It depends on the situation
Posted By: dee on 2008-09-16
In Reply to: It doesn't matter who or what you voted for - - (sm)
I voted for Bush the first term. He was running against Gore. The country could not afford another 4 years of Clintons. I voted for Bush and I'm proud I did because it helped keep a known bafoon who didn't know squat diddly out of the white house. After Bush was elected a lot changed. I didn't want to vote for him again, yet the best the dems could do was give us Kerry???????? There were so many qualified people running. How that ninny got in there (must have been all those purple hearts). So I voted for Bush again. However I wasn't voting for Bush, I was voting against Kerry. That doesn't make me and others morons, it makes us well-informed voters. If it meant four more years with Bush in there then so be it, but I'll tell you something. With everything that has happened in the world these past eight years the US is lucky that Gore and Lerch were not in office. That's the way a lot of people feel.
Now we're in a totally different election. Both McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden are very different from their usual party people. This year is an unusually difficult election. Times are quite different than they were 4 and 8 years ago.
To tell someone they are a moron because they didn't vote for democrats? The other choice would have been even more moronic to vote for.
With everything that has happened I'll take Bush over Gore or Kerry anyday. And before anyone goes blaming him for everything that's happened - He's just a talking head being told what to do. If you want to blame anyone, blame the bafoons in his party (Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc to include the people who tell Bush what he's going to do).
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
It all depends on how you look at it....
Obama actually has 166,186 vote lead over Clinton in the popular vote -- 17,267,658 to 17,101,472. If Michigan's primary is included, where Clinton received 328,307 votes and Obama none due to the fact he removed his name from the ballot, Clinton takes a 162,123 vote lead.
It depends on who you believe.
nm
Depends on who you ask. It is okay according
nm
All depends on what you think a nut is, eh.
He is a well-respected researcher and author, who has gained a lot of confidence and respect of some of the finest minds on this planet. Sure he may have some books you don't agree with, but there are a lot of authors like that. Some books you enjoy others you don't. And if you don't do the research yourself how can you discount anything anyone who has spent 20 years researching has to say. Probably the same crowd that discounts scientists and climatologists who have been at their jobs for 40 and 50 years as kooks because they come out and tell you Algore doesn't know what the he!! he's talking about. I guess people would consider them "nuts" too. David Icke has a website where you can learn a lot of useful information.
I guess before JFK was assassinated if people were told there would be an assassination and it would come from within, people would have called them nuts too.
Actually, the people I consider nuts are the ones who will only listen to what is fed to them through the boob tube (Olberman, Matthews, Maddow, Limbaugh, Hannity, Colmes, etc) and the ones who will not listen to issues of importance but just follows the leader with their eyes closed, and anything they don't agree with or like they call nuts. I guess in their own minds by making fun and ridiculing others who don't agree with them they must feel elevated above all others - just another elite nut to me.
Sometimes you have to look with both eyes open to get to the truth.
Depends
what the definition of 'lobbyist' is. Same as it depended what the definition of 'is' is.
depends on what poll you are looking at
I've seen recent polls that put both Clinton and Obama about even with McCain when matched up together and others that show both of them come out ahead of McCain 5-10 points. Others then show McCain ahead. Polls are so subjective that you have to take them with a grain of salt. The most telling thing to me is that Democratic vote turnout has been twice that of Republican turnout in some areas, so no matter what people are saying in the polls, getting them to the voting booths in November is a different matter. The Democrats are energized and enthusiastic, flocking to the polls. The Republicans overall are leukwarm on McCain (and the party in general) and it's showing in unenthusiastic turnouts. This will play very well for whomever the Democratic candidate is in November.
I suppose it depends on who says it...sm
If she said it referring to herself....who cares.
If someone says it about Sarah Palin.....who cares, it will bounce off, as she is neither of those words.
What about when Obama talked about all the small town bitter people holding on to their guns and religion, in his San Francisco speech?
