If we all we're being so stubborn about this
Posted By: Trigger Happy on 2009-05-05
In Reply to: My point, exactly! - A.Nonymous
I don't think so many people would be pro civil unions. It would be no union for gay people.....period. Can't you see that some of us who are against SSM are actually trying to extent a hand and compromise here? People continually bash Christians on here and we can't pray in schools, etc. What about our rights? You can't even pray by yourself in school without the threat of detention or expulsion nowadays. Gay people aren't the only ones who have to alter their lifestyle to please others so stop acting like the only victims here.
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
One stubborn King.
Looks like we're stuck in Iraq, folks. But wait a minute, you mean there is no connection between between Iraq and 9/11? And I thought the insurgency was in its final throes a year ago? Oh right, it's the *suiciders*. A God-fearing Christian war king wouldn't lie, right? Uh, kind of, uh, I guess, uh, duh, I would surmise, uh, uh.
Bush Tells Press U.S. Won't Leave Iraq While He Is President -- And Says He Won't Campaign in Connecticut
By E&P Staff
Published: August 21, 2006 11:55 AM ET
NEW YORK At a press conference this morning in Washington, D.C., President Bush declared, We’re not leaving [Iraq] so long as I’m the president. That would be a huge mistake.” Bush leaves office in January 2009.
He also said, in response to a question about backing the Republican candidate for Senate in Connecticut --against Democrat Ned Lamont and Independent Joe Lieberman -- that he is going to stay out of Connecticut.
Reminded that a reporter that this was his native state (he was born there), Bush replied, to laughter, Shhh.
He explained further, And by the way, we're -- I'm staying out of Connecticut because the -- the -- you know, that's what the party suggested, the Republican Party of Connecticut, and plus there's a better place to spend our money, time and resources.
Bush also tied Iraq to 9/11, and then backed off, when asked about the effects of the U.S. invasion as witnessed today.
You know, I've heard this theory about, you know, everything was just fine until we arrived and, you know, kind of -- the 'stir up the hornet's nest' theory, Bush said. It just doesn't hold water as far as I'm concerned. The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.
Asked by a reporter what Iraq had to do with 9/11, Bush replied, Nothing, except for it's part of -- and nobody's ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a -- Iraq -- the lesson of September the 11th is take threats before they fully materialize, Ken.
Also on Iraq, Bush explained, The strategy is to help the Iraqi people achieve the objectives and dreams which is a democratic society. That’s the strategy. The tactics — now — either you say yes it’s important we stay there and get it done or we leave. We’re not leaving so long as I’m the president. That would be a huge mistake. It would send an unbelievably, you know terrible, signal to reformers across the region. It would say we’ve abandoned our desire to change the conditions that create terror.
Bush also said at the news conference -- held at the temporary press quarters while the old White House briefing room is being rebuilt -- that if the government in Iraq fails, it could turn the country into a safe haven for terrorists and extremists and give them revenues from oil sales.
He said he agrees with a top military commander that if the U.S. were to do so, the terrorists will follow us here. Bush added those who want an immediate pullout from Iraq are absolutely wrong. He says it takes time to defeat the extremists, but that the U.S. is going to stand with the government of Iraq, and with reformers across the region.
Despite all the grim news, Bush often acted in a very jocular manner. He also had a rare exchange with reporter Helen Thomas on the Lebanon conflict.
Asked by another reporter if he was frustrated by lack of progress in Iraq he replied: Frustrated? Sometimes I'm frustrated, rarely surprised. Sometimes I'm happy. You know, this is -- this is a -- it's -- but war's not a time of joy. These aren't joyous times. These are challenging times. And they're difficult times. And they're straining the -- the psyche of our country. I understand that.
You know, nobody likes to see innocent people die. Nobody wants to turn on their TV on a daily basis and see the havoc wrought by terrorists.
A partial transcript follows. To watch a full video of the President's press conference, click here
***
Q: Thank you, Mr. President. More than 3,500 Iraqis were killed last month -- the highest civilian monthly toll since the war began. Are you disappointed with the lack of progress by Iraq's unity government in bringing together the sectarian and ethnic groups?
BUSH: No, I -- I am aware that extremists and terrorists are doing everything they can to prevent Iraq's democracy from growing stronger. That's what I'm aware of. And therefore we have a plan to help them -- them, the Iraqis -- achieve their objectives.
Part of the plan is political; that is, to help the Maliki government work on reconciliation and to work on rehabilitating the community.
The other part is, of course, security. And I have given our commanders all the flexibility they needed to adjust tactics to be able to help the Iraqi government defeat those who want to thwart the ambitions of the people. And that includes, you know, a very robust security plan for Baghdad. We -- you may or not know, Terry -- have moved troops from Mosul Stryker Brigade into Baghdad, all aiming to help the Iraqi government succeed.
