn't going to just throw money at a problem.
4. He is a reformer.
Your reasons he shouldn't be:
His age - So what? I've seen perfectly healthy men drop dead at age 52 and people with cancer live to 94.
His temper - Seriously? You're going to use this one? I know three times at least tonight that I wanted to reach out and smack Obama for his smugness. I think he does a very good job of controlling it.
His running mate - I like Palin. If you don't want the "good ol' boys club" and you want a "breath of fresh air" well there ya go. She will go against the majority to fight what she believes in.
His aggression - kinda the same thing as temper. So what? You want a wimp in the White House? There is nothing wrong with being aggressive. He isn't overly aggressive, and sometimes you need a little aggression to get things done.
Of course Obama is going to know how to SAY all the right things, HE'S A LAWYER!!! THEY ARE TRAINED TO DO SO!!! But he hasn't walked the walk! He does not have the experience to be in the white house. He is going to make foolish, costly, mistakes.
As a famous person once said (take a wild guess who)
"The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training."
Too bad your reasons
don't have anything to do with McCain being a good candidate.
10 Reasons..........
10 Reasons Why Conservatives' Fiscal Ideas Are Dangerous
By Sara Robinson, Campaign for America's Future
Posted on February 27, 2009, Printed on February 27, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/128900/
Yes, it's true. The conservatives -- that's right, the very same folks who just dragged us along on an eight-year drunken binge during which they borrowed-and-spent us into the deepest financial catastrophe in nearly a century -- are now standing there, faces full of moral rectitude, fingers pointing and shaking in our faces, righteously lecturing the rest of us on the topic of "fiscal responsibility."
I didn't think it was possible. I mean, they were mean enough drunk -- but hung over, in the clear light of morning, it turns out they're even worse.
I know. The choice is hard. Laugh? Cry? Scream? All three at once? It would almost be funny, if it weren't such clear evidence of a complete break with objective reality -- and their ideas of what that "fiscal responsibility" means weren't so dangerous to the future of the country.
The next episode in this surreal moral drama is set to take place next Monday, when President Obama will convene a "fiscal responsibility summit" at the White House to discuss the right's bright new idea for getting us out of this hole: let's just dismantle Social Security and Medicare.
As usual, this proposal is encrusted with a thick layer of diversions, misconceptions, factual errors and out-and-out lies. Here are some of the most pungent ones, along with the facts you need to fire back.
1. Conservatives are "fiscally responsible." Progressives just want to spend, spend, spend.
The comeback to the first assertion is easy: Just point and laugh. Any party that thought giving cost-plus, no-bid contracts to Halliburton was fiscally responsible (and let's not even get started on handing Hank Paulson $700 billion, no questions asked) deserves to be made fun of for using words that are simply beyond its limited comprehension.
And a quick look back at actual history makes them into even bigger fools. For decades now, liberal presidents have been far and away more restrained in their spending, and more likely to turn in balanced budgets. Part of this is that they've got a good grasp of Keynes, and know that the best way out of bad financial times is to make some up-front investments in the American people -- investments which have almost always, in the end, returned far more than we put in.
Conservatives believe wholeheartedly in investment and wealth-building when individuals, families, and corporations do it. But their faith in the power of money well-spent -- and the value of accumulated capital -- completely vanishes when it comes to government spending. They think it's morally wrong for government to ever invest or hold capital -- despite the long trail of successes that have enriched us all and transformed the face of the nation.
Under the conservative definition of "fiscal responsibility, " we'd have never set up the GI Bill and the FHA, which between them launched the post-war middle class (and made possible the consumer culture that generated so much private profit for so many). We wouldn't have 150 years of investment in public education, which for most of the 20th century gave American business access to the smartest workers in the world; or the interstate highway system, which broadened trade and tourism; or research investment via NASA and DARPA, the defense research agency that gave us the microchip and the Internet and made a whole new world of commerce possible. There wouldn't be the consumer protection infrastructure that allowed us to accept new products with easy confidence; or building and food inspectors who guarantee that you're not taking your life in your hands when you flip on a light or sit down to dinner.
What we're proposing now is not "spending." It's the next round of investment that will create the next great chapter in the American future. And the most fiscally irresponsible thing we can do right now is lose our nerve, and fail to prepare for what's ahead.
