Little harsh, Bradley, but I agree with the tax issue,
Posted By: basically welfare. O is a socialist.nm on 2008-10-26
In Reply to: I want change. Chump change. I'm voting for Obama as far as the pollsters go. - Bradley
nm
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 agree with that. It is too harsh a...
sentence, especially since the guy was a drug smuggler and only had a wound to the rear-end. That is why I am now leaning to a pardon....but why am I thinking there will be some nutjob judge who will actually grant that illegal compensation from the US govt (he is suing). THAT is what I mean that illegals should have no legal standing in this country. Period. SIGH.
Agree! Rush can be harsh, but tells it like it is.
nm
We will never agree on this issue.
I think all children deserve free or at least affordable health care right now. I think that should be this country's #1 priority, and sadly, it is not. I don't care what facts you throw at me, the truth is many children are going without health insurance because many families have to choose between buying groceries and paying the enormous premiums, and sometimes you just have to choose what is most important to survive right now.
I'm disgusted every time someone has to have a fundraiser when their kid gets cancer just to pay the medical bills. I'm disgusted that families lose their houses every day because they have to sell them to pay off medical bills. This bill may not have solved all of those problems, but it would have been a step in the right direction.
So go ahead and spout your pro-life "every baby deserves a chance to live" speeches, and then when that same child gets diabetes and can't afford healthcare, go ahead and look away and act like that child no longer matters.
I agree - it's a valid issue - for the WOLF.
.
I so agree! And even if it was not a moral issue, what about the medical issues (sm)
that can arise? How dare someone even think of performing any procedure my child without my permission unless it is a medical emergency?
ENOUGH, Bradley s/m
As a Christian I am compelled to call you out on your behavior.
If you are, indeed, a Christian, and I am taking your word for it, you are bringing shame upon the name of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Worse, yet, those who may not know Christ are likely to be completely turned off due to your rude, judgmental behavior and who could blame them?
As the "granny" around here and a "granny" Christian as well, may I remind you that you have no right to judge anyone whether it be Obama or the people on this board. Do you think Jesus would approve of your vile posts? I think not.
So...........examine your own heart.
If she won't say it, I will....Bradley
s
To the Bradley effect
You seem to have a negative effect on people. My, my. I just read a few of your posts. Such great anger in such a small person. I saw that you had mentioned God and his Word. You must have skipped a few things in your reading because there are quite a few references in God's word as to loving your neighbor and doing unto others.....we are all created in God's image..... ya know, that kind of stuff. Have you started your own religion yet? Maybe you should. Ya know the kind where you pick and choose what works for you and then just kind of chalk the rest up to mumbo jumbo. I would be careful what you take away or add to the Bible, as God also mentions something in there, actually in Revelations, about changing his word. But if you didnt read THAT part, I guess You don't have to worry.
wow that's harsh.
zx
Wow, that is HARSH......
calling someone a waste of oxygen? Look, President Bush and I disagree on a lot of issues...but the veto is as much the Dems in Congress' fault as it is Bush's. He did not veto the program, he vetoed expanding it to the tune of 6 billion dollars. I don't know about you, but 30-40% off the top of our gross income is ENOUGH already. Why NOT give businesses a tax cut to provide insurance to employees at a lower cost than now, and why not give individuals a tax cut for premiums so they can afford their own insurance? Why on EARTH tax us more? I agree with what you said about prioritization, and I have posted on this board ad nauseam that I felt they should prioritize social programs' money and kids' insurance should come FIRST. Not a SINGLE person agreed with that. You are the FIRST one to say that also. Do you know what they meant by "expansion?" The Dems want to open it up to illegals' kids in a LEGAL way, even though it is already clogged with illegals as it stands, taking money and benefits that should go to American children. That is one of the reasons it was vetoed. Another reason it was vetoed is that it expands coverage to a family of 4 (2 adults 2 kids) making $80,000 a year. I'm sorry, but that is NOT low income. I'm sorry again, but I don't see why a family making $80,000 a year cannot afford to insure their children. I say give them a tax cut so there is a benefit to spending the money to insure their children. But, you say tax cut to a Democrat and they go ape-crazy.