You know, the -- I hear a lot of talk about civil war. I'm -- I'm concerned about that, of course. And I've talked to a lot of people about it. And what I've found from my talks are that the Iraqis want a unified country, and that the Iraqi leadership is determined to thwart the efforts of the extremists and the radicals and al Qaeda, and that the security forces remain united behind the government. And one thing that's clear, the Iraqi people are showing incredible courage.
The United States of America must understand it's in our interests that we help this democracy succeed. As a matter of fact, it's in our interests that we help reformers across the Middle East achieve their objectives. This is the fundamental challenge of the 21st century.
You know, it's an interesting debate we're having in America about how we ought to handle Iraq. There's a lot of people -- good, decent people -- saying withdrawal now. They're absolutely wrong. It would be a huge mistake for this country. If you think problems are tough now, imagine what it would be like if the United States leaves before this government has a chance to defend herself, govern herself and listen to the -- and answer to the will of the people....
Helen?
Q: (Chuckles.)
BUSH: What's so funny about me saying Helen? (Laughter.)
Q: Israel --
BUSH: It's the anticipation of your question, I guess.
Q: Israel broke its word twice on the truce. And you mentioned Hezbollah rockets, but it's Israeli bombs that destroyed Lebanon. Why do you always give them a pass? And what's your view on view on breaking of your oath for a truce?
BUSH: Hm. Yeah. Thank you.
I -- I'd like to remind people about how this started, how this whole -- how the damage to innocent life, which -- which -- which bothers me, began; what caused this.
Q: Why drop bombs on -- (off mike)?
BUSH: Wait, let me finish. Let -- let -- may I -- let me -- may I -- please, let me finish the question. It was a great question to begin with. The follow-up was a little difficult, but anyway....I know you're waiting for my answer, aren't you, with bated breath.
(Laughs.) There you go.
It's -- this never would have occurred had a terrorist organization, a state within a state, not launched attacks on a sovereign nation. From the beginning, Helen, I said that Israel, one, has a right to defend herself, but Israel ought to be cautious about how she defends herself. Israel is a democratically elected government. They make decisions on their own sovereignty. It's their decision making that is what leads to the attacks they chose. And -- but the world must understand that now is the time to come together to address the root cause of the problem, and the problem is you had a state within a state. You had people launch attacks on a sovereign nation without the consent of the government in the country in which they are lodged.
And that's why it's very important for all of us, those of us who are involved in this process, to get an international force into Lebanon to help the Lebanese government achieve some objectives. One is their ability to exert control over the entire country. Secondly is to make sure that the Hezbollah forces don't rearm, don't get armed from Syria, or Iran through Syria, to be able to continue to wreak havoc in the region.
Let's see. We'll finish the first line here. Everybody can be patient.
Q: Thank you.
BUSH: It's kind of like dancing together, isn't it? (Laughter.)
Q: Yeah, kind of.
BUSH: If I ask for any comments from the peanut gallery, I'll call on you. (Laughter.)
Q: Mr. --
BUSH: Yeah. By the way, seersucker is coming back. I hope everybody gets it. (Laughter.) Never mind.
Q: It's the summertime east Texas county commissioner look. (Laughter.)
BUSH: (Laughs.) Yes. Yes, Martha. Sorry.
Q: That's quite all right. Mr. President, I'd like to go back to Iraq. You have continually cited the elections, the new government as progress in Iraq, and yet the violence has gotten worse in certain areas. You have to go to Baghdad again. Is it not time for a new strategy? And if not, why not?
BUSH: You know, Martha, you've covered the Pentagon; you know that the Pentagon is constantly adjusting tactics because they have the flexibility from the White House to do so.
Q: I'm talking about the strategy.
BUSH: Well, the strategy is to help the Iraqi people achieve their objectives and their dreams, which is a democratic society. That's the strategy.
The tactics -- now, either you say, yes, it's important that we stay there and get it done, or we leave. We're not leaving so long as I'm the president. That would be a huge mistake. It would send an unbelievably, you know, terrible signal to reformers across the region. It would say we've abandoned our desire to change the conditions that create terror. It would give the terrorists a safe haven from which to launch attacks. It would embolden Iran. It would embolden extremists. No, we're not leaving. ...
Now, if you say, are you going to change your strategic objective, it means you're leaving before the mission is complete, and we're not going to leave before the mission is complete. I -- I agree with General Abizaid: We leave before the mission is done, the terrorists will follow us here.
And so we have changed tactics. Our commanders have got the flexibility necessary to change tactics on the ground, starting with plan Baghdad, and that's when we move troops from Mosul into Baghdad and replace them with a Stryker Brigade so we're not -- we increase troops during this time of instability.
Q: Sir, that's not really the question. The strategy is --
BUSH: Sounded like the question to me.
Q: You -- you keep -- you keep saying that you don't want to leave, but is your strategy to win working, even if you don't want to leave? You've gone into Baghdad before. These things have happened before.
BUSH: If I didn't think it would work, I would change the -- our commanders would recommend changing the strategy.