Was that bad? I think it was, and he disenfranchised a whole group of voters, to this day, who would not consider voting for him....
That is perhaps, the phrase that deRothchild was comparing to...not sure, but perhaps...
Sooooo.....to answer your question? which word is worse? Well, both of them are, and there's been plenty of name calling lately. It's getting tiresome, really.
Petty, spiteful, little name calling, which has run entirely too rampant lately in the media, not to mention on this board from time to time.
depends in which poll you look at....
and all within the margin of error.
I think that depends on your definitition (sm)
of a *nice neighborhood.* I don't judge neighborhoods by the cost of the houses, I judge them by the people who live there. At present I live in an average-to-small house on a double lot. Plenty of room for the backyard garden, cookouts, etc. I have neighbors who I would not trade for the world. So, if I had that kind of money I would probably stay right where I am. I may, however, change that tile in the bathroom to marble and put that koi pond out back that I've been wanting for years....LOL.
I guess it depends on how you look
at it. There are so many things that I don't agree with Obama on that I want him to fail. If he is succeeds, I feel that our country will fail because we will go down a path that I don't agree with. I want America to succeed but if Obama does everything he wants.....I don't see how America can succeed. I mean no ill will to him and do not wish him any harm. I just do not like the way he is handling things, spending money, etc. The ideas that he has and the government assisted programs he wants to institute will not only bankrupt us even more but I feel are bad ideas because people shouldn't rely on government to live. They need to rely on themselves. I feel that these programs will not encourage personal responsibility or hard work. It will reward irresponsible and lazy people. It will crush the American dream. So yes....in that sense....I want him to fail. I don't want Americans to have to rely on government for everything. I don't like the idea of our government getting bigger and controlling more and more things.
I look at Obama and I see a typical politician. He did nothing but try and make everyone feel all warm and tingly about change and hope and all he has done since he has been in office is lie one right after another.
I feel that if Obama succeeds in his personal agenda....America will fail.
Depends on location.
If it is Podunk, Nowheresville--probably. If it is NYC or Boston or even someplace like Wichita--not so much.
It all depends upon the culture.
The hand-holding custom among Arab men as they walk does not signify that they are on a 'date' but is a symbol of mutual respect and/or friendship.
As far as greetings go, a handshake with direct eye contact is becoming more acceptable, but some ethnic customs do persist. The European double-air-kiss is a greeting between equals (and pretentious New Yorkers). Among Japanese the relative depth of bows acknowledges who has the superior rank, but both bow. Bowing of one Arab to another or one European to another (not to be confused with a smart click of the heels and bob of the head, a sort of antiquated European salute) is a sign of subjugation. I am acknowledging you as my superior in rank. I am your humble subject.
There was only one guy bowing. It was our president, and his upper body was nearly horizontal to the ground, far lower than shaking hands with a shorter man would seem to require. I don't mind if Obama thinks he needs to appear friendly, I just don't want him acknowledging subservience.
It depends on the legs! Why should and would
a woman with ugly legs expose them? Then it gets indecent and fugly. If the legs are nice it's acceptable.
Regarding what you state that the IQ depends
solely on the DNA, similar to the color of the eyes, height, etc.... ..I disagree. disagree. Therr is this theory that the realtive IQ score is already set at the age of 7 and cannot be improved. In my opinion it can be improved by ongoing education.
You should definitely try it.
This is not a situation that can
...be simplistically reduced to a quarrel over "doom and gloom" or not, IMHO. Top military brass has tried repeatedly to bring the message home to this administration that we don't have the troops or planning necessary to "win" anything in Iraq and this has created a terrorist hotbed and training ground where none existed before. This is just a fact that no amount of "can-do" attitude can fix.
Of course, if the intention is simply to create a state of chaos that can enable thieves to steal with impunity, the job is more than fixed.