I mean, let's get real. Are they going to expand the program again in 5 years to family of 4 making $120 a year because THEY can't pay for kids' insurance because they are being taxed to death? We really, really, REALLY have to stop entitlement, tax, entitlement, tax, entitlement tax....before ALL of us have to have entitlements to PAY the taxes!!!
Bush (and again, I don't agree with him on everything, and a true conservative he is NOT), practically begged the Dems not to do it this way, tried his best to get them to compromise, and they would have nothing of it. He asked that they extend the program as-is, with all the children covered who have been covered for the last 10 years the program has been in existence, while they worked out a better compromise. But they would have NOTHING of it. Sorry, but I cannot lay the blame for this at Bush's feet. I think Congress has to bear the burden as well. He has been telling them all along he would veto it, but rather than compromise and get most of what they wanted but not ALL, they chose to send him a bill they knew he would veto. If brains were dynamite they couldn't collectively blow their own noses. But...I stop short of calling them a "waste of oxygen." Jerks, YES, but not a waste of oxygen.
Please remember the Bradley effect...
which I think will be the case here.
The Bradley effect is a fact,,,
perhaps you should read up on it. Don't be so touchy and defensive! 
What about the vile posts against Bradley?
I was curious so went to the bottom and read up. So what about the vile posts against Bradley? Guess they don't matter. I don't know whose side Bradley is on (dem or rep), but all I'm reading is Bradley defending herself/himself.
She can be harsh, but she tells it like it is.
nm
This was directed at Bradley, but hey, 2 birds, 1 stone
Truth be told, you guys have morphed from angry hate mob to sore losers to disappearing desperados, all in one week. I almost feel sorry for you. Almost.
Well...here is a harsh dose of reality....
yes, he said that...however...he was also endorsed by terrorists (Hamas) and Iran...that in and of itself should be concerning. Why do you think they said that? Perhaps because he also said that if the winds turn ugly, he would stand with the Muslims, and they took him literally? Or perhaps he meant it literally? Who knows what he really means? He lived his way one life up until he ran for President, and then turned away from all that as each issue was brought up, because he knew it would hurt his candidacy. So who IS the real Barack Obama? Do YOU know? That is not dark and foreboding. It is being vigilant, it is asking for trust and respect to be earned...adoration is fine, but please be vigilant as well. For YOUR own good.
Ann can be harsh, but she is so smart and tells
nm
that's good them. I'm sure Obama will have harsh words
for the people who did. That's what I like and respect about him. It's too bad that people like this exist. I think the candidate have their hands full enough with issues without having to deal with something like this now. I hope they find the people who did it and cut off their hands or give them a labotomy or something.
No issue is no issue. Denying that
nm
There is no issue here.
0
What was the issue again?
nm
For it - should not be an issue
It should not be an issue period. It does not affect me (or anyone else) if Joe & John or Mary & Sara want to get married. As human beings we all have that right.
Civil Union is not the same thing. Talk about discrimination big time. Yes, you love each other but sorry, your of the wrong sex?????
What's next you can only be white to be married or a black and white, hispanic and black or any other combination won't be able to marry.
This is one more issue that should not be political. People should be allowed to marry whomever they wish to and tell everyone else to mind their own business.
this is not a big issue
Your point of view has been expressed. Constant repetition only weakens your case. If you felt strongly that this was true, you would be confident that you would be proved right and not have to beat a dead horse. Be a member of polite society and consider others' time and interests before you attempt to monopolize a free forum with only your one point over and over.
This is a big issue to some of us...
and we are not just repeating ourselves. We are posting new info for others WHO CARE to read it. If you are not interested and do not care, DON'T READ IT.