They believe it'll work. It takes time to defeat these people. The Maliki government's been in power for, you know, less than six months. And, yeah, the people spoke. I've cited that as a part of -- of -- the reason I've cited it is because it's what the Iraqi people want. And the fundamental question facing this government is whether or not we will stand with reformers across the region. It's really -- it's really the task. And we're going to stand with this government.
And, you know, obviously I wish the violence would go down, but not as much as the Iraqi citizens would wish the violence would go down. But incredibly enough, they showed great courage, and they want our help. And any sign that says we're going to leave before the job is done simply emboldens terrorists and creates a certain amount of doubt for people so they won't take the risk necessary to help a civil society evolve in the country.
And this is the campaign -- I'm sure they're watching the campaign carefully. There are a lot of good, decent people saying, get out now. Vote for me. I will do everything I can to, I guess, cut off money is what they're trying to do to get our troops out. It's a big mistake. It were to be wrong, in my judgment, for us to leave before the mission is complete in Iraq....
Q: Good morning, Mr. President. When you talked today about the violence in Baghdad, first you mentioned extremists, radicals and then al Qaeda. It seems that al Qaeda and foreign fighters are much less of a problem there and that it really is Iraqis versus Iraqis. And when we heard about your meeting the other day with experts and so forth, some of the reporting out of that said you were frustrated, you were surprised, and your spokesman said, Nope, you're determined.
But frustration seems like a very real emotion. Why wouldn't you be frustrated, sir, by what's happening?
BUSH: I'm not -- I do remember the meeting; I don't remember being surprised. I'm not sure what they meant by that.
Q: About the lack of gratitude among the Iraqi people.
BUSH: Oh. No, I think -- yeah -- first of all, to the first part of your question, you know, if you look back at the words of Zarqawi before he was brought to justice, he made it clear that the intent of their tactics in Iraq was to create civil strife. In other words, if you -- look at what he said. He said let's kill Shi'a to get Shi'a to seek revenge and therefore to create this kind of hopefully cycle of violence. Secondly, I think it's pretty clear that the -- at least the evidence indicates that the bombing of the shrine was an al Qaeda plot, all intending to create sectarian violence.
Now, al Qaeda is still very active in Iraq. As a matter of fact, some of the more -- I would guess, I would surmise that some of the more spectacular bombings are done by al Qaeda suiciders. No question there's sectarian violence as well. And the challenge is to provide a security plan such that a political process can go forward. And you know, I know -- I'm sure you all are tired of hearing me say 12 million Iraqis voted, but it's an indication about the desire for people to live in a free society. That's what that means, see. And the only way to defeat this ideology in the long term is to defeat it through another ideology, a competing ideology, one that -- where government, you know, responds to the will of the people. And that's really the fundamental question we face here in the beginning of this 21st century is whether or not we believe as a nation and others believe it is possible to defeat this ideology.
Now, I recognize some say that these folks are not ideologically -- but I strongly disagree. I think not only do they have an ideology, they have tactics necessary to spread their ideology. And it would be a huge mistake for the United States to leave the region, to concede territory to the terrorists, to not confront them.
And -- and the best way to confront them is to help those who want to leave in free society. Look, eventually Iraq will succeed because the Iraqis will see to it that they succeed. And our job is to help them succeed. That's our job. Our job is to help their forces be better equipped, to help their police be able to deal with these extremists, and to help their government succeed.
Q: But are you frustrated, sir?
BUSH: Frustrated? Sometimes I'm frustrated, rarely surprised. Sometimes I'm happy. You know, this is -- this is a -- it's -- but war's not a time of joy. These aren't joyous times. These are challenging times. And they're difficult times. And they're straining the -- the psyche of our country. I understand that. You know, nobody likes to see innocent people die. Nobody wants to turn on their TV on a daily basis and see the havoc wrought by terrorists. And our question is, do we have the -- the capacity and the desire to spread peace by confronting these terrorists and supporting those who want to live in liberty? That's -- that's -- that's the question.
And my answer to that question is, we must. We owe it to future generations to do so....
Q: Thank you, Mr. President. You mentioned the campaign earlier Do you agree with those in your party, including the vice president, who said or implied Democratic voters emboldened al Qaeda types by choosing Ned Lamont over Joe Lieberman, and the message that how Americans vote will send messages to terrorists abroad.
BUSH: What all of us in this administration have been saying is that leaving Iraq before the mission is complete will send the wrong message to the enemy and will create a more dangerous world. That's what we're saying. And it's an honest debate and it's an important debate for Americans to listen to and to be engaged in.
In our judgment, the consequences for defeat in Iraq are unacceptable. I fully understand that some didn't think we ought to go in there in the first place. But defeat -- if you think it's bad now, imagine what Iraq would look like if the United States leaves before this government can defend itself and sustain itself, A -- you know, chaos in Iraq would be very unsettling in the region.
Leaving before the job would be done would send a message that America really is no longer engaged or cares about the form of governments in the Middle East. Leaving before the job would done would be -- send a signal to our troops that the sacrifices they made were not worth it. Leaving before the job was done would be a disaster. And that's what we're saying. I will never question the patriotism of somebody who disagrees with me. This has nothing to do with patriotism; it has everything to do with understanding the world in which we live.