2. It's not gonna work. Everybody knows the Democrats spent us into this mess in the first place.
The only remaining "everybodys" who "know" this are the ones who are simply impervious to facts.
Ronald Reagan came into office with a national debt of less than $1 trillion. Mostly by cutting taxes on the rich, he grew that debt to $2.6 trillion. George H.W. Bush broke his "no new taxes" pledge, but it wasn't enough to keep the debt from ballooning another 50 percent, to $4.2 trillion.
Bill Clinton''s aggressive budget balancing slowed the growth rate a bit: eight years later, he left office with a debt of $5.7 trillion -- and a tight budget in place that, if followed, would have paid whole thing off by 2006. Unfortunately, George W. Bush had no intention of following through with Clinton's plan: on his watch, the debt nearly doubled, from $5.7 to $10.6 trillion. So, nearly 80 percent of the current debt -- about which conservatives now complain -- was acquired on the watch of the three most recent conservative Presidents.
3. $10.6 trillion? But I got this e-mail that says we're looking at a national debt of $56 trillion...
Wow. That's a big, scary number, all right. It's also a perfect example of one of the classic ways people lie with statistics.
This particular mathematical confection was whipped up by Wall Street billionaire and former Nixon Commerce Secretary Pete Peterson, whose Peterson Foundation is the driving force behind the effort to defund Social Security. According to this group, "As of September 30, 2008, the federal government was in a $56 trillion-plus fiscal hole based on the official financial consolidated statements of the U.S. government. This amount is equal to $483,000 per household and $184,000 per American."
This "fact" is only true if you're willing to do a reckless amount of time traveling. The $56 trillion number is what you get if you project the entire U.S. debt a full 75 years into the future, which is how far out you have to go before you can get into numbers that big. In other words: we're not in that hole now -- but we might be in 2084, if we keep going the way we're going now.
Of course, it should be obvious that we're not going to keep going that way -- and that's the other fatal flaw. Peterson's calculations assume that there will be exactly no changes in Social Security and Medicare policy or inputs in the next 75 years -- something that has almost a zero chance of actually happening. Also, there's the usual problem with any kind of long-range projection: even a small error in the calculations at the start will compound over time, creating enormous errors at the end of the range. If he's off by even one percent (which is highly likely), the projection's worthless, even 20 years down the road.
Peterson and his posse are laying bets that Americans are too mathematically and logically challenged to notice the flaws in his reasoning -- even though the holes are big enough to drive an entire generation of retired Boomers through.
4. Whatever. It's still irresponsible to take on that much debt.
Even John McCain's economic adviser thinks this one's wrong. Here's what Mark Zandi said about the U.S. national debt on the February 1 edition of Meet The Press:
It's 40 percent of GDP now. If the projections are right, we get to 60, maybe 70 percent of GDP, which is high, but it's manageable in our historic -- in our history we've been higher, as you pointed out. And moreover, it's very consistent with other countries and their debt loads. And more -- just as important, investors understand this. They know this and they're still buying our debt and interest rates are still very, very low. So we need to take this opportunity and be very aggressive and use the resources that we have at our disposal.
To repeat: Debt is never a good thing; but history is on our side here. We've carried a lot more debt than this in the past; and so have other fiscally responsible countries. And the world's investors are still flocking to buy U.S. bonds -- even though with inflation, they're getting slightly negative interest rates, which means they're effectively paying us to use their money. If they have that much faith in our economy, we're probably not wrong to have a little faith in ourselves. By world standards, we're still looking like a very good bet.
5. But Social Security is headed for disaster. It's out of control!
It's a testament to the short attention spans of the media that the cons try to launch this talking point every six months or so -- and every damned time, the punditocracy goes running flat-out after the bait, fur flying, like an eager but not particularly bright Irish Setter. And then people like us need to collar them, make them sit, scratch their ears, and calmly explain all over again (as if it were brand-new information) that Social Security is in perfectly fine shape, and the conservatives are making much ado about nothing -- again.
The Congressional Budget Office projects that the Social Security trust fund will continue to run a surplus until 2019. (More conservative fund trustees put the date at 2017.) The fund's total assets should hold out until 2046. And that's assuming that nothing changes at all.