Interesting post by someone on another site:
ladyplumber10:35AMDec 3rd 2008
When you have 4 different citizenships in question, American, British, Indonesian, and Kenyan, and multiple different names :Barack Obama, aka, Barry Soreto, aka Barack Dunham, aka Barry Dunham...you folks who think this is a piece of cake to wade through are nuts. It's like untangling a badly knotted necklace.
There is a great interview with Alan Keyes on why he is suing Mr Obama in the CA Sumpreme Court in Essence magazine...
http://www.essence.com/news_entertainment/news/articles/alankeyesobama
also it is known that Mr Obama's passport in 1981 at the age of 20 was Indonesian. Ever wonder WHY he has sealed all of his college records @ Columbia and Harvard...likely because he came in under Indonesian
citizenship and qulaified for foreign student grants.
For those of you who think that the certificate shown on his web site is sufficient:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80931
PART 1
"Hawaii Revised Statute 338-178 allows registration of birth in Hawaii for a child that was born outside of Hawaii to parents who, for a year preceding the child’s birth, claimed Hawaii as their place of residence," the document said. "The only way to know where Senator Obama was actually born is to view Senator Obama's LONG LEGAL original birth certificate from 1961 that shows the name of the hospital and the name and signature of the doctor that delivered him."
(From Alan Keyes suite against the Sec of State of CA and demanding they hold back the 55 electoral votes)
For those of you who think that even if he was born to an American overseas..he is still a US Citizen...
NOT SO. for the law from 1952-1986 (Obama was born in 1961) states that to an American Citizen and one alien parent in wedlock, the American parent must have resided in the US for 5 years beyond the age of 14 (or the age of 19)Mr Obama's mother was 18 when he was born, so he wouldn't qualify.
http://travel.state.gov/law/info/info_609.html
For those of you who think that he has to have been checked out this far into the game...think again. I met with my DC House REP face to face who said that officials voted into office by the public, don't get checked out...my own rep never had been nor do US senators. The FBI doesn't get involved in political matters, and there is NO PRIOR legal precedent for a prez candidate that wants to keep his life "private". Remember Hillary was the first to challenge his citizenship...but took his short cert of live birth as his long legal birth certificate. This document is not offical enough to get him a passport. So whose job is it to approve a candidate...the candidates own party according to the FBI agent that I interviewed...can you say conflict of interest?! It is also the job of each individual sec of state. Personally, for the prez national election, I think it should be the job of the US Sec of State. Each state sec of state can certify state candidates. FOLKS-this has not resurfaced...it has never left.. but the Obama loving main stream media won't cover it, because they will wind up with egg all over their face. I think a few things are cool: one, that Alan Keyes is the one in CA suing, but no one can call the race card as he is black. Justice Clarence Thomas took the supreme court case, and again no one can call a race card. My DC rep feels that every court in the nation will find a loop hole to dismiss for fear of rioting. I told him that men are fighting and dying overseas to protect our freedoms and our constitution..why should they if we won't protect it from within? Also if the courts were afraid of rioting in the 1950s&1960s SEGREGATION might still be alive today! I would love to see a black man as prez, but not one who had to speak deceit and lies to get there. Let's NOT be in such a hurry to make history, that we are doing nothing to protect history...and to protect our constitution....
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/12/01/obama-birth-certificate-rears-its-ugly-head-again/197#comments
That's not the issue and you know it.
Constitution baby, constitution!
Well, now that's another issue...(sm)
I would argue that the New Deal actually did help the economy, but it wasn't large enough. During the New Deal the GDP steadily grew with the exception of one period where FDR actually slacked off with his programs and instead did tax cuts. Unemployment also went down during this period. I know Fox is saying the New Deal didn't work, but the numbers don't support that theory.