Also you might want to note that the 1700 casualty figure is grossly understated. Only combat deaths that occur in Iraq are counted. Those whisked out of the country to Germany or elsewhere and die en route or at the destination hospital are NOT counted. This is official US policy - a Bush policy. Ask yourself why they would have this policy.
I agree with MTME about the lying - I am sick of it myself. I would like the truth for once, instead of more spin and more efforts to divide the American people (more chaos, more cover for thieves).
If she (or anyone in that situation) sm
had kept her legs together she wouldn't be in this predicament. Simple solution.
and I am sorry for your situation!
x
what situation?
nm
When life begins depends on
someone's religious beliefs. Not all people believe that life begins at conception.
I don't think the beliefs of any religious group over another religious group should be shown preference when it involves the law.
I guess it depends on your perspective...
if you are as far left as Obama, I guess CNN WOULD look conservative...lol. I guess it is in perspective. The point I was trying to make but obviously failed is that no one is going to learn anything if they only listen to one side...and people who automatically yell yeah you got that from Fox or Rush Limbaugh are exactly the kind of people I am talking about. You give an opinion, and if it differs from theirs it automatically came from Fox or Rush Limbaugh and that makes it wrong. I just wish people would not listen to the party line on either side and would use due diligence and research for themselves. The Obama website is not where to go to learn about Obama. The McCain website is not where to go to learn about McCain. Voting the party line is just too Pied Piperish for me. Although I am not and never was a Democrat, I have to applaud that PUMA bunch for having the gall to buck the system and fight for what they think is right. I am not crazy about their candidate either, but I admire their guts, and that is what America is about, by golly. Hil has every right to put her name in nomination at the convention and people who support her have their say. That being said, I noticed Obama caved on that and came out with that placating and to MY thinking condescending thing of "letting women and Clinton supporters feel vindicated." Yeah right...lol. He wants their votes. Period. Go PUMA!
guess it depends where you live because...
where we live, the entire region, all I see are small businesses starting up, then they are gone within a year, one after another, ghost towns in all the cities of empty businesses being literally destroyed by Wal-Mart et al.
There has to be a middle ground, and there has to be more tolerance or there will always be division more and more, rich or poor, and there will always be revolution and unrest.
and what are you talking about 'sharing' with people. you think paying taxes and contributing to road work, infrastructure, everything paid by taxes should be on the backs of poor people and middle class, which excuse me if I am wrong, but does middle class even exist anymore in reality or just in people's own truths of what they want to see.
we see every day more and more people down scaling their lifestyles, sacrificing whether to buy groceries or gas, more and more people cannot even get jobs because of credit checks and background checks (guess working now is also only for the elite, well-off people, and no one should ever be forigven for their past or allowed to progress). who then is promoting social programs - seems to me right now people are being pushed into eventually making all the same pay, fixed income.
...and excuse me forefathers but do did they think they could enslave people, force them to leave their own countries and families, tie them up and bring them to America, abuse them, torture them, treat them less than animals, and then have no responsibility for them.
this what people are calling 'sharing' with people less fortunate than ourselves was created here and we are left to resolve it.
I would rather have a leader in this country who would at least recognize it, try to fix it, then to just have the same old rhetoric and division, pushing people farther and farther apart so only a few people can make profits..
gotta run -
I am not sure what your family above would have to 'share' but I do respect your point of view...
Depends on what part of California - sm
it's like 2 states sometimes. The central portion of the state: Central Valley in the north, Orange County in the south, chock full of narrow-minded midwest transplants, many of whom are evangelical christians. The coast and mountains have more progressive and free-thinking people. (Also the more highly-educated, as a rule). You couldnt pay me to live anywhere but on the Calif. coast.
Depends on who he campaigned or voted for
If he wanted O in, it will probably be one-sided like all the rest. If he wanted McC in, it will be one-sided, too. If he remained neutral, like newspeople SHOULD be, then it should be interesting. I do like him, though.
I guess it depends on what affiliation you have.