It's like the other day I was critical of those who heralded the federal judge's opinion about the terrorist surveillance program. I thought it was a terrible opinion, and that's why we're appealing it. And I have no -- you know, look, I understand how democracy works. Quite a little bit of criticism in it, which is fine. That's fine. It's part of the process. But I have every right, as do my administration, to make it clear what the consequences would be of policy, and if we think somebody is wrong or doesn't see the world the way it is, we will continue to point that out to people. And therefore, those who heralded the decision not to give law enforcement the tools necessary to protect the American people simply don't see the world the way we do. They say it maybe kind of isolated incidents. These aren't isolated instances; they're tied together. There is a global war going on.
And you know, somebody said, well, this is law enforcement. No, this isn't law enforcement in my judgment. Law enforcement means kind of a simple, you know, singular response to the problem. This is a global war on terror. We're facing, you know, extremists that believe something and they want to achieve objectives. And therefore, the United States must use all our assets, and we must work with others to defeat this enemy.
That's -- that's the call. And we -- in the short run, we got to stop them from attacking us. That's why I give the Tony Blair government great credit and their intelligence officers, and our own government credit for working with the Brits to stop this attack.
But you know something? It's an amazing town, and -- you know, where they say on the one hand, you can't have the tools necessary -- we herald the fact that you won't have the tools necessary to defend the people, and sure enough, a(n) attack would occur and say, how come you don't have the tools necessary to defend the people? That's the way -- that's the way we think around this town. And so, you know, we'll -- Jim, we'll continue to speak out in a respectful way, never challenging somebody's love for America when you criticize their -- their strategies or their -- their point of view.
And, you know, for those who say that, well, all they're trying to say is we're not patriotic simply don't listen to our words very carefully, do they? What -- what matters is that in this campaign that we clarify the different points of view, and there are a lot of people in the Democrat party who believe that the best of course of action is to leave Iraq before the job is done, period, and they're wrong. And the American people have got to understand the consequence of leaving Iraq before the job is done. We're not going to leave Iraq before the job is done, and we'll complete the mission in Iraq. I can't tell you exactly when it's going to be done. But I do know that it's important for us to support the Iraqi people, who have shown incredible courage in their desire to live in a free society. And if we ever give up the desire to help people who live in freedom, we will have lost our soul as a nation as far as I'm concerned.
Q: And would you campaign against Senator Joe Lieberman, whose Republican candidate may support you, but he supports you, too, on Iraq?
BUSH: I'm going to say out of Connecticut. (Laughter.)
Q: It's your native state, Mr. President! You were born there!
BUSH: Shhh! (Laughter.)
Q: How can you stay --
BUSH: (Chuckles.) I may be the only person -- the only presidential candidate who never carried the state in which he was born.
Do you think that's right, Herman? Of course, you would have researched that and dropped it out for everybody to see, particularly since I dissed that just ridiculous-looking outfit. (Laughter.)
Q: Your mother raised you better than that, Mr. President....
BUSH: And by the way, we're -- I'm staying out of Connecticut because the -- the -- you know, that's what the party suggested, the Republican Party of Connecticut, and plus there's a better place to spend our money, time and resources.
Q: Mr. President, polls continue to show sagging support for the war in Iraq. I'm curious as to how you see this developing. Is it your belief that long-term results will vindicate your strategy, and people will change their mind about it? Or is the kind of thing you're doing because you think it's right and you don't care if you ever gain public support for it?
BUSH: Thank you. Yeah, look -- look, I mean, presidents care about whether people support their policies. I don't -- (inaudible) -- think that I don't care. Of course I care. But I understand why people are discouraged about Iraq. I can understand that. There is -- we live in, you know, a world in which people hope things happen quickly. And this is a situation where things don't happen quickly because there's, you know, a very tough group of people using tactics, mainly the killing of innocent people, to achieve their objective, and they're skillful about how they do this and they also know the impact of what it means on the conscienceness of those of us who live in the free world. They know that. And so I care. I really do. I wish -- you know, and so therefore I must spend a lot of time trying to explain as best I can, you know, why it's important for us to succeed in Iraq. And --
Q: A quick follow-up. A lot of the consequences you mention for pulling out seem like maybe they never would have been there if we hadn't gone in. How do you square all of that?
BUSH: I square it because imagine a world in which you had a Saddam Hussein who had the capacity to make a weapon of mass destruction, who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life, who would -- who had relations with Zarqawi. Imagine what the world would be like with him in power. The idea is to try to help change the Middle East.
Now, look, I -- part of the reason we went into Iraq was -- the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction.
But I also talked about the human suffering in Iraq, and I also talked the need to advance a freedom agenda. And so my question -- my answer to your question is, is that imagine a world in which Saddam Hussein was there, stirring up even more trouble in a part of a world that had so much resentment and so much hatred that people came and killed 3,000 of our citizens.