If it turns out we do need to make adjustments, there are two very simple ones that will more than make up the difference. One is that we could raise the cap. Right now, people only pay Social Security taxes on the first $102,000 they earn; everything over that goes into their pockets tax-free. Increasing that amount would cover even a fairly large shortfall. And in the unlikely event that fails, we can talk about raising the retirement age to 70 -- a sensible step, given how much longer we live now.
6. Ending Social Security would be well worth it, because putting those deductions back in people's pockets would provide a big enough stimulus to get us out of this mess.
Anyone who spouts this is apparently not counting on the 70 million Boomers whose wallets would snap shut permanently if you withdrew their retirement benefits just a few years before they're going to need them. As Digby put it:
Boomers are still sitting on a vast pile of wealth that's badly needed to be put to work investing in this country. But it's shrinking dramatically and it's making people very nervous. As [Dean] Baker writes, if one of the purposes of the stimulus is to restore some confidence in the future, then talk of fiddling with social security and medicare is extremely counterproductive. If they want to see the baby boomers put their remaining money in the mattress or bury in the back yard instead of prudently investing it, they'd better stop talking about "entitlement reform." This is a politically savvy generation and they know what that means.
If they perceive that social security is now on the menu, after losing vast amounts in real estate and stocks, you can bet those who still have a nestegg are going to start hoarding their savings and refusing to put it back into the economy. They'd be stupid not to.
Bad economies get that way because people no longer trust the future, and refuse to take on the risks associated with spending, lending, or investing. Social Security was created in the first place because FDR understood that a guaranteed old-age income is a major risk-reducer -- not just for elders, but also for their working adult children. And it still is. Affirming the strength of Social Security not only raises the confidence of the Boomers, as Dean and Digby have pointed out, but also of their Xer and Millennial children, who are going to have to add "looking after Mom and Dad" to their list of big-ticket financial obligations if that promise is broken.
Breaking a 70-year-old generational promise for the sake of a little temporary financial stimulus is the very definition of penny-wise and pound-foolish.
7. OK, forget I even mentioned Social Security. Besides, the real problem is Medicare.
Finally, we come down to the truth. There's no question that exponentially rising health care costs -- both Medicare and private insurance -- are unaffordable in the long term; and that getting ourselves back on track financially means getting serious about addressing that.
On close examination, even Peterson's figures eventually reveal this truth. (About 85% of his projected 2084 debt comes from expected Medicare.) Unfortunately, though, most of his materials lump Social Security and Medicare together, creating a fantasy figure that blows the real problem so far out of proportion that you can't even begin to have a rational conversation about it -- which was, of course, the whole point of ginning those numbers up in the first place.
8. Next, you're going to tell me that some kind of government-sponsored health care is the answer.
Yes, we are. The Congressional Budget Office notes that health care costs were only 7 percent of the GDP in 1970 -- and are over double that, at 14.8 percent, now.
Much of that increase came about because in 1970, most health care providers ran on a not-for-profit basis. Hospitals were run by governments, universities, or religious-based groups; in some states, private for-profit care was actually illegal. Even insurance companies, like Blue Cross, were non-profit corporations. AdminIstrators and doctors were still paid handsomely; but there were no shareholders in the picture trying to pull profits out of other people's misfortune.
The first step to restoring affordability is to kick the profiteers out of the system. (According to the most conservative estimates, this one step would drop the national health care bill by at least $200 billion a year.) The second is to put it in the hands of administrators whose first concern is providing high-quality care instead of big bottom lines; and who are accountable to the voters if they fail to perform. Our experience with Medicare and the VA -- which, between them, currently provide care to over 70 million Americans, or about 22% of the country -- proves that we are perfectly capable of providing first-class, affordable care through the government.
If Costa Rica and Canada can manage this, why can't we?
9. But this Peterson guy's a billionaire Wall Streeter. Obviously, he knows something about finance...
Let's punt this one to William Greider:
Peterson, who made his fortune on Wall Street, never raised a word about the dangers of hyper leveraged finance houses gambling other people's money. He never expressed qualms about the leveraged buyout artists who were using debt finance to rip apart companies. He didn't fund an all out effort to stop Bush from raiding the Social Security surplus to pay for tax cuts for the rich.