It seems to me that there is just as much, if not more, bashing by Republicans/conservatives as I see directed towards them. In actuality it is probably fairly evenly split.
And you should understand the situation more. nm
come on bush, help with the oil situation
And here comes the winter..Im sure Bush with all his power can find ways to help America through the winter with oil prices but..nah..he has to pay back his oil cronies..OMG, if we can influence countries to stop nuclear production we surely can influence companies to help us through the oil crisis. The profits the oil companies are making is obscene..I have a friend who lives in Bakersfield, an oil town. He and his wife divorced and she married the head of a major oil company in the Bakersfield region. Not gonna say the name of the company but it is one of the biggest in America..He told me she lives in extreme luxury..I bet, especially in Bakersfield where prices are relatively low anyway..These oil barons are living high and we are, as my aunt used to say, *robbing peter to pay paul*. Ummm.do I smell and feel a revolution arising..sure hope so..
It's a no-win situation for Bush with you
The 9/11 commission criticizes his lack of a security plan pre-9/11(that's just barely 8 months after he enters office BTW). Then he's criticized for doing wiretaps in the name of national security which the FISA act gave the authority to do.
Okay, then which one is it--he's not tough enough on National Security or he's too tough bordering on some perceived legal violation?
Wait a minute, I know your answer Well, it's both. Sheesh...
It is a weird situation, for sure...
...but not really getting a good in-depth report on it from the news, have to think there MUST be more to the story - though can't think what in the world could explain such an attitude as prison is not going to help this offender (heard the judge himself say that). Whoever said prison was to HELP anybody? It's PUNISHMENT!
But then again, have never gotten the whole story- you never do on TV news, and have caught O'Reilly in numerous fabrications and exaggerations and grossly slanted panel discussions before, so who the heck knows!
From *The Situation* last night.
And Tucker Carlson is hardly a liberal.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13459509/
But first to a story horrifying even by the coarsening standards of Iraq, the brutal murder and torture of two U.S. soldiers.
Privates first class Kristian Menchaca and Thomas L. Tucker went missing Friday after an attack on a checkpoint they were manning south of Baghdad. Their bodies were found on Monday night. They were reportedly so badly mutilated they were tentatively identified by tattoos and scars. The corpses were also booby-trapped, an apparent effort to kill recovery teams.
Al Qaeda‘s new leader in Iraq has claimed responsibility for the soldier‘s slaughter.
In the face of brutality like this, is Iraq worth the cost in American lives? Here to answer that question, Brad Blakeman. He‘s the former deputy assistant to the president. He joins us tonight from Washington.
Brad, thanks for coming on.
BRAD BLAKEMAN, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Tucker.
CARLSON: So we have spent untold billions of dollars, 2,500 American soldiers killed, all in an effort to bring democracy and prosperity to Iraq. In return, they torture and murder and mutilate our soldiers. Remind me why this is a good bargain?
BLAKEMAN: Well, Tucker, look, this is a tough thing, and our hearts go out to every soldier who has made the ultimate sacrifice so that we can live in freedom.
But Iraq is worth fighting for. The region is worth fighting for. It‘s in our interest. These terrible, brutal dictatorships must be brought down when they become a threat to our national security. You know...
CARLSON: OK. But that‘s not the rationale the president has offered. He has said now, because as you know, and not to rehash the whole war, but no weapons of mass destruction were found. And he‘s said now this is worth doing because it‘s worth bringing freedom to the Iraqi people. They yearn for freedom, and it‘s our duty to give them the freedom they yearn for.
My question is how have they earned our sacrifice to bring them that freedom? What about Iraq justifies the death—brutal deaths of American soldiers? Why should we feel like it‘s worth it to bring these people democracy when they behave like animals like this?
BLAKEMAN: We‘re focusing on the animals and not the good and decent people of Iraq. The vast majority of Iraq is peaceful.
CARLSON: Is that right? I don‘t think—I don‘t think there‘s any evidence of that.