You know, I've heard this theory about, you know, everything was just fine until we arrived and, you know, kind of -- the stir up the hornet's nest theory. It just doesn't hold water as far as I'm concerned. The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East. They were --
Q: What did Iraq have to do with that?
BUSH: What did Iraq have to do with what?
Q: The attack on the World Trade Center.
BUSH: Nothing, except for it's part of -- and nobody's ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a -- Iraq -- the lesson of September the 11th is take threats before they fully materialize, Ken.
Nobody's ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq. I have suggested, however, that resentment and the lack of hope create the breeding grounds for terrorists who are willing to use suiciders to kill to achieve an objective. I have made that case. And one way to defeat that -- you know, defeat resentment, is with hope. And the best way to do hope is through a form of government.
Now, I said going into Iraq we got to take these threats seriously before they fully materialized. I saw a threat. I fully believe it was the right decision to remove Saddam Hussein, and I fully believe the world was better off without him. Now, the question is, how do we succeed in Iraq? And you don't succeed by leaving before the mission is complete, like some in this political process are suggesting.
E&P Staff (letters@editorandpublisher.com)
SAVE | EMAIL | PRINT | MOST POPULAR | RSS | REPRINTS
SUBSCRIBE TO EDITOR & PUBLISHER »
Related Articles
Former CIA Officer Defends 'Wash Post' Op-Ed in Online Chat
Jan 10, 2006 – Editor and Publisher
Gallup: 55% Now Call Iraq War a 'Mistake'
Feb 22, 2006 – Editor and Publisher
'Military Times' Poll Finds Fading Support for President, War
Jan 2, 2006 – Editor and Publisher
'Stars and Stripes' to Launch Weekly U.S. Edition: A Military 'Parade'?
Aug 29, 2005 – Editor and Publisher
Small Oregon Paper Leads Reporting On Missing Local Soldier
Jun 19, 2006 – Editor and Publisher
hroes? Why have I been so badly misinformed?
Both sides are stubborn - don't put everything on one side
I'm independent (I don't like either McCain or Obama and have even thought about voting for Barr) and I can see as plain as day. The democrats say the republicans monopolize and everything is their fault and the republicans say the same thing about the democrats. What I found out is that there are some decent democrats who know by passing the bill it would have been wrong so they stood up against their fellow democrats. So there is good and bad on both. The reason I hope Obama does NOT win is the complete arrogance by some of the democrats. The ones who won't accept that there are flaws with their candidate. I'm hearing republicans say, sure McCain has flaws, but not as many as Obama. The obama supporters are just coming out say Obama is perfect. So for all the arrogant democrats and news media I hope Obama loses and for all the democrats who know right from wrong God help us if Obama gets in. We'll need it.
You're entitled to your opinion. I guess it depends on what side of the spectrum you're on.nm
x
We're not defending Bush we're pointing out the obvious
All you see in your view is Bush, Bush, Bush. Nobody else exists. You have yet to answer any of the questions I posed yesterday. We're not the one obsessing about Bush. I'm sure you'll counter that with I don't owe you any answers! It's really telling that for five or six days this board was mute about the Israel/Lebanon situation. You were too busy posting trash news about Bush like nothing was even happening, but I know that the left has wait for its talking points. You all cannot formulate opinions on your own. You have boilerplates ready to go though. *This is Bush's fault because _____________ but you have to wait on Howard Dean, Bill Clinton, etc. etc. to fill in the blanks for you. It's not just a phenomenon here but with all the left. You can count on at least two days of silence when something unforseen breaks out in the world, because they have to retreat to their bunkers to get their talking points straight, but it will always start with *This is Bush's fault because....
Hey, if they're smoking cigs, they're paying for SCHIP.
xx
They're too lazy to show patriotism......they're waiting
xx
So you're not racist but you're most definitely SEXIST and AGEIST!!!
"Someone more in our age group..."
"She should be taking care of her family."
Your true colors are showing, and they're truly ugly.
Just because they're LOSING doesn't mean they're VICTIMS.
What is it with people these days? You think that just because Hamas is getting its fanny handed to it that that magically makes them victims, and we should all weep and throw cash at them?
From the dawn of time, lesser civilizations have fallen to stronger ones.
It's why the human species survived and the neanderthals didn't.
It's why Rome conquered the Celts.
It's why the Barbarians conquered the Western Roman Empire.
It's why the British conquered the American Indians.
It's why the Spanish conquered the Aztecs.
It's why the Muslims conquered Israel the first time. But, since their societal progres seems to have permanently parked in the Stone Age, now Israel is conquering them right back.
Deal with it.
You're right. They're simply not worthy of a reply.
They're not tax breaks....they're tax credits
xx
I'm snotty, you're rude...we're even....
My dearrrr....not everyone in this country pays taxes. So you are wrong there. Obama said "spread the wealth." From his own mouth. The interview in Canada...economic parity and redistribution. Words from HIS mouth. If you believed those words from his mouth as much as you believed other words from his mouth, you would know he is a socialist. Selective memory is a wonderful thing ain't it??
