Knew there was a reason why I love Vermont
Posted By: New Englander on 2009-04-07
In Reply to: Way to go, VERMONT! They've legalized it, too. - YAYYY!!!!
What a great state. Besides the great skiing, they are finally joining in with what is right and giving rights to every human being in their state.
Hooray!!!!!!
Good for the legislators!!!!!
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
I love Vermont
Great state. I live near Ithaca, NY and we have lots of tree-huggers and hippies here - great place. Sometimes even "granolas." But I love "tree-hugger" the best. Sometimes people think they are insulting us with that phrase, but why is it so bad to care for the environment!
My daugther prefers to think of herself as a "tree-kisser!" She is a great 13-year-old!
I knew there was a reason I can't stand him.
I knew there was a reason I hadn't gotten my check yet...
I'm not dead!
Leave it to the Feds - this one is classic!!
Vermont has a similar program. nm
.
Way to go, VERMONT! They've legalized it, too.
:)
Is Vermont really going to pull off seceeding from the USA?
It looks like they are getting very serious about doing this. They aren't alone in this kind of talk. I think Texas and North or South Carolina have been talking this way, too.
About Second Vermont Republic:
http://www.vermontrepublic.org/about
An essay by Tom Naylor:
http://www.vermontrepublic.org/a_eulogy_for_the_first_vermont_republic
This is exactly how elections are held in Vermont, no voting machines. nm
.
Love, love, love John Stewart. . .
the bit about the open microphone on McCain during the debate was brilliant!!! I laughed until I literally cried!! By the way, Michelle Obama was warm, intelligent, sincere and very much First Lady material!!!
I think it all shows that Christianity is valued with the love of the dollar, not the love of Christ
x
I love democrats! I love most of the past democratic presidents (sm)
I would love for there to be a good democrat I could vote for. I want good leadership and I want change. But I truly believe to purposely ignore a symbol speaks volumes. He is not just asking the symbol to wait, he is ignoring it on purpose. Avoiding it on purpose. Why do you think that is? There is a reason. Can you not see it?
This is the reason we are in Iraq and it's the same reason I didn't vote for him in 2000: Didn't
his own personal reasons.
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050620/why_george_went_to_war.php
The Downing Street memos have brought into focus an essential question: on what basis did President George W. Bush decide to invade Iraq? The memos are a government-level confirmation of what has been long believed by so many: that the administration was hell-bent on invading Iraq and was simply looking for justification, valid or not.
Despite such mounting evidence, Bush resolutely maintains total denial. In fact, when a British reporter asked the president recently about the Downing Street documents, Bush painted himself as a reluctant warrior. "Both of us didn't want to use our military," he said, answering for himself and British Prime Minister Blair. "Nobody wants to commit military into combat. It's the last option."
Yet there's evidence that Bush not only deliberately relied on false intelligence to justify an attack, but that he would have willingly used any excuse at all to invade Iraq. And that he was obsessed with the notion well before 9/11—indeed, even before he became president in early 2001.
In interviews I conducted last fall, a well-known journalist, biographer and Bush family friend who worked for a time with Bush on a ghostwritten memoir said that an Iraq war was always on Bush's brain.
"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and Houston Chronicle journalist Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said, 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He went on, 'If I have a chance to invade…, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency.'"
Bush apparently accepted a view that Herskowitz, with his long experience of writing books with top Republicans, says was a common sentiment: that no president could be considered truly successful without one military "win" under his belt. Leading Republicans had long been enthralled by the effect of the minuscule Falklands War on British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's popularity, and ridiculed Democrats such as Jimmy Carter who were reluctant to use American force. Indeed, both Reagan and Bush's father successfully prosecuted limited invasions (Grenada, Panama and the Gulf War) without miring the United States in endless conflicts.
Herskowitz's revelations illuminate Bush's personal motivation for invading Iraq and, more importantly, his general inclination to use war to advance his domestic political ends. Furthermore, they establish that this thinking predated 9/11, predated his election to the presidency and predated his appointment of leading neoconservatives who had their own, separate, more complex geopolitical rationale for supporting an invasion.