BLAKEMAN: There are 12 million people who went to—who went to the polls. They have four successful elections. They have a new government. We tend only to focus on the very bad, on the insurgencies, and the evil people. But the vast majority of Iraqis want to be free.
You know, if we took your attitude...
CARLSON: Is that true? Is that true?
BLAKEMAN: Hold on, Tucker. If we took your attitude, we would have turned back at the beaches of Normandy when all those people...
CARLSON: Spare me the tired, hackney, cliched World War II analogies. Let‘s get to the war in progress, and that‘s Iraq. There are decent people there. I have been there. I‘ve met decent people there. I know firsthand.
However, your claim that most people want peace is bosh as they say.
Let me show you...
BLAKEMAN: It is not.
CARLSON: It certainly is. A poll undertaken by the ministry of defense from Great Britain, part of the coalition, said 65 percent of Iraqi citizens support attacks on U.S. citizens.
Our own polling, done by World Opinion, public opinion, 47 percent approve attacks on U.S. forces, 88 percent of Sunnis, 88 percent approve of attacks on U.S. forces.
These are—are these—these are the people our sons and daughters are dying to make rich and free? How does that work?
BLAKEMAN: It is our responsibility. We brought down this dictator, this evil dictator...
CARLSON: How are we responsible?
BLAKEMAN: ... who used weapons of mass destruction against his own people. Now, it‘s our responsibility to bring democracy to these people. We can‘t cut and run and defeat the dictator and then leave...
CARLSON: Why is it our responsibility? There are countries across the world who live in shackles.
BLAKEMAN: We are the freest nation on earth. That‘s why it‘s our responsibility. We‘re the freest nation on earth. We brought down the dictator, and now it‘s our responsibility...
CARLSON: How does that work? They have not done one thing for us. Look—look, think of the implications of what you are saying. I don‘t know if you have thought this through.
BLAKEMAN: I‘ve thought it through very well.
CARLSON: Nation after nation after nation, starting with Mugabe in Zimbabwe, moving all the way to communist—still communist, still unfree China, people who are living in fetters who are unfree, who are oppressed, is it our, as you put it, obligation as a free a nation to free those nations? Do you really want to play this?
BLAKEMAN: Is it—do you know what our obligation is? It‘s to bring freedom to those people who yearn to be free. And China has come a long way.
CARLSON: So it‘s your obligation to sent your son, my obligation...
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: ... people I‘ve never met in countries that hate us? You‘ve got to be kidding. It‘s my obligation to do that?
BLAKEMAN: Yes, it is our obligation. Was it our obligation to go—was it our obligation.
CARLSON: Where does the obligation come from? I didn‘t sign up for that obligation.
BLAKEMAN: It‘s our obligation. Was it our obligation to go—was it our obligation to go into Europe where we weren‘t attacked? No, Europe let a dictator get so strong that collectively they couldn‘t take him down, and we had to come down.
CARLSON: We got in war when we were attacked.
BLAKEMAN: We lost 400,000 Americans in that war. We lost—a million people were wounded in that war.
CARLSON: Right. And there were...
BLAKEMAN: But was it worth it?
CARLSON: Let me just remind you, we entered that war on December 7, 1941, when our soil, the protectorate of Hawaii, was attacked by a foreign nation and thousands of Americans died. We went to war on that day, and not before. OK? So the overall principle you are stating here, that we have a moral obligation to free the unfree, think it through, man. It‘s...
BLAKEMAN: I didn‘t say that, Tucker. I said when we took down the dictator, when we made an obligation to risk our soldiers to free a country, we just can‘t cut and run. We have to establish a government for them. We‘ve got to give them the opportunity to succeed. That‘s our obligation.
CARLSON: And you may be right as far as that goes. But the blanket obligation that Bush implies, and you just stated, that we have to go free the world, to send our sons and daughters to go...
BLAKEMAN: No, we don‘t have to free the world
CARLSON: ... die for other people‘s freedom, people who hate us, it‘s a scary thing.