But now he wants folks headed into retirement who have already prepaid a surplus of $2.5 trillion to cover their Social Security retirements to take a cut and to work a few years longer to cover the money squandered on bailing out banks, wars of choice abroad, and tax cuts for the few.
Basically, we're only having this conversation in the first place because a conservative ideologue was willing to pony up $1 billion of his own money to fund a "foundation" devoted to killing Social Security. Given that most politicians -- both Democrat and Republican -- are extremely unwilling to touch the notorious "third rail of politics," it's pretty clear that next Monday's "fiscal responsibility summit" wouldn't even be happening if Peterson wasn't bankrolling the Beltway buzz on this terrible idea.
10. OK -- if killing Social Security isn't the answer, just how do you propose to get us out of this?
The idea of a White House summit on fiscal responsibility is a good one -- but only if it focuses on real solutions to our real problems.
Cutting health care costs by getting all Americans into a rationally-managed system that puts delivering excellent care above delivering shareholder profits has to be a central part of any long-term economic health strategy. We're also about 15 years overdue for a complete overhaul of our military budget, too much of which is still focused on fighting the Soviet Union instead of responding to the actual challenges we're currently facing. Finally, it's time to ask the wealthy -- who've profited more than anyone from the past 15 years, and yet haven't paid anywhere near their fair share -- to step in a pay up for the system that enabled them to build that pile in the first place.
There's plenty we can be doing to actually reduce the national debt, and really stimulate the economy for both the short run and the long haul, without ending Social Security and sending hundreds of millions of Americans into sudden panic over their retirement. True "fiscal responsibility" can never be achieved by breaking promises.
Sara Robinson is a Fellow at the Campaign for America's Future, and a consulting partner with the Cognitive Policy Works in Seattle. One of the few trained social futurists in North America, she has blogged on authoritarian and extremist movements at Orcinus since 2006, and is a founding member of Group News Blog.
Two reasons.........
Democrats want MORE votes, looking toward the next election as well. They want the Latino vote and by blocking the "legal" process, the one that uses common sense, they can look forward to more votes from the "illegal" community to put their sorry butts back into office again.....
Also, that puts ACORN in a great position to go in and do just what they have been doing all along illegally..... signing folks (make believe and otherwise) up to vote that aren't citizens or are brought over from another state to vote illegally in order to push the vote in Democrat's favor.
That is the very reaso ACORN has been under investigation for years and is STILL under investigation and have had indictments as well. They are a purely racist group in the first place........
Now, if the KKK were standing around the street corners signing up folks to vote, do you think for one minute Obama wouldn't be jumping on that one? But it's the black vote he wants added, illegal or not, and he will never see to it that ACORN is stopped from their illegal doings.
Two reasons, I think............. sm
The first and foremost is appearance. Obama's black ancestory is more prominent in his appearance and therefore makes him appear to be a black person. Secondly, I think his own statements against his mother's people spoke volumes about how he feels about his Caucasian blood.
While it is a historical event to have a black man or person of mixed race in the WH, I have to wonder, would a Chinese American or Native American have garnered as much attention were they elected? I have to say probably not, but the black man's history in this country is no more or less tragic than that of the Chinese or Native Americans.
From the Christian Science Monitor earlier this year
|
from the March 16, 2005 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0316/p16s01-lire.html
For evangelicals, a bid to 'reclaim America'
The Center aims to increase its 500,000-strong e-mail army to 1 million, and to encourage Christians to run for office. It has plans for 12 regional offices and activists in all 435 US House districts. And a new lobbying arm in Washington will target judicial nominations and the battle over marriage.
If they don't vote our way, we'll change their view one way or another, executive director Gary Cass tells the group. As a California pastor, Dr. Cass spearheaded efforts to close abortion clinics and recruit Christians to seek positions on local school boards. We're going to take back what we lost in the last half of the 20th century, he adds.
For the faithful who gathered in Florida last month, the goal is not just to convert individuals - but to reshape US society.
By Jane Lampman | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
FORT LAUDERDALE, FLA. - For the Reback daughters, the big attraction was the famous Ten Commandments monument, brought to Florida on tour after being removed from the Alabama judicial building as unconstitutional. The youngsters - dressed in red, white, and blue - clustered proudly around the display.