You're right. They're all wack-jobs... nothing
so they try to make themselves feel important by standing around on street corners with their posters and their dollies.
Most of them are just buffoons, good for nothing other than being laughed at by the rest of us. But the ones that totally lose all reason, and go so far as to shoot people (in a church of all places...) is pretty off the deep end.
You're a liar. GT didn't curse. You're a filthy liar, but you are a gift from God.
God sent you here to as a constant reminder of the kind of person I DON'T want to be and if I ever have a bad day when I feel temporarily stupid, all I have to do is read your posts, and I realize there are those out there who are much worse off than I am and for them it's not temporary.
They're doing to this board what they're trying to do
to the whole country. They're trying to take it over. They want to control which God you believe in, who you love and what you do with your body, be it regarding life or regarding death. If you don't voluntarily agree to turn your free will over to their control, they will hunt you down and nag you to death (since they can't do anything more violent on a message board). It's obvious they are sick, sick people and need major help.
But they ARE like watching a car wreck and are sometimes hard to ignore.
I've thought about it, and for me personally, the very best thing to do is ignore them and for 2 reasons:
1. Ignoring them and not reading their posts makes my visit on this board much more pleasant. I already know I'm not missing anything because there isn't one post on this entire board written by them that has contributed anything of value or intelligence.
2. If we all refuse to read and respond to their posts, they might give up and go find another board to terrorize. I doubt that, though, because they've taken over this board and simply don't have the CLASS to leave. They take pride in their bully on the playground mentality and are proud of their ignorant behavior. They will probably just continue to pat themselves on their backs on this board. The only thing that might startle them and cause them to stop is that the NUMBER of posts on the Liberal board are starting to increase heavily as a direct result of their posting. In the past, they've used the Liberal board's lower numbers to trash us for not being as interesting, when, in fact, the CON board must be pretty boring if they are always choosing to be HERE instead.
Like I said, I've decided that I'd like my visits here to be pleasant, so I'm just going to stop subjecting myself to their cesspools of attacks. They've proven their posts aren't worth wasting time reading, so I'm just going to stop and will feel much better as a result of stopping. 
Your not you're. I hope you're not an MT. nm
.
They're children, though. They're not
adults. Mom and Dad need to know these things even if only to possibly prevent problems later.
You're welcome.
If I find anything, I'll be sure to post it, but I doubt he's going to be saying much. I think he understandably wants to distance himself as far away from this administration as he can.
I wish he would run for President. I'd very proudly vote for him in a heartbeat! I'd finally be able to vote for the best candidate instead of the least worst one.
I agree with you, and I admire and respect him very much.
So I take it you're on your
so you don't mind your grandchildren paying their fair share, right?
Bush Tax Cuts = Tax Shifts
UFE Report: Tax Burden Shifting off Wealthy onto Everyone Else
$197 Billion in Tax Cuts to Top 1% of US Taxpayers as Big as States’ Budget Shortfalls of $200 Billion
BOSTON — A new report, entitled “Shifty Tax Cuts: How They Move the Tax Burden off the Rich and onto Everyone Else,” from United for a Fair Economy (UFE) indicates that between 2002 and 2004, the Bush tax cuts to the top 1% of US income earners redirected billions of dollars in revenue that could have eliminated virtually all of the budget shortfalls in the states.
“Congress had the option to send aid to the states to prevent $200 billion worth of service cuts and regressive tax increases,” said Chris Hartman, UFE’s research director. “Instead, they gave tax breaks totaling roughly the same amount to multi-millionaires and the rest of the top 1%.”
The report identifies five main areas of shifting tax burden:
FEDERAL TO STATE — a 15% shift in tax burden between 2000 and 2003
PROGRESSIVE TO REGRESSIVE — at the federal level, a 17% decline in the share of revenue from progressive taxes and a 135% increase in the share of revenue from regressive taxes since 1962
WEALTH TO WORK — A tax cut on unearned income — such as inheritance or investment — of between 31% and 79%, but a tax hike on work income of 25% since 1980
CORPORATIONS TO INDIVIDUALS — a 67% drop in the share of federal revenues contributed by corporations and a 17% rise in individuals’ share
CURRENT TAXPAYERS TO FUTURE GENERATIONS — record deficits that shift the tax burden to our children and grandchildren
“When President Bush and Congress trumpet, ‘Here’s a tax cut', we say, ‘Taxpayer beware!’ said Chuck Collins, United for a Fair Economy co-founder. “Unless you are super-rich, it’s a tax SHIFT, not a cut. Non-wealthy taxpayers will pay for these tax cuts with increased state and local taxes or cuts in public services.”
“Between 2002 and 2004, a full $197 billion in new tax breaks went to the top 1% of American taxpayers,” Hartman commented. “This is money that has disappeared into the pockets of the very wealthy, making it unavailable to solve ongoing budget crises at the state and local levels.”