BLAKEMAN: Well, then you know what? Didn‘t the Japanese hate us?
Didn‘t the Germans hate us? Do they hate us today?
CARLSON: They attacked us first. We had no choice.
BLAKEMAN: They‘re our allies. They our allies, and they stand shoulder to shoulder with us. Should we have waited to get attacked by the Iraqis? No.
CARLSON: You know, I thought—when I supported the war initially, I thought that they were capable of attacking us, and it turns out, as you know, and I‘m sad to report, that we weren‘t.
BLAKEMAN: They were pretty capable of attacking us if they wanted to.
CARLSON: Brad Blakeman, thanks a lot.
BLAKEMAN: You are welcome.
Every situation is different, but I do know people
nm
my understanding of the situation...
My understanding is that Obama says this is a practice that can be regulated at the state level. The federal government is just making sure that abortion stays legal and then the individual states decide how far their state will go with it.
I have a friend in the same situation...sm
His father worked for GM and died several years ago, leaving my friend a nice trust fund and health care benefits and pension for his widow who currently is in a long-term care facility. My friend, who is an MT and cannot afford insurance and is in bad health himself, told me that when his mom loses her benefits at the first of the year, he doesn't know what they will do.
I don't know if blame the government for this mess as much as I blame mismanagement by the automakers with their big executive salaries and perks and insistence on manufacturing super trucks and huge SUVs. It seems to me that more could have been done to stem this before it got this far.
Yes, it is a no-win situation all the time.
Governing bodies do their budgets on what the expected income will be at that time. Any time anything goes wrong, it throws a monkey wrench into their budgets, then everybody has to fork over extra money.
It's always the taxpayers who lose in the end, no matter what. 
My twist on your situation
I was a democrat who became a republican and will probably reaffiliate as an independent in the not-too-distant future. I find the assumptions made on this board amusing and likely as not completely off base.
I think Obama is a likeable guy, but his starry-eyed supporters drive me up a wall. If not for the lunacy surrounding him and his office I probably wouldn't feel as apprehensive and insecure about his presidency as I do. Okay, I don't agree with him on much so far, but I so believe he's intelligent and sincere.
Try not to take the categorizing too seriously; it's just more silliness.
At lest Obama is TRYING to better the situation.
If he will be successful the future will show. At least we should give him some TIME.
The republicans would not have even TRIED to better the situation, but would have trotted along the same path, down into the final abyss.
But I agree with you that discussions about pub : dem AND about pro-life : pro-choice 'suck' and lead nowhere but to personal attacks.
When you say "world situation"....(sm)
and that Obama has played a big part in it, exactly what are you talking about? The economy was in the toilet before he got there, and yes, he's spending a lot of money, but that's in an attempt to try to stop (or at least slow) the progression of this economic downfall.
As far as foreign affairs go, I think we're on better terms with just about everyone now.
So I don't get what you're talking about.
situation in Iran
Iranian opposition leader calls for rally Thursday
because the situation OVER THERE CHANGED,
Taliban in Pakistan is getting stronger!
Think and get more flexible.
depends on how you measure success I guess....
He only got a 4-5 point bounce in the polls and lost that the next week. Not all Americans were impressed with his "citizen of the world" speech. There are those of us who wonder where his real allegiance lies. No wonder.
By the way, when I say "hoohah" I don't mean the word you refer to. Apparently it does not mean the same thing in my neck of the woods. If I want to intimate the 4-letter word I would certainly do it more directly...not my style.
There is no way that little speech in Germany was "diplomacy." And gee, call me old-fashioned, but I think if you are running for Pres of the US, you should give your political speeches HERE.
I did not demand, nor have I heard anyone else demand that Obama admit the surge is working. It is obvious that it is. The fact that he chooses to ignore it does not give me any more faith in his ability to run the country or take care of national security issues, and makes me doubt his honesty. As to being true to his beliefs...didn't take him long to throw his lifelong friend and mentor the Reverend Wright under the bus for political expediency. There's that trust thing again.