Conversations With Bush The Candidate
Herskowitz—a longtime Houston newspaper columnist—has ghostwritten or co-authored autobiographies of a broad spectrum of famous people, including Reagan adviser Michael Deaver, Mickey Mantle, Dan Rather and Nixon cabinet secretary John B. Connally. Bush's 1999 comments to Herskowitz were made over the course of as many as 20 sessions together. Eventually, campaign staffers—expressing concern about things Bush had told the author that were included in the manuscript—pulled the project, and Bush campaign officials came to Herskowitz's house and took his original tapes and notes. Bush communications director Karen Hughes then assumed responsibility for the project, which was published in highly sanitized form as A Charge to Keep.
The revelations about Bush's attitude toward Iraq emerged during two taped sessions I held with Herskowitz. These conversations covered a variety of matters, including the journalist's continued closeness with the Bush family and fondness for Bush Senior—who clearly trusted Herskowitz enough to arrange for him to pen a subsequent authorized biography of Bush's grandfather, written and published in 2003.
I conducted those interviews last fall and published an article based on them during the final heated days of the 2004 campaign. Herskowitz's taped insights were verified to the satisfaction of editors at the Houston Chronicle, yet the story failed to gain broad mainstream coverage, primarily because news organization executives expressed concern about introducing such potent news so close to the election. Editors told me they worried about a huge backlash from the White House and charges of an "October Surprise."
Debating The Timeline For War
But today, as public doubts over the Iraq invasion grow, and with the Downing Street papers adding substance to those doubts, the Herskowitz interviews assume singular importance by providing profound insight into what motivated Bush—personally—in the days and weeks following 9/11. Those interviews introduce us to a George W. Bush, who, until 9/11, had no means for becoming "a great president"—because he had no easy path to war. Once handed the national tragedy of 9/11, Bush realized that the Afghanistan campaign and the covert war against terrorist organizations would not satisfy his ambitions for greatness. Thus, Bush shifted focus from Al Qaeda, perpetrator of the attacks on New York and Washington. Instead, he concentrated on ensuring his place in American history by going after a globally reviled and easily targeted state run by a ruthless dictator.
The Herskowitz interviews add an important dimension to our understanding of this presidency, especially in combination with further evidence that Bush's focus on Iraq was motivated by something other than credible intelligence. In their published accounts of the period between 9/11 and the March 2003 invasion, former White House Counterterrorism Coordinator Richard Clarke and journalist Bob Woodward both describe a president single-mindedly obsessed with Iraq. The first anecdote takes place the day after the World Trade Center collapsed, in the Situation Room of the White House. The witness is Richard Clarke, and the situation is captured in his book, Against All Enemies.
On September 12th, I left the Video Conferencing Center and there, wandering alone around the Situation Room, was the President. He looked like he wanted something to do. He grabbed a few of us and closed the door to the conference room. "Look," he told us, "I know you have a lot to do and all…but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way…"
I was once again taken aback, incredulous, and it showed. "But, Mr. President, Al Qaeda did this."
"I know, I know, but…see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred…" …
"Look into Iraq, Saddam," the President said testily and left us. Lisa Gordon-Hagerty stared after him with her mouth hanging open.
Similarly, Bob Woodward, in a CBS News 60 Minutes interview about his book, Bush At War, captures a moment, on November 21, 2001, where the president expresses an acute sense of urgency that it is time to secretly plan the war with Iraq. Again, we know there was nothing in the way of credible intelligence to precipitate the president's actions.
Woodward: "President Bush, after a National Security Council meeting, takes Don Rumsfeld aside, collars him physically and takes him into a little cubbyhole room and closes the door and says, 'What have you got in terms of plans for Iraq? What is the status of the war plan? I want you to get on it. I want you to keep it secret.'"
Wallace (voiceover): Woodward says immediately after that, Rumsfeld told Gen. Tommy Franks to develop a war plan to invade Iraq and remove Saddam—and that Rumsfeld gave Franks a blank check.
Woodward: "Rumsfeld and Franks work out a deal essentially where Franks can spend any money he needs. And so he starts building runways and pipelines and doing all the necessary preparations in Kuwait specifically to make war possible."