See charts below:
EXACTLY!! This isn't a pub/dem issue.........
this is a BIG GOVERNMENT issue. The kind of government that thinks they own the citizens. Of course, Obama's spend spend spend plan is the most outrageous in U.S. history and that's an understatement, but both sides should be ashamed of themselves. I get so sick of seeing the democrats on this board sit idly by as if they are in the right and just point fingers at anyone they perceive as republicans. They forget.......WE ARE THE CITIZENS. I don't give a rat's butt WHO is in office.....NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO TAKE MY MONEY AND TAX THE CRAP OUT OF ITS CITIZENS. The government works for us but unfortunately too many in this country have become ignorant to that fact, either by choice or lack of proper education as to their history, constitution, and what that entails of its citizens. They feels no loyalty to this country and do not understand the government is not there to be their leader and caregiver. The government is supposed to work for us and us only, not the United Nations, not some stupid foreign country who has us in their pocket, the Americans of this country....... NOT ILLEGALS EITHER!
We have gotten so far away from the meaning of our constitution; it's not taught in our schools....should we be surprised. After all,our schools are bought and paid for by the government you pay for without any say in the school system, and a bunch of one-sided thinking lamebrains decide the curriculum, so what better than to destroy the constitution so the children never understand anything about loyalty or pride for their country. Instead, they grow up thinking their government is the be all and end all of their lives and without that, we would be nobodies. PLEEZE!!!!
For all those that continue to point at Bush.....HE'S GONE FOLKS!! GET OVER IT! NOW YOU CAN START POINTING FINGERS AT OBAMA!! He's spending and making fake money as fast as he can light up another cigarette.
Obama has no excuse for this disaster he is putting us in.
The reason the majority do not speak up against their tyranical government is because they have become so complacent and when you think about all those who stand or think they stand to come out ahead with this government, they have no problem with sitting back and letting it happen. The day we stop letting illegals vote and special interest groups run this country, we might actually get our country back but that's won't happen until our complacent LEGAL citizens get off their duffs and actually stand up for their country.
Most don't even care and that's what the government is betting on......everyone's lack of education (government schools!) or interest.
The issue is
that men shouldn't be marrying men and women shouldn't be marrying women. The parts don't fit together and it's immoral. Giving them that special "right" will take away the rights of those who believe this behavior is immoral and the right to say so. They should have NEVER been given such a ludicrous "right." And the religious community will keep fighting to right wrongs. :-)
The Rove issue
From the Christian Science monitor online-- an interesting commentary on the Rove issue.
(I note per the Conservative board that Mr. Wilson is now being vilified.)
|
from the July 15, 2005 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0715/p09s02-cods.html
Rove leak is just part of larger scandalBy Daniel Schorr
WASHINGTON - Let me remind you that the underlying issue in the Karl Rove controversy is not a leak, but a war and how America was misled into that war.
In 2002 President Bush, having decided to invade Iraq, was casting about for a casus belli. The weapons of mass destruction theme was not yielding very much until a dubious Italian intelligence report, based partly on forged documents (it later turned out), provided reason to speculate that Iraq might be trying to buy so-called yellowcake uranium from the African country of Niger. It did not seem to matter that the CIA advised that the Italian information was "fragmentary and lacked detail."
Prodded by Vice President Dick Cheney and in the hope of getting more conclusive information, the CIA sent Joseph Wilson, an old Africa hand, to Niger to investigate. Mr. Wilson spent eight days talking to everyone in Niger possibly involved and came back to report no sign of an Iraqi bid for uranium and, anyway, Niger's uranium was committed to other countries for many years to come.
No news is bad news for an administration gearing up for war. Ignoring Wilson's report, Cheney talked on TV about Iraq's nuclear potential. And the president himself, in his 2003 State of the Union address no less, pronounced: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Wilson declined to maintain a discreet silence. He told various people that the president was at least mistaken, at most telling an untruth. Finally Wilson directly challenged the administration with a July 6, 2003 New York Times op-ed headlined, "What I didn't find in Africa," and making clear his belief that the president deliberately manipulated intelligence in order to justify an invasion.