For more than 900 other Christians from across the US, the draw at Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church last month was a national conference aimed at reclaiming America for Christ. The monument stood as a potent symbol of their hopes for changing the course of the nation.
We have God-sized problems in our country, and only God can solve them, Richard Land, a prominent leader of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), told the group.
Their mission is not simply to save souls. The goal is to mobilize evangelical Christians for political action to return society to what they call the biblical worldview of the Founding Fathers. Some speak of restoring a Christian nation. Others shy from that phrase, but agree that the Bible calls them not only to evangelize, but also to transform the culture.
In material given to conference attendees, the Rev. D. James Kennedy, Coral Ridge pastor wrote: As the vice-regents of God, we are to bring His truth and His will to bear on every sphere of our world and our society. We are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government ... our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors - in short, over every aspect and institution of human society.
This is the 10th conference to spread this cultural mandate among Christians, and although the church's pastor couldn't speak due to illness, others presented the message intended to rouse the conservative faithful, eager to capitalize on gains won during the November election.
This melding of religion and politics, Christianity and patriotism, makes many uneasy, particularly those on the other side of the so-called culture war, who see a threat to the healthy discourse of a pluralistic society.
This is an effort to impose a particular far-right religious view, and political and social policies that result from that, on others, says Elliot Mincberg of People for the American Way, a group that advocates for a diverse society. There's nothing wrong with trying to convince others to adopt their views, but [Dr. Kennedy's] effort is also to use the levers of government to force changes.
An energetic pastor who built Coral Ridge into a 10,000-member megachurch with far-reaching radio and TV audiences, the Rev. Dr. Kennedy regularly calls the US a Christian nation that should be governed by Christians. He has created a Center for Christian Statesmanship in Washington that seeks to evangelize members of Congress and their staffs, and to counsel conservative Christian officeholders.
Some critics suggest these views reflect far-right Presbyterian thinking, some of which extends to the realm of theocracy, the belief that God - or His representatives - should govern the state.
Frederick Carlson, author of Eternal Hostility: the Struggle between Theocracy and Democracy, says that if Kennedy is not a theocrat, he is certainly a dominionist, one who supports taking over and dominating the political process.
Kennedy is not in the theocratic camp, says John Aman, Coral Ridge spokesman. He does believe that Christians should not sequester themselves inside their stained-glass ghettoes, but seek to be 'salt and light' - apply biblical moral truth and the Gospel - to every area of society.
It's apparent that those who've traveled here from 40 states are eager to do just that. Many of them say they are most motivated by signs of moral decline in America, concern for their children's future, and what they see as an effort to keep God and religious speech out of public life.
The country is getting further away from Christian values, and we're being stifled, says Debbie Mochle-Young, of Santa Monica, Calif. Other nationalities are coming to live here and say, 'We want our beliefs,' but they don't let you have yours. Nathan Lepper, an Air Force retiree active in politics in Florida, says he has a personal passion to help America turn back to its moral and ethical bases.
Some are already involved in their communities - in antiabortion actions, in trying to prevent removal of feeding tubes from Terri Schiavo, or in efforts to oppose same-sex marriage by defining marriage as only between a man and a woman.
Gabriel Carpenter, from Dryden, N.Y., works at a local crisis pregnancy center and is a coordinator for the now-required sexual abstinence program in New York public schools. He and his wife, Penelope, say they hope to learn more about how to share America's Christian heritage with others.
Christianity and patriotism are interwoven throughout the gathering, from Christian and American flags marched into the sanctuary, to red, white, and blue banners festooning the church complex, to a rousing patriotic concert. Several speakers emphasize the idea that America's founders were largely Christian and that their intent was to establish a biblically based nation. (No mention is made of other influences on the Founding Fathers, such as Englightenment thinkers or issues of freedom of conscience.)
David Barton, a leading advocate for emphasizing Christianity in US history, deftly selects quotes from letters and historical documents to link major historical figures such as George Washington to a Christian vision, and to suggest that the courts and scholars in the last century have deliberately undermined the original intent of the Founding Fathers.
