In all honesty, Democrat. SM

How can you castigate someone for being on the liberal board when you are on the conservative board.  Just pointing out a little pot-kettle scenario.   Like Brunson, I won't be posting on here anymore.  And like Brunson, hopefully you will return the favor.  Have a nice evening.

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

Just like SP and the Bush Doctrine.  Why can't either of them say, I don't know what you mean, or I am confused about what we talking about here, can you clarify?  I bet the FOLKS would be a lot kinder to them if they would.  I do not want someone bluffing because they are afraid to show vulnerability.  Its a dangerous trait to have in world leaders.

You came on to a political board and insulted the way everyone on here has behaved.  Would you teach your daughter to do that? I'm sorry. I am a very nice person too...I just think you were kind of asking for trouble by doing that. 

And that isn't even the tip of the iceburg for him.  And by the way, what's with the *he owns his problems* junk?  Does that mean that since he admits he's a drug addict then he's not a bad drug addict?  Give me a break.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200502180006

Applauding.

He raises some very interesting points, doesn't he?  I'm glad, too, that he wasn't fired.  I wish somebody like him (or he) WOULD run for President because I'd vote for him, as well.  After our invasion of Iraq, how DO other countries know they won't be next, and why wouldn't they want to protect themselves from an unwanted, uncalled-for American invasion? 

We need someone who can straighten out America and make it a much better place and lead by example so other countries WANT to be like us, rather than having our form of *freedom* forced upon them.

You really need to stop obsessing on me, Nina.  You've made your hatred of me known, but it's starting to get spooky.  Please find another hobby.  You're beginning to resemble a stalker. 

At the very least, you might want to scan the board before accusing me of saying things I didn't.  It will only take you a second, and you will appear to at least have some common sense and credibility if you do so.  Right now, I seem to be your target, and your hateful obsession is quite transparent.

Have a lovely day, dear.

I hadn't read the part where they included the US troops in the mix.  What I read was that the Iraqi Prime Minister wanted amnesty only for terrorists who killed American soldiers and NO amnesty for terrorists who killed Iraqis.  I felt this was a slap in the face to America, and that's the precise reason I'm so outraged over this.

It's interesting that you said that's what you *make of it.*  Every time I've read something on this issue, I walked away just kind of scratching my head because I was unable to grasp an understanding of most of it.  Even the bill itself that was voted on yesterday did nothing but express the *sense* of the Congress regarding this issue.  How can it be so important to take up Senate time, including the debate and vote, when the end result is that they are EXPRESSING THEIR SENSE?  Seems like a big waste of time to me and lends even more credibility to Harold Ford's view that it was nothing but a stunt.

What I don't understand is why 19 Republican senators would publicly place themselves in the position of voting their *sense* that they were in favor of letting terrorists off the hook when it comes to killing our soldiers, given that the majority of Iraqis think it's okay to kill Americans. 

I suppose some sense could be made of the reasoning behind it if we were dealing with terrorists/insurgents that could be trusted, but with 65% of the general Iraqi population thinking it's okay to kill Americans and 88% of the Sunni population believing so, I don't feel comfortable placing any trust in them.

I havent attacked anyone on here.  I have no problem with the republicans.  It takes both parties to run this country.  I do feel that we have gotten off on the wrong track and I do feel that Bush has not done a great job.  I dont feel that way specifically because he is a republican but because I just dont feel that he was the best guy for the job. 

I will vote for Obama.  If I had more choices, maybe I wouldnt vote for him.  But McCain worries me and I feel that given my opinions of him, I have no choice but to vote for Obama. 

With respect to the 10% tax, I still think $9,000,000 of disposable income goes a lot farther than $9,000, and 10% of $10,000,000 is just a drop in the bucket, compared to 10% of $10,000.

Anyway, my understanding of the "Fair Tax" is that it isn't based on income.  It's based on "consumption." It's (my paraphrasing) a federal sales tax instead of a federal income tax.  And spending up to the poverty level is tax-free, with their "fair tax rebate."

So if someone can afford to buy that 2006 Ferrari, they can also afford to pay the tax.  If someone can only afford a $500 1989 Mitsubishi, they will probably not have to pay any tax if it is considered under the poverty level.

This only addresses federal government tax issues, though.  It doesn't even begin to touch state, county and local taxation.

And from what I've read, I haven't heard what percentage of tax they are proposing. 

So I'm still not sure which I'm leaning towards.  I'm actually sort of swaying between the 10% and the "fair tax."

Nice to see you here, thanks for the invitation, and I agree.  We should debate here.

Johnson didn't have a haves, have-more, elite base like Bush bragged about having.  He just cared about normal everyday people.  How I miss those days.