One can imagine the fury in the White House. We now know from the e-mail traffic of Time's correspondent Matt Cooper that five days after the op-ed appeared, he advised his bureau chief of a supersecret conversation with Karl Rove who alerted him to the fact that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and may have recommended him for the Niger assignment. Three days later, Bob Novak's column appeared giving Wilson's wife's name, Valerie Plame, and the fact she was an undercover CIA officer. Mr. Novak has yet to say, in public, whether Mr. Rove was his source. Enough is known to surmise that the leaks of Rove, or others deputized by him, amounted to retaliation against someone who had the temerity to challenge the president of the United States when he was striving to find some plausible reason for invading Iraq.
The role of Rove and associates added up to a small incident in a very large scandal - the effort to delude America into thinking it faced a threat dire enough to justify a war.
• Daniel Schorr is the senior news analyst at National Public Radio. |
Why won't you debate the issue
because you can't back up what you are saying, I assume. You just point fingers and call names like that's winning a debate.
It is really a much larger issue than you think. sm
There are 12,000 New York City resident signatures, as well as 15 NY legislators on this petion alone:
Preamble to the Complaint and Petition
We, the complainant signatories below, petition the Attorney General of New York, on behalf of millions of New Yorkers who also call for a fearless independent inquiry; for the sake of residents, workers, and business owners in New York—most particularly in and near Ground Zero; and also on behalf of other Americans who have lost employees, friends, and family members as well as health, business, and personal assets and civil, privacy, and other rights in the events of September 11, 2001 and their aftermath.
We approach your office as concerned citizens desiring to bring to light the truth about the events of 9/11. And where fault and liability may be found through your investigative action (by whatever means), we seek the recovery of billions of dollars of damages that have been sustained and continue to accrue, and a process by which the true perpetrators and aiders and abettors of the 9/11 attacks may speedily be brought to justice.
As we reported previously to your office, a representative poll published by Zogby International on August 30 of this year found that 49 percent of New York City residents and 41 percent of New Yorkers overall believe there was official foreknowledge and conscious acceptance of the 9/11 attacks, and that 66 percent of city residents and 56 percent overall want a new investigation. These findings are stunning and we believe they provide conclusive evidence that the people of New York are not satisfied that official investigations and mainstream news media have adequately addressed the truth of the events of that fateful day.
These Zogby Poll findings point to the immediate consituency for our Complaint and Petition; but we also note here that a burgeoning nationwide movement also holds to the same belief about 9/11 as do these native New Yorkers. Fifteen legislators who are members from New York in the US House of Representatives, New York State Senate and Assembly, and New York City Council have responded to these results by also expressing support for a new investigation by the Attorney General or Congress.
If this belief of millions of citizens is borne out by a legitimate investigation, then it may follow that the responsible officials are guilty of both mass murder and treason, as well as conspiring to inflict untold suffering upon the people of New York and violating a host of New York State laws, in addition to federal terrorist, treason, and other laws.
Clearly, this Complaint and Petition concerns a supremely serious matter. Yet we the complainants contend that no independent official investigation into these alarming yet plausible allegations, for which we present compelling evidence herein, has ever been held or is now contemplated.
When citizens of New York widely suspect appalling criminal activity within our government and by bad actors doing business in the State of New York—activity that has caused us grievous harm—we believe we are well within our rights as sovereign citizens to demand the legal and investigative means to address these concerns. If indeed there exists such a widespread belief that our own government intentionally allowed such a catastrophe to occur on our own shores, then we submit that this is prima facie evidence of a deep crisis of trust in government. We were therefore inspired to read the Attorney General‘s 2002 Law Day address in regard to this issue of restoring public trust in our institutions. You focused then on financial markets, charities, and churches, but we believe your words aptly address the collapse of faith in government that the 9/11 Zogby Poll reveals today:
It is important that we understand that this crisis exists, that it has already damaged important institutions, and that we must take immediate action to restore the faith of a betrayed public…The process of restoring a shattered trust is a lengthy one. Unfortunately, we do not have time to wait…Too much will be lost during the time that this process naturally unfolds; the skepticism and distrust that exists will continue to exact a tremendous cost…Our system of law can provide—indeed, can itself be—the solution to the crisis created by the betrayal of their trust. [2]
And it is precisely in this same spirit—that of invoking the legitimacy of a lawful solution to the issue of 9/11—that we request your intervention in order to swiftly address the grave concerns outlined below, enforce accountability, and restore the public trust.