Bush wanted a war so that he could build the political capital necessary to achieve his domestic agenda and become, in his mind, "a great president." Blair and the members of his cabinet, unaware of the Herskowitz conversations, placed Bush's decision to mount an invasion in or about July of 2002. But for Bush, the question that summer was not whether, it was only how and when. The most important question, why, was left for later.
Eventually, there would be a succession of answers to that question: weapons of mass destruction, links to Al Qaeda, the promotion of democracy, the domino theory of the Middle East. But none of them have been as convincing as the reason George W. Bush gave way back in the summer of 1999.
I love the class of liberals....just love it...
ignore the truth and attack personally. Shows a lot of tolerance.
"it tells me to love them as I would love myself"...(sm)
This must be why you so obviously love Muslims? 
You do realize that you contradict yourself on just about every other post you make? ROFL..
I always knew I would NOT
vote for Obama. Now that Palin is McCain's running mate.....I feel more confident than ever that I made the right decision when I chose to vote for McCain......even if McCain is really really really old. ; - )
McCain and Palin ང 
I knew you would be one of the few to...
...understand this post, without tossing in all these other issues again into the mix.
I can hardly wait to see her mix it up with them either!
yes! I knew it!
They won't let her off the leash to speak without a written statement in front of her. Hope people take notice and realize what this means. Pat Buchanan yesterday said she was under no obligation to ever give an interview. Isn't that unbelievable??
Gee I wish I knew as much as you do.
Most of this I already knew......sm
but some I did not. America, collectively speaking, bought it hook, line and sinker. One can only "hope" that the "change" will be for something they really "believe" in. I fear it is not and it is too late to stop the well-oiled wheel of fate from turning.
Obama was manufactured for this job by his puppeteers and now they are ready to put on the show. Those who think something simple like his birth certificate will make a differece are as deluded as the sheeple are. We, the people, have been duped on all fronts and now it is time to sit down and obediently watch the puppet show called "The Revelation." Hurry quick for a front-row seat! 
Wish I knew!
Pubs don't really seem to have one, which is really disappointing. There are quiet a few out there that make a lot of noise, but I don't really see any of them walking the walk, you know?
And I'm really disappointed in Michael Steele and his apology. I thought at least he'd have a backbone - it's okay not to agree with Rush and it's okay to say it out loud - sheesh!
I knew nothing about it at all until that very day
I did not know what it was about, nothing and I turned onto the bigger channels to see what was happening. I left the house and heard some local radio news saying not much traffic in Atlanta pertaining to that. I just surmized the tea party referenced the Boston tea party relating to taxes but there was not much coverage at all that I saw.
Yes, I knew....
It was just one of those automatic MT things that made me laugh. I have to really concentrate to type the word milk since it invariably comes out mild.
It blows the lid off what we already knew. sm
Their Bush hatred is so virulent, it wipes out all reasoning and blackens their souls. They have no compassion for the people in the south, only gleeful that they have once again been given a reason to hate Bush. No matter how misguided that hatred and blame is.
gt it would go a lot better for you if you actually knew what you were talking about. sm
instead of pulling stuff off PETA's website. You don't know Kyoto. Just admit it. You don't know it and you are pretending to know it and you are just looking silly.
Knew what you meant
Isn't it awful when your own relatives treat you like dirt. My sister is mormon and she actually thinks I'm on the same level with manson, dahmer, hitler, etc because I'm not mormon (we both grew up going to methodist services with 12 years of sunday school). Inlaws treated us like garbage cos we didn't go to their church when we lived near them. I am a deeply spiritual person but I am not a Christian and I count myself blessed not to be in their crowd.
I knew it had been filed....
so now they have been served? Out of curiousity, if he was proven ineligible and had to withdraw...what happens then? Another primary or what? Has that ever happened before? Where a nominee had to withdraw before the election? Does the party just pick another person and that person pick another VP?
i knew what you meant
I took no offense, but I do get a little sensitive as I would have loved to have some children when I was younger (but then I look at the Menendez brothers and my own nephew and say - what a relief- smart decision for me) HA HA. I did understand your post as you intended it that if man and woman don't unite there is no offspring, but I was just saying I believe that we can all live together. Man and woman can off their offspring they want and the others who wish to pursue an alternative way just won't have kids. I'd rather be with someone of my own gender and be truly and blissfully in love and married to her and not have any kids, rather than have kids and be married to a miserable person just because he's the other sex.