“I got a rebate check last summer for $400,” said Collins. “Then my eight-year-old’s public school asked me to contribute money to replace worn-out chairs for the students. At the same time, I found out they laid off the librarian because of budget cuts. What good is a $400 tax cut when parents have to cough up additional money for chairs and books or else see their children go without?”
The report concludes that the total federal, state and local tax burden has become increasingly the responsibility of middle-and low-income families in recent decades, and that revenues being generated by taxes are not sufficient to pay for existing public services. Work in particular is being taxed at a higher rate than investment. “I do a lot of work in predominantly Latino areas of Boston,” said UFE Education Specialist Gloribell Mota. “Residents there are the working poor — they have jobs and pay taxes — yet are getting pennies in tax cuts and seeing health care services they depend on slashed.”
“The Bush administration has followed a strategy of starving public services by pulling tax money away from education and housing and giving it away to multi-millionaires,” said Karen Kraut, UFE’s State Tax Partnership director. “States are suffering as a result, and people are going without essential services in order to fund the lifestyles of the rich.”
The report calls for tax reforms to improve the fairness of tax distribution and ensure adequate revenues. Concerned Americans are urged to pass resolutions in their cities and towns to stop the tax cuts and restore local services that have been affected, to call and write their congressional representatives to take action to stop the cuts, and to sign the Tax Fairness Pledge at www.ResponsibleWealth.org/taxpledge.
The co-authors of the report are Chuck Collins, UFE Co-founder; Chris Hartman, UFE Research Director; Karen Kraut, Director of UFE’s State Tax Partnerships; and Gloribell Mota, UFE Education Specialist.
United for a Fair Economy is an independent national non-profit that raises awareness of growing economic inequality.
You're not getting it
if the Attorney POCKETS most of the winnings how are they any better than the greedy corporations? Since you think one is more morally ethical than the other eventhough they may both be doing THE SAME EXACT THING....then the debate has ended as far as I'm concerned.
I never said don't come over there, you're the one
x
You're welcome.
Have a great day.
You're welcome.
I didn't know it existed, either, but I think it's a really great site and wanted to pass it on. Some of these guys have said they're afraid to speak the truth and feel they're taking a chance by doing so. 
You're welcome, gt.
You're welcome and you're right.
You're right.
It's clear the ONLY people who have true freedom of speech and freedom of thought in this country are Bush disciples. In addition, they have the freedom to lie to the rest of America.
Don't despair. It won't be long before a Pat Robertsonesque appointee thug of Bush will be seizing my computer, bugging my phone and knocking at my door, ready to lock me up simply because I express my distaste for a President who is incapable of telling the truth to ANYONE IN THE ENTIRE WORLD, as he wraps himself in the Holy Bible and American Flag. His enemies aren't *terrorists.* If they were, I wouldn't be able to get on a plane now with a knife again.
His enemies are Americans who have the audacity to pay attention, think freely and voice their opinions.
My freedom of speech, free thought, expression, religion, ETC. is about to come to a screeching halt very soon.
You'd better hope you continue to obey the master, remain in step and NEVER stray from the flock. Otherwise, the next freedom-ending screech I hear could be YOURS.
Yes, you're right; I'm sure
their eye on me as well! What I find most pitiful is YOUR lack of outrage. Too much Kool-Aid, I guess. What will it take before you see what **King George** has done and continues to do to this country?
Huh? You're not going to believe this.
Or maybe you will...but for me it falls into the category of WHAT THE???????!!!!!!!!
Labored logic
Democrats have been buzzing about comments made by state Sen. Nancy Schaefer (R-Turnerville) at a recent eggs-and-issues breakfast in Hart County. We quote from the Hartwell Sun newspaper: Commenting on illegal immigration, Schaefer said 50 million abortions have been performed in this country, causing a shortage of cheap American labor. 'We could have used those people,' she said.
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/insider/stories/030606.html
You're welcome. sm
I wholeheartedly agree that Lurker's post went straight to the heart of how I feel on so many levels and it took time to put it together.
You're welcome. nm
You're welcome.
You're welcome!
You're welcome. :-) (NM)
/
You're right...sm
War was used for lack of a better term - genocide. One day is a long time when you fear for your life and are watching other's die. Nothing made me more upset with Clinton than watching Hotel Rwanda. Quite frankly though, that is an ugly part of history. Darfur is here and now. What do we do, give the UN and Bush a pass?
I know you're not...sm
I said those interested.
But you're not sorry at all..
Call me condescending, call the majority of liberals on this board shallow, immoral, without firm foundations and that's just part of your comments. What is the purpose of this name-calling? Does it make you feel better about yourself? What do you hope to accomplish? This is the liberal board and I don't believe this board was provided as a venue for you to vent your condemnation of liberal folks. Why do you and others do it? Where is there one iota of value in your posting other than a rant against liberals and their many many failings.
you're right
There is free speech and tolerance of extreme behavior in our nation, but here there is also a missing element of having enough social training to not persist in bothering people who do not wish to be associated with you. In real life, this would be embarassing, but with the anonimity of the internet, people let their real selves emerge without fear of consequences. Shunning has alway worked in the past.