How anyone can say, faced with all the info out there about him and how he handled the Wright thing (which was in name only, you don't stay in a church for 20 years that is built on black liberation theology if you don't believe it)...and say with a straight face he is being true to his beliefs.
Well, I take that back...he IS being true to his hard left socialist/Marxist beliefs. Already wants to redistribute wealth aka economic parity, a big element of the black liberatin theology...by taxing oil companies and redistributing their profits to people who did nothing to earn it. How much more socialist approaching Marxist could you possibly be? In that, yes, I would agree...he is being true to his socialist/Marxist beliefs. You got me there.
I guess it depends on your view of the beginning of
is life. I'm not advocating third or even second trimester abortions but believe me it's far better for a woman to abort a child than have one that won't care for it. Take Casey Anthony, for example...
We need to vote as if our entire future depends on it,
x
All depends on what news you watch, polls
are all over the place
Depends on what you call racist I suppose
@
I didn't say that depends on what the definition of "IF"
There is a big difference between IF and WHEN. IF I said "...If I go to the store" or "...when I go to the store" IF means I may go to the store, WHEN means I WILL go to the store.
The other poster said that Mccain was saying he was going to be president and I pointed out that so did Obama and I gave PROOF from his OWN site.
It all depends on what news station you listen to
I talked to my best friend the other day (whom I met when I was in the Army). Her husband is in Iraq. Her son is in Afghanastan, and her daughter is in Iraq. None of them like war (who does) but the consensus among them and their fellow soldiers is that it is worth it. Do they want the war to end, heck yeah. Do they want to come home, heck yeah. Do they want to give up everything they've been fighting for. NO WAY! They say if they leave now everything they have done to help the people of Iraq will all have been for nothing. They want to stay until the job is finished and not any sooner. They say if we don't do this it will be left up to our children, our nieces and nephews to take care of when they get older.
It all depends on who you listen to for news. Of course MSNBC, CNN and other liberal news agencies say its a mistake we should not be there, need to come home now. But my freinds said her husband and two kids and all their fellow soldiers say stay until the job is done. For every soldier on video saying we shouldn't be here, etc, etc., there is another soldier like the one in the OPs link that say, don't tell us its not worth it.
exploring situation from both sides? What?
Exploring the situation from both sides? What two sides? The man stated crime would go down if we aborted black babies. What is the side you are referring to? It is a racist remark, a dumb remark and insensitive hateful remark. No two ways about it..PERIOD..
His bosses handled the situation, as it should be - nm
x
I don't know the whole situation, so won't judge his decision nm
nm
In all honesty, you are the aggressor in this situation (sm)
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.
With the looming financial situation...... sm
I don't think Obama's current "plan" will hold much water. A plan is just that....a plan, and we know what John Steinbeck had to say about that. Even if he could tax the upper crust enough to cover the financial crisis, his redistribution of wealth would be moot point because there would likely be nothing left to distribute.
Whether Obama or McCain were elected would make no appreciabe difference in our tax situation because this huge bailout has to be recouped in some fashion and it will be off the backs of ALL Americans.....at least the ones who pay taxes.
Your the one showing how little you understand about the situation
What part of Hamas and Israel at war don't you understand.
What part of Hamas terrorizing Israel don't you understand.
What part of Hamas slaughtering and killing innocent citizens, women and children don't you understand.
To me it looks like you don't understand any of what is going on over there, therefore should keep your comments to yourself.
I just say thank goodness our incoming President understands it very well.
What was that quote I read that Ben Franklin said "Better to keep one's mouth closed ...".
|
![Iran](http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20090617/videolthumb.ec330d8bf51ff0f97896c253d0a81a66.jpg?x=213&y=160&xc=1&yc=1&wc=399&hc=300&q=85&sig=n02llinss0WKJvn1w3HGlg--")