How do you fix corruption??? They knew what
His own spokesperson said they have "amended" the papers to read ..... in other words, we will admit the money was given SPECIFICALLY to hire more workers to go out and do whatever necessary to get more votes for Obama, even if through illegal means.
An Obama spokesman said Federal Election Commission reports would be amended to show Citizens Services Inc. — a subsidiary of ACORN — worked in “get-out-the-vote” projects, instead of activities such as polling, advance work and staging major events as stated in FEC finance reports filed during the primary.
I knew what you meant as well.
Just like if McCain had chosen Powell. The dems would be in an uproar because they would say he picked him because he was black, not because he has great values, experience, etc.
Oh wait, they already did that with somebody else...
I do have a grip. If she knew about them, she would have
tried to clean them up. It is her community, after all, and she has children growing up there.
Are you implying something more sinister here? If so, please provide referenced links with proof.
Do you think they knew the U.S. has only 50 states, too?nm
I'm sure a lot of us knew a recession
was coming long before the "experts" knew it. All they had to do was to be Americans who were trying to fill up their gas tanks, feed their families and try to hang on to their jobs. I just read an article the other day where someone in the government finally admitted that we've been in a recession that they believe will last another 14 months. (Can't remember who said it; will try to find the link.) This is after months and months of denials, although most everday folks felt like they were in a recession long before hearing it "officially."
If they are only now admitting to a recession, that tells me that we're in the beginnings of a full-fledged DEPRESSION.
Add terror threats, a war between Iran and Israel and the USA, perhaps provoking a terror attack (real or "false flag"), people becoming so poor in this country that their fear is replaced with anger, and voila!! The US soldiers that are lying in wait for us to "misbehave" as tensions arise so they can keep us in line, just might have their work cut out for them...especially if we suffer another attack on our soil.
We've got crooks running the Treasury Department, all chosen from the same failing companies for which they worked.
The Wall Street "crisis" came on so quickly and so urgently that nobody knew what to do.
Well, Bush knew what to do. First, he hired Henry Paulson of Goldman Sachs fame, the company that received a $3 billion payout, who then went on to appoint Michael Alix to "oversee things." This is the same Michael Alix who was in control of "overseeing things" at Bear Stearns (we remember how well that whole Bear Stearns thing worked out.) Paulson then went on to appoint Neel Kashkari (another Goldman Sachs graduate).
Bush has selected these men, either personally or through Paulson, because he knows that THEY know how to play the system and accentuate the greed. He hired people who aren't on America's side at all. They're part of Bush's "Haves," and the rest of average Americans -- the "have nots" -- aren't even in the picture, except as it pertains to how much money has been stolen from our accounts. Bush has always has been about greed. He still is. When a government begins to buy banks, it's at the very least socialism (if not, more accurately, fascism). For all intents and purposes, this money could easily be in Bush's pockets. We don't and won't know this because this particular sweetheart deal came with NO oversight and NO transparency as conditions on the part of Bush. By the way, Bush bought a ranch in Paraguay.
Basically, Bush had a lot of knowledgeable, independent people who had NO conflict of interest from having been senior executives of the failed companies from which he could have chosen.
Instead, he chose those who were at the very top to the crooks (if not the crooks themselves.)
In short, Bush hired the foxes to watch the hen houses. No doubt in my mind that Bush's pockets are going to be pretty full soon if they're not already.
The arrogance with which these auto executives presented their testimony is reminiscent of all the arrogant people who surround themselves with the Arrogant-In-Chief.
In the middle of all this, though, I do see somewhat of a silver lining. The less money people have to spend, the lower prices will be forced to go -- all that supply and demand stuff.
Enter Obama's "bottom-up" theory. Once the lives of the least of us can improve a bit, that will hopefully trickle up to everyone else.
I also heard an excellent idea on TV recently: That every single CEO of a company should NEVER earn more than the President of the United States. I kind of liked that one. 
P.S. I apologize if this post doesn't make any sense. I'm very heavily medicated right now and probably shouldn't even be at the computer. I've tried to write this as coherently as I could. If I failed, I apologize.