As Attorney General, you hold ultimate responsibility for enforcing public safety, criminal, and investor protection laws in the State of New York. As indicated in the Zogby Poll, a clear majority of your constituents desires a full investigation of still unanswered questions either by Congress or your office. We provide herein evidence to prove that Congress and the 9/11 Commission have shown themselves incapable of such an inquiry. We are left with no alternative but to turn to you to take up the case we have put forth in this Complaint and Petition.
We therefore respectfully request that you immediately invoke your powers to open one or more urgent investigations into apparent crimes before, during, and after September 11, 2001. This could be accomplished by your office alone or in conjunction with other state and local legal and enforcement offices with jurisdiction (which might include, for example, other state attorneys general and the Office of the Manhattan District Attorney, Robert Morgenthau).
We firmly believe that we are able to show probable cause for convening a grand jury and that we present herein the necessary facts and lines of inquiry that would lead reasonable persons to believe that numerous still-unsolved crimes have taken place.
In this Complaint and Petition, we submit compelling evidence constituting probable cause that some or all of the following crimes and possible additional crimes have been committed and that you have jurisdiction and prosecutorial discretion to investigate and prosecute the perpetrators of such crimes: murder, criminally negligent homicide or manslaughter; assault; reckless endangerment; official misconduct; criminal offenses relating to public safety; enterprise corruption; obstruction of justice and the infliction of emotional distress, including causing untold suffering and billions of dollars in damages on the citizens, businesses, and institutions of and upon the State of New York itself and cities, counties, and other jurisdictions within New York; and the criminal facilitation or solicitation thereof and conspiracy or accessorial conduct in connection therewith.
In summary, we submit that available evidence demonstrates that the requisite state of mind exists, pointing to (1) negligence as would be appropriate for assigning civil liability, and (2) an intentional, knowing, or reckless state of mind as would be required for assigning criminal liability.
You are making it an issue
You are trying to defend Merv Griffin when no one said anything bad about him or that he was not a conservative. All that was stated was what he commented about the vote, nothing more or less. You are reading much more into it than I ever intended. Dont waste your time looking up more information about Merv, who cares? His comment is what his comment was. Goodness, LOL. Dustin Hoffman also made a comment on Letterman that the democrats taking over the House and Senate was a historic day. It was a comment nothing more. I must state, though, that the audience also clapped, whistled, cheered when Dustin said that.
Why is gay marriage an issue?
Can someone explain to me why gay marriage is an issue in politics? I don't think it's ever been explained. I have heard the religious people say they want to keep the sanctity of marriage preserved to be between a man and a woman, and I can understand that. On the other side, I've heard gays and lesbians say that they've lived their lives with another person who happens to be the same sex as they are and they just want to be able to have the same rights as married people if something should happen to their partner, and I certainly do understand that too. I guess I don't understand why it is a political issue. To me if John and Jack or Mary and Sue want to get married that doesn't affect what I do with my life on a day to day basis or how I live my own life (at least I don't think it would have an impact). So just wanted to know why I'm always hearing this issue during campaigns. - Thanks.
You are the one making an issue (sm)
out of his middle name. So what if someone posts his middle name? What do YOU have to be worried about? It appears that she cut and pasted an article written by someone else. Had you not written a huge post about the name *Hussein,* many would not have even given it a second thought.
It would not be an issue if he had not made it one. nm
nm
Experience issue will not go away soon.
Whether or not a candidate is "ready" to lead is the voter's prerogative to investigate...or not. I hate nasty politics too and often will turn a blind eye to it. On the other hand, checking into it from time to time does give one a better perspective on just how divided our country has become and what issues flames the fires of discontent the most. Voters also decide whether malcontents should be left to stew in their own juices or if they are addressing legitimate, common concerns in an inappropriate manner that require attention from our highest leadership.