You're right I don't.
I do not appreciate your views. I believe them to be jaded.
I think you're right.
Lieberman doesn't have the clout that he used to. It's a small feather in McCain's hat at best.
However, to play devil's advocate when it comes to looking objectively at the republican candidates, I believe McCain to be the lessor of all evils :o). If I have to settle for a republican winning the next presidential election, I could more easily swallow it if it were John McCain; regardless of his stance on the war. Even though he was supportive of overthrowing Hussain, he was pretty vocal about Bush's bungles afterwards.
you're right, I don't
They can bash all they want, they can sling all the mud --- I will remain unphased. My decision is made, unwavering. It really comes down to black and white (not literally, cuz who cares?). The question is this: Do we want business as usual or do we want a change? Well, sign me up for the Change Train and let's get this moving forward. McCain is doing some serious bashing. All the nay-sayers are filled with fear. Well how about we go with some Hope for our Future? How bout we just go on blind faith that things can only get better and support this Positive thinking individual? My mind is made up and will not be changed no matter what y'all sling in Obama's direction. We need a Democrat in charge, STAT.
You got that right. You're not. sm
This is about me, my husband, my children and my choice and there is absolutely nothing you can say or do that will change that. Take your self-righteous indignation back to church, where it belongs.
You're right
It is not freaky, it's idiotic.
you're x2.
nm
You're really having to dig now...
Isn't her mother supposed to be looking out for the needs of this country? Isn't that what a VP is for?
you're welcome sm
There is so much about her policies and activities that need to be brought too light. We don't need to insult lovely people like Ellen DeGen and Rachel Maddow to win the election.
you're right, but
I would think all the money they are proposing to bail out the auto companies, if given to the out-of-work employees would be enough to also allow money to sustain them through their re-education process.
I'm just so tired of bailing out the clueless suits while the middle class, the backbone, the real workers, suffer.
I'm a Dem, by the way, and I do understand the impact of bailing them out which is probably the only way to go, but... it's just messed up... and I guess I'm a frustrated idealist ;-)
You're not so bad yourself.....sm
I applaud your question and your comments .
I know if I ever have a medical condition that requires heavy duty drugs, I would much prefer to have medical marijuana. It's such a personal decision, and used in this context, how can we not allow people who are suffering, to have this natural way to ease the pain and help the appetite.
(although when I was much, much younger, I, too will admit, I myself enjoyed an mj on occasion...hehe....I outgrew it though...more's the pity on some days....)
Anyway, I'm glad to see that we can agree on an issue.
You're right......
It always amazes me how some of the most obvious things about people are completaly overlooked just for the same of wanting "that" person in office, regardless of the warning signs.
I believe Obama's wife has issues that do border on racist feelings and her thesis does certainly relay those feelings perhaps, but what really amazes me are those that say Palin couldn't possibly be President if that situation arose, not enough experience, etc. She has actual executive experience as governor or a state whereas Obama has NONE, NONE, NONE... and still they refuse to acknowledge that fact.
Yea...you certainly didn't hear anyone complaining about Clinton, saying well he is ONLY the governor, what does he know about running a country!
And, yes, how in the world do you promise all these social programs without raising raising raising taxes. I suppose the same people that believe Obama is more qualified and his wife isn't racist are the same ones that believe you can do that freeeeeee!!!!! Gee, let me join that pie in the sky world they're in.
sam is right. do what is right or you're
x
ha ha ha ha ha ha you're too much
baby, you're alright.
You're right
We need "religion" out of government. What we need is GOD-FEARING men and women in government.
Could it be possible that we're already...
...a part of that system? I've transcribed notes that ask the reader to "refer to the note dated (pick a date) in the electronic medical record," and the note that is referred to is actually something that had been transcribed by another Transcriptionist from my company.
Most of my doctors out here have their own computers, type and print their prescriptions (for which pharmacists must be very grateful, given some of the writing I've seen), but someone is still transcribing office notes, H and P, etc. I personally know this because I've requested copies of those documents.
On the other hand, there was a family practice physician out here I visited once who just handwrote everything into the chart -- vitals, problem list, etc. -- with no typewritten record of the visit. Could it possibly be THOSE kinds of doctors that are the target of all this?
Considering the countries where some transcription is being outsourced these days and our precarious relationships with these countries, I'd think keeping it ALL in the USA would be a matter of national security, as well.
Maybe what they're projecting for the future is already happening, and maybe our jobs are more secure than we might think.
After all, some of us have known for more than a year now that we're living in a recession, and it's now just taking the government to catch up to that fact and finally admit it to us and the rest of the world.
(I just woke up, haven't had enough coffee yet and my usual state of "paranoia" hasn't kicked into overdrive, so perhaps this burst of optimism is just a momentary "lapse." LOL!)
|