Hope you all have a great evening.
JTBB - I knew you'd try this
That is why I said that are many more websites than just what I listed. You can say all you want and try to reason that your viewpoints and your opinions are truthful while the others aren't, but in actuality they all are like Hitler. The actions of what Obama has done so far are like Hitler's whether you like to hear it or not.
Clinton knew
who had information about Bin Laden before 9-11 and did nothing? Oh yeah, President Clinton, another Democrat who chose to do nothing...Bush was less than 9 months into his first term when 9-11 happened.
That was the first I knew about Murtha except
before the election.
I agree with your statement on the others. I think Pelosi is too pushy and I wonder why she is in such a hurry to pass all O's stuff so quick. I often wonder what kind of background she has.
I watched a program the other night (don't ask who, I'm always flipping channels) and they had a perfect answer for where Gitmo prisoners should go....to Alcatraz, right in Pelosi's backyard and she can then look through those viewers that look out over the bay and watch the prisoners herself. I thought it was hillarious.
I knew it! (see post above somewhere)
Tell us what that lifestyle is like. Do you guys actually do the horizontal bop with your animal-suits on?
I knew you sucked...
after reading your posts on other boards. Hope your new job sucks as much as you do.
If Americans Knew..................sm
Copioed from the wesite
'If Americans Knew'
Last Updated July 9, 2008
In the late 1800s a small, fanatic movement called “political Zionism” began in Europe. Its goal was to create a Jewish state somewhere in the world. Its leaders settled on the ancient and long-inhabited land of Palestine for the location of this state.
Over the coming decades Zionist leaders used various strategies to accomplish their goal of taking over Palestine.
This growing violence culminated in Israel's ruthless 1947-49 "War of Independence," in which at least 750,000 Palestinian men, women, and children were expelled from their homes – half of them even before any Arab armies joined the war. At every point in this war, Zionist forces outnumbered Arab forces. This massive humanitarian disaster is known among Palestinians and others as ‘The Catastrophe,’ AL Nakba in Arabic.
Zionist forces committed at least 33 massacres and destroyed 531 Palestinian villages and towns.
This was the historical creation of the state of Israel and this is the truth, no proaganda.
This is History.
You can read the whole article on the website
If Americans knew.com
His office *knew* (tired) ...nm
I knew it was not you who posted the second time...
and I was responding to that poster. My description is not a tad overstated, and if it suits you to believe that the baby is not alive and does not feel pain, so be it. Dilatation and curettage is dilating a uterus and cutting the baby to ribbons. That is not overstated. You should view a film of one. Partial birth abortion is gruesome and horrible. I did overstate it. There is no nice clean unpainful way to abort a child. No need to be condescending, either, but that is not unexpected.
The medical community may refer to miscarriage as abortion, that is semantics. You and I both know that a spontaneous abortion has nothing to do with human intervention. D&C, partial birth abortion, those require human intervention. Not even remotely the same thing; we both know that. As to the medical community...why does the medical community do surgery in utero....why would they do surgery on something dead? That makes absolutely no sense. The below is taken from an article about a procedure performed on a 30-week baby:
On Nov. 7, a team of specialists -- cardiologists from Children's and high-risk obstetrical specialists from Brigham and Women's Hospital -- used ultrasound imaging to guide a catheter through Angela VanDerwerken's abdomen and uterus into the heart of the 30-week-old fetus, a 1 1/2 -hour operation.
A fine needle, followed by a wire with a preloaded balloon, was pushed into the left atrium and then through the atrial septum to reduce the pressure that was causing the atrium to expand with blocked blood. The balloon was inflated until the atrial wall widened. Then the same process was used to create a second hole in the septum, only this time, a tiny stent was put in place.
Cheers rang through the operating room when heart monitors showed blood flowing through the stent. But doctors would not know how successful they'd been until Grace was born by vaginal delivery Jan. 10.
Jay VanDerwerken of Ashburn, next to wife Angela, embraces their daughter Grace during a news conference at Children's Hospital Boston. (By Josh Reynolds -- Associated Press)
The medical community proves what a lot of us already morally know, that the child in utero is alive. How does a heart beat and pump blood in something not alive?