Beyond that, judgments must be made as to which candidate, party, issues, policies, etc. best represent not only the individual's best interests and their vision of what America is or is not, but also the best interest of the nation as a whole...another purely subjective and biased concept, depending on who you talk to. It's the nature of the beast.
What I believe about research is that it is much more valuable as a process, rather than a final destination. If one is able to come out of their comfort zone and expose themselves to many sides of the same issue, it is their own reactions and gut instincts that will help them better identify, define, prioritize, express and embody their own personal political beliefs. If the objective of research is a drive-by pot shot, the insight gained will be as fleeting and as memorable as chat room archives.
I see you did not issue the same warning for ...
BDayes...but then, why would you? Hitch up your skirt, your double standard is showing.
character issue
McSame was unfairly attacked by Bush machine when they ran in primaries together. Bush people insinuated he had a black child out of wedlock. They even claimed he was mentally unstable due to his time as a POW. McSame was deeply wounded by the attacks. But now he is willing to use same diversion techniques against Obama. That, my friends, speaks of the character of the man.
Both sides of this issue.....sm
The emotional part of me, that loves wildlife, absolutely and completely hates this practice. The governor before Gov. Palin did this, as well.
Intellectually, however, my husband and I talked about this last night. I have to realize that things are different in the state of Alaska, and we down here in the lower 48 can't judge them for this, as we don't understand all the facts. Sam posted them down below. It's a different mindset, when it comes to predator control versus the herd availability for the people of Alaska who are subsistence hunters, and need that caribou to make it through the winter.
I would much rather to let nature take its course, and let the predator and prey take each other out, the way nature intended it. However, throw humans in the mix, and it does change things.
All that taken into account, I still don't have to like it. But I can respect Alaska's decision to do this, even if I disagree.
how about the honesty issue?
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.
Important issue
Dealing with our enemies - I read an article and was going to post the link, but the article is positioned on the page odd and I had to scroll down to the bottom and words went off the screen so I cut and pasted some of it here. If you still wish to see the article let me know and I'll provide a link..
Obama is described as “eloquent and dazzling. In writing, he sounds like the candidate for class president pledging no more homework and free pizza”. – (pretty good description I'd say)
His position on Iran – “If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation”. – That, that’ll show them.
While other candidates have insisted that we should threaten to drop nuclear bombs on terrorist training camps, Obama believes that we must talk openly about nuclear weapons – because “the best way to keep America safe is not to threaten terrorists with nuclear weapons”. Obama will secure all loose nuclear materials in the world within four years. “This will deny terrorists the ability to steal or buy loose nuclear material”. – Does he really believe the most vicious people will be thwarted that easily?
People should remember that no matter how eloquently offered it is not always for the better.
Socialism IS an issue. nm
nm
On this issue, maybe....but they are diametrically....
different in every other way.
I certainly think maybe it should have been done a different way...however, it has gone so far I think they have to do something or the economy will indeed tank and we will pass recession and go right into depression. Even if they pass it, we are still going into a recession.
Here's the link for the first issue
This one should work.
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78309
The most important issue.....
this election is freedom. On November fourth we will determine which path our government will take, liberty or Marxism. I will choose liberty.
McCain/Palin 2008 
Well, like it or not......race is an issue with some
@
about the abortion issue
At least that explains why u are for McCain. What I don't understand is pro choice people voting for McCain. Nobody said it's murder or not murder. I personally think it isn't and you personally think it is. Why are there no funerals for fetuses of miscarriages? yes, it is a moral issue but I will not dictate to someone that if they are raped OR whatever the reason is.. that they cannot have an abortion. That said, it does explain why you vote for McCain. The other people are a mystery.
The source is not the issue
the voting record is.
Ummm....they do, actually, just as they take issue with
and ran with it.
Its not a legal issue
its a mental issue. Supreme Court does not rule in that arena.
BC issue already verified
and there are plenty of places to research this. Seems like you'll just come up with something else
|