Critics, including historians and the Baptist Joint Committee, challenge the accuracy of some of Mr. Barton's work, including what he calls the myth of separation of church and state.
In Blessed Assurance: A History of Evangelicalism in America, religious historian Randall Balmer of Columbia University writes that a contrived mythology about America's Christian origins has been a factor in the reentry of evangelicals into political life, helping sustain the conservative swing in American politics. Barton and others say they are recapturing truths hidden behind a secularist version of history, while critics say they are producing revisionist history that cherry-picks facts and ignores historical evidence.
But Barton is clearly a favorite speaker, with a theme buttressing the identity and purpose of those eager to reform the country. And there's plenty for them to do. Coral Ridge's Center for Reclaiming America is building a grass-roots alliance around five issues: the sanctity of life, religious liberty, pornography, the homosexual agenda, and creation vs. evolution.
The Center aims to increase its 500,000-strong e-mail army to 1 million, and to encourage Christians to run for office. It has plans for 12 regional offices and activists in all 435 US House districts. And a new lobbying arm in Washington will target judicial nominations and the battle over marriage.
If they don't vote our way, we'll change their view one way or another, executive director Gary Cass tells the group. As a California pastor, Dr. Cass spearheaded efforts to close abortion clinics and recruit Christians to seek positions on local school boards. We're going to take back what we lost in the last half of the 20th century, he adds.
Taking back is a major theme - taking back the schools, the media, the courts.
It's time to take back the portals of power, and particularly those of commerce, because commerce controls all the gates - to government, the courts, and so on, says businessman Michael Pink in a workshop. Recounting his own business success based on in-depth Bible study, Mr. Pink says he's now urging wealthy Christian businessmen to start using their earnings to purchase such prizes as ABC and NBC.
Interspersed between worshipful singing, prominent activist leaders tout recent successes. Alan Sears of the Alliance Defense Fund, who has led the charge in the states against same-sex marriage, talks of victories in Ohio and California and the phalanx of 800 lawyers now trained for the fight across the US. Tim Wildmon of the American Family Association highlights growing impact on the entertainment industry, from spurring FCC regulatory actions against broadcast indecency to causing major companies to pull their ads from TV programs.
Yet it's the most combative language that brings the crowd to its feet in applause: Judicial activists are running rampant and a God-free country is their goal.... All means to turn the tide must be considered, including their removal, urges the Rev. Rick Scarborough, founder of Vision America, which mobilizes patriot pastors across the US.
SBC's Dr. Land, credited with helping to turn out evangelical voters in the 2004 election, says Kennedy's conferences have an impact: No one has been more important in helping Christians of every denominational persuasion understand first, their evangelistic responsibility ... and then their responsibility to be salt and light in the world.
Others suggest that among evangelicals as a whole - whose numbers are estimated to represent at least 25 percent of the US population - the appeal and influence of such religio-political activism are limited.
This is more right wing and religiously politicized than the majority of evangelicals, says Christian Smith, professor of sociology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Most would not make the kind of 'take back America' statements in such an overt way.
In an in-depth national study published in 2000 under the title, Christian America? What Evangelicals Really Want, Dr. Smith explored the views of a remarkably diverse group, with many holding conflicted views on political involvement and the issues and methods of activists.
Still, the 2004 election confirmed a growing mobilization of conservative Christians. And in a recent Barna survey of American pastors about their choice for the most trusted spokesperson for Christianity, Dr. Kennedy made the top 10, sharing the final spot with three others, including Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson and President Bush, each winning the vote of 4 percent of the clergy.
www.csmonitor.com | Copyright © 2005 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights reserved.
For permission to reprint/republish this article, please email Copyright |
|
An earlier poster stated that about 76% of this nation is Christian
This, proportionately, means that 76% of what you see, read, watch, or are "bombarded with" is at least 76% done by Christians (feel free to make the Jew media comment, but they get their Commandments in the same place you do).
Therefore, it can be taken away that there are Christians who do not believe the same thing you do. Do you want to silence them, too?
I saw that clip earlier today and it is exactly right. And you can bet your bottom dollar on this...
Alarmist video? Who knows. Scare tactics? Who knows, but one thing I believe is there will be class war fare, food riots, and when Obama has taken all our guns away, then what???