You are right, I would choose not to have an abortion. You can also rest assured I will not stop calling it what it is, either, and that is murder. You want a woman's right to choose, but you do not want to allow me to have an opinion because it does not agree with yours. Right now the law permits abortion on demand (thanks to activist judges who took the right away from individual states and people to vote on the matter) and my faith also tells me I must obey the law of the land. But my faith does not tell me I should not continue to call what is wrong, wrong. As one poster so aptly put it, just because it is legal does not make it right. I am not telling you or anyone else whether or not to have an abortion. What I am telling you is that I believe to choose abortion is wrong, and I believe that any time a society starts to devalue life it sets the stage for moral decline and sets the stage for many worse things to come. History has proven that, time and time again.
I knew an MT who did just that - died at her desk.
!
I knew about birth control.
However, was I willing to go to my mom and ask her to put me on the pill. I knew my mother would have suspected my sexual activity and I didn't want her to know. Most teens also have the belief that "it won't happen to me." Now that I'm older, I see how some of the decisions I made back when I was 17 were poor ones, but at that time I thought they were great ideas. Do I blame my mom and dad for the bad decisions I made back then....no. Those were my decisions, my choices, and I had to deal with the consequences.
So, if you knew someone that could build you a home
you wouldn't like that? You're so full of crap!
Of course you would. If I knew a contractor that could help me build a house for less, charge me less and still get the job done, you darn tootin I would.
Stop acting so self-righteous.
Even I got better sense than that. I'm a DEMOCRAT who would love to know someone to help me cut corners to build a nice new home.
Everyone here knew you were voting Obama
Your phony posts have been full of crap from day one.
Every single post you've made here has bashed Republicans and praised that spider monkey obama.
Perhaps MTs who can't find a job STINK AT THEIR JOBS!!!! If you don't have work, do't blame the Republicans. Get some education and fix the problem yourself.
Stop beggining big government to fix your own shortcomings!!!!!
Thank you, sbMT. I knew the verse was in there
:)
this is an open board last I knew
and there is no reason to put down a person for posting what you do not approve of.
last I knew there was nothing about the president not being able to smoke...
x
Hey JTBB - knew I could count on you LOL
As I posted I knew exactly who would be trying to cut down the articles. Glad to see you didn't let me down. HA HA HA. At least though there will be people with open minds who will read it.
The rest of you I think need to give all yourselved a big group hug and high five. It must feel good to you all to cut down and insult people that don't think the way you do.
But wait...you can always just stay tuned to MSNBC for all your tabloid shows you like to consider "real" news. It looks like Matthews and Olberman have taken over almost every show there while they spew their hateful viewpoints.
Yep, I knew it would go from slamming her kids to
nm
Yeah. They knew it was going to happen
Sen. Schumer from NY knew last January. So you know he told all his buddies. I posted a link about it yesterday.
oh, honey, I knew you'd be the first BHL to answer
You really are a piece of work.
Let the pills go, honey. That's old news. For being in health care, you embarrass me.
I know the difference here, so my posts here are done.
I disagree...we knew exactly what the change would be...sm
We could give those who voted for Obama cover by saying "they didn't know", I suppose, but only if we conclude that they were either comatose during the entire presidential campaign, were seduced by the racial considerations, were taken in by his smooth style, or were simply intellectually incapable of analyzing his positions and their implications.
Whatever the reason for this horrific mistake, voters were aided and abetted by the media, who never asked the hard questions because they already knew the answers and had no interest in the American public hearing them.
Obama was not mysterious during the campaign. His lack of character was fully exposed. His liberal agenda was so clearly stated that even Joe the Plumber had the sense to be frightened and outraged by it. What Obama carefully concealed from the public was what he really knew about the costs that would come crashing down on the public when a government that creates no wealth has nothing to offer but redistribution of the wealth created by others.
Our forefathers never guaranteed equality of outcomes, which would have been an intolerable notion to them. They guaranteed equality of opportunity. In the election of Obama and of those who conspire with him to destroy the fundamental principles on which this nation was founded, we can't say that this was change we didn't know about. It is precisely the change we voted into office, to our everlasting shame.
|