It has happened in the UK with Sharia Law, in Australia they confiscated all guns, France with their huge Muslim population, and it sure as H.E. double-hockey sticks can happen here. And if Obama gets elected, you can take that to the bank. He will strip mine our country to its bones.
My DH has a saying..the tree of freedom has to be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots. Or words to that effect.
Sarcasm... isn't that what you were throwing around earlier? Just thought I'd throw some too.
Didn't realize you cornered the market. But, hey, if you want some Bible verses, I can pitch a few of those too.
Sorry if I offended you, but I imagine the OP was perhaps a little offended at your insinuation that she was a paranoid lunatic. Well, as momma always said, if you can't take the heat...
or
Don't dish it out if you can't eat it.
Yes, I can understand your reasons very well!
I see the neocons have been trashing you on their board.......again, insisting that my posts were posted by YOU, which you and I both know isn't true. 
Yes, Democrat, the reasons you
that unhealthy foods are inexpensive. I've read many articles like the one below that show how difficult it can be for poorer people to get to a market where they can get healthier foods such as fruits and vegetables. The fact is, though, that people are just getting fat across the board regardless of their income level - 1/3 of the ENTIRE population is overweight. It is hardly a problem that affects only the poor.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/190061_obesity09.html
One of the reasons you are not hearing as much sm
about the Republicans, especially the current administration, is that they have been very effective at almost completely shutting up any voices of dissent. When Clinton was in office we heard about him nonstop.
10 Reasons to Impeach
Ten Reasons to Impeach George Bush and Dik CheneyI ask Congress to impeach President Bush and Vice President Cheney for the following reasons:
1. Violating the United Nations Charter by launching an illegal "War of Aggression" against Iraq without cause, using fraud to sell the war to Congress and the public, misusing government funds to begin bombing without Congressional authorization, and subjecting our military personnel to unnecessary harm, debilitating injuries, and deaths.
2. Violating U.S. and international law by authorizing the torture of thousands of captives, resulting in dozens of deaths, and keeping prisoners hidden from the International Committee of the Red Cross.
3. Violating the Constitution by arbitrarily detaining Americans, legal residents, and non-Americans, without due process, without charge, and without access to counsel.
4. Violating the Geneva Conventions by targeting civilians, journalists, hospitals, and ambulances, and using illegal weapons, including white phosphorous, depleted uranium, and a new type of napalm.
5. Violating U.S. law and the Constitution through widespread wiretapping of the phone calls and emails of Americans without a warrant.
6. Violating the Constitution by using "signing statements" to defy hundreds of laws passed by Congress.
7. Violating U.S. and state law by obstructing honest elections in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006.
8. Violating U.S. law by using paid propaganda and disinformation, selectively and misleadingly leaking classified information, and exposing the identity of a covert CIA operative working on sensitive WMD proliferation for political retribution.
9. Subverting the Constitution and abusing Presidential power by asserting a "Unitary Executive Theory" giving unlimited powers to the President, by obstructing efforts by Congress and the Courts to review and restrict Presidential actions, and by promoting and signing legislation negating the Bill of Rights and the Writ of Habeas Corpus.
10. Gross negligence in failing to assist New Orleans residents after Hurricane Katrina, in ignoring urgent warnings of an AL Qaeda attack prior to Sept. 11, 2001, and in increasing air pollution causing global warming.
40 reasons not to vote for...
Barrack Obama....please see link below.
A couple of reasons
I am a transcriptionist, but I only graduated in May, so I am not up to the speed some of you seasoned MTs are. I'm getting better everyday, but I am still in school to finish my Psych degree so I can only work part time. My husband just graduated in May also and since the job market is so bad he is having trouble finding a job (he is a history major so that's hard enough as it is!) He currently works for his dad building houses for $300 a week. We were renting a house right before we got married and we happened to find a house for sale that was as much in mortgage as we were paying in rent, so we decided to purchase it (fixed interest, not subprime or balloon) and have an investment rather than renting and never seeing that money again.
Of course when my husband finds a career position we will be better off (I pray!) but as it stands right now we will probably make $33,000 between us before taxes if he doesn't.
Believe me, I would love to get checks in the mail, but it's just not fair. I'm finishing my psych degree because I want to be able to help people (and I do want to be able to make more). I love MT, but at the rate we are going, I don't know if we will be around much longer.
But lets put it this way, with your 40K this year, and me making 30K for the sake of simplicity, would it be fair for you to give me 5K so we both have 35K? That would probably really upset you. You would probably tell me to work more if I wanted as much as you, right?
And shoot, if I could get that, then why don't I just make 20K, and you can give me 10K, so we both have 30K?
In the perfect world where EVERYONE worked to get up in life, then yes, "sharing the wealth" may work. Unfortunately, there are to many lazy people out there that will see that they are getting something for nothing and will just continue to do nothing. Not fair to hard working individuals like yourself and myself (I consider myself hard working since I do work part time 7 days a week and take classes!) :)
Whew sorry that was so long!
This is one of the biggest reasons
I'm not voting for him. I understand we cannot do away with abortion completely (as much as I wish we could) but to just have open season on killing babies? Whew.
I'm telling you, next we will be aborting the elderly! Anyone of inconvenience will be getting a needle in the head!
That's an odd take on the reasons Obama would
If it is sincerely for the right reasons
i.e. the best interests of this country it "sounds" good to me too but I have my reservations. More realistically it sounds to me like the Bush/Clinton alliance and I doubt that it will be helpful to the American people...good for Bush/Clinton/McCain/Obama and their good buddies for sure.
Of course not. That's one of the main reasons
what you seem to be missing is the fact that NOTHING has been decided on the fate of those prisoners in terms of where they will be housed OR how their trials will or (in some cases, in the absence of evidence) will not progress.
You want to get your drawers in an uproar? Here's the reality of the situation. Our legal system will ultimately be upheld and its integrity will be restored. Inthe process, it is quite possible that some of those prisoners will be released and never face a legitimate trial BECAUSE of the botch job the shrub did with this fiasco. We may very well find ourselves back at square one with some of them, but for me, preserving the integrity of our constitution/legal system and restoring human rights back into the equation is worth the price we may end up paying.
One of the reasons shrub said we are in Iraq..
is to fight the terrorists on "their turf so we don't have to fight them here." Hmmmmmm.....
There ARE reasons beyond blaming Bush...
for the haves and the have nots. How many of those people wandering the streets worked hard in school, applied for FREE tuition at the local college (which they most certainly qualify for based on income), waited until they were married to have kids, and on and on? WIth 70% of African-American babies born to single women these days, it's no wonder that poverty runs rampant among the African-American communities. It's sad, it's tragic, and I'd go there right now to give ANY of those people all the food and water I have in my house right now, but you cannot totally blame others for their financial position... Most of it comes from poor personal choices. This is a country of opportunity and people only need to be smart and avail themselves of it.
I'm with you on that. One of the reasons I'm glad I'm not Christian
I'm not Athiest, but I'm also not a Christian or any other other religious denomination. The Christians that I know can be some of the meanest hurtful people. They serve only themselves. They won't listen to reason and will cut you down in a second if you don't believe what they do. When I'm called a "Heathen" by my family with a disgusted look on their face I just sit and smile and say "Thank you, that is the nicest compliment you could pay me". This board is something else though.
That's okay, too. You just stated you wanted our reasons
why, so I stated mine. Won't let that happen again, though. From now on, I think I'll just read and not post. I didn't think my reasons would be dissected. I thought this was only a poll. Have a blessed day! 
My reasons for not standing behind Obama.......... sm
In no particular order of importance.
1. Lack of qualification, even by his own admission as recently as 2004 when he accepted his Senate seat and stated that he felt he would not be qualified for POTUS.
2. Past associations.
3. Current associations and financial backers.
4. His stance on abortion.
5. His stance on gay marriage.
6. His lack of knowledge of foreign policy. He thinks he can just "sit down and negotiate" with the biggest terrorist nations on earth.
7. Lack of proof of citizenship.
8. Questionable background in terms of religion, which lies deeper than just whether he is Protestant or Catholic or nondenomianational.
9. Issues with many of his campaign "promises" not limited to the Civil Defense Service.
None of my issues with Obama center on anything other than the above. Simply put, I don't trust him.
|
