Mocking SP delivers the message on a level
Posted By: GOP understands. They seem to...sm on 2008-10-13
In Reply to: You seem to like Palin an awful lot....why - is that.... I don't care for her myself
respond well to colloquial discourse and positively bristle at the introduction of serious dialog on those doggone pesky issues.
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
He also delivers, apparent when reviewing his
Many of the same policies and plans found in O's presidential campaign plans are reflections of the work he did while in the state senate in Illinois. Voters interested in something more than chat room hysteria and media bias will be reviewing the records of the candidates.
For O, what he says is what he does, regardless of the lame guilt by association claims made by a desperate party who is scrambling to find political capital and hide the fact that they have nothing to offer other than 4 more years of the same old poop, "reinvention." notwithstanding. When they examine JM records, they will find 90%. No telling what they will find when looking at SP's paper thin resume, but new information is emerging as we speak. What we are learning will never be able to spun in such a way as to support a "maverick" candidacy. Rather it will tell us that SP is way right of center and in some respects, on the fringe. Her vision for America is that of a rural NeoCon/femocon. Some will love that and will be loudly vocal and lavish praise. Others will be running far and wide and quietly casting their votes for you-know-who.
Unfortunately, to get to that level he'd have to
Hee
On one level, it's rather
Think about it. Here we have Evans, Editor of Newsweek and one who is in the vanguard of elitist agnosticism (remember "The Decline and Fall of Christian America"?) who seems to acknowledge, at least tacitly, the need for some sort of God to mediate and reconcile the nations.
So far, Evans has only managed to stagger toward a rather pitiful concept of God in the form of a being as miserably inadequate as Obama, but perhaps there's hope that he'll mature to an adult notion of God, which is a bit more sophisticated.
What's different is that on a state level in CA,
in the form of ballot measures, ballot initiatives, propositions or referendums. They can be heard in the California Supreme Court on any or all of these bases and are entitled to seek relief.
Just above your level of showing your
stupidity for trying so hard to appear to be intelligent.
One would have to have a certain level of intelligence to be bored. sm
You are the weakest link. Buh-bye now. 
Thank you so much for your concern about my energy level.
That just shows the level of insensitivity....
this is an anonymous posting board. You people have posted nastiness about someone and named them. Dailykrap posted it where the entire nation can look at it. You have invaded the privacy of a 16-year-old girl who has done nothing to deserve it and made her public fodder. Perhaps you are proud of that. I cannot imagine that you would be, yet you attack me and support those who would do such a thing. Amazing.
That's the only level pubs will react to.
Put your money where your mouth is. You want real issues. Just post a request for a list and let's get started.
How can you retain something at 2009 level....
when it is 2008?
With the economy the way it is, he CANNOT implement his health care plan. If he does, the fragile economy will tank. I am not an economist and I have sense enough to know that.
The estate tax is the most unfair tax ever levied. All that money has been taxed already, and they want to tax it again just because someone dies. It should be repealed. That is not a Republican or democrat thing. It is just wrong.
Think about this...when the stock market lost 700 points that day...many of the americans earning more than $250,000 lost a ton of money. And he is NOW going to roll back tax cuts for them? Is he so naive or want to get elected SO bad that he does not understand that most of the small businesses in this country fall in that category? And moderate-sized businesses? Who do you think are the employers in this country? Can he not see that will result in businesses closing or downsizing or offshoring just to SURVIVE?
I guess he doesn't. And that means he SHOULD NOT be President.
Also enjoys one-on-one ground-level
Wonder if she follows indigenous rule and only slays what she can eat? Not likely, considering her affinity for guns. What a gal, what a gal!
You don't need to attack me on a personal level... sm
by calling names.
I looked at your supporting web site and find that it is a Democratic web site, so I automatically discard it as biased.
I still am seeking an answer for my original question. What has changed? His mind, in my estimation, is not a suitable answer as that does not address the FACT that he himself stated that he did not feel he was qualified to run for POTUS.
By the same token, if he can "change his mind" on an issue as important as being qualified for POTUS, what is to keep him from changing his mind on all the promises and pipedreams he was selling while he was running. Oh wait....I think that is already happening. He is already stating that he cannot fulfill all his promises and he is not even in office yet.
If he is the "best" that this country has to offer, we're in worse shape than I thought we were.
They scare me, as well, on a very dangerous level.
Starting at the community level......... sm
is a great thing to do and I am proud of you for the work you do. I have read here before some of the things you are involved in, and you are making a difference in your community. I'll be right here, ready and willing! LOL
You sank to their level but beyond, and continue to do so.
I give up.
The playing field has never been more level!
Thanks to affirmative action, white heterosexual males cannot get jobs especially when competing with a person classified as a minority. Mintorities get college scholarships and acceptance into good schools so universities can meet their quota. It's ridiculous! There is a black man in the White House --- I think affirmative action has done its job!
It's time for everyone, no matter their race, be treated equally. The best PERSON for the job should get the job. The best student with the best transcipts should get the admission letter and scholarship. There shouldn't be quotas to fill. NOBODY should get preferential treatment anymore!
Good for you....don't stoop to that level!!
x
Oh gt, one would have to go a long way to reach YOUR level of hatred. nm
The level of maturity in producing that clip
is just astonishing!
You sound like one of the more level headed posters here
I'm glad you don't hate him. Disagreeing with his viewpoints and policies is one thing, but I'm reading a lot of posts and you can tell a lot of people really hate him. I don't agree with some of his issues. I don't agree with some of McCain's issues. I think your also one of the first posters who said anything good about McCain. What just really worries me about McCain is his attitude, his mean temper, and his readiness to send us to war anywhere.
Oh, I think I may have not quite said it right in my original post. I wasn't blaming oil companies and CEOs for the mess we are in, I was stating (or trying to state) that they are the ones who decide who our next president will be (that and you know that secret group that meets every year "behind closed doors"). I still have very high doubts that the "people" pic our president (but I could be wrong of course).
Take a good look at your level headed poster...nm
000000
On a level playing field that would be correct...
this is not a level playing field. I don't see her encouraging Obama to do town hall meetings with McCain...and after 18 months running for the #1 seat, he just this past month sat down with someone who was not in the tank for his candidacy. You really don't see how lopsided this is? Obama being inteviewed by the lambs and the left wanting to feed her to the wolves.
It just seems to me to be wrong on a basic moral level....
Christianity aside...that the power of life and death be given to one individual over another. Any OTHER time than abortion that is murder, not negotiable. Yet for the most innocent among us, the most vulnerable, in the eyes of some it is fine for one human being to decide to terminate the life of another on the basis of choice...and inconvenience.
I do not believe Obama sits around and thinks about how many babies will die every day (to the tune of over a million a year...!). I don't think he thinks about it much at all. How lucky for him his mother chose life.
There are also those more level-headed Obama opponents
the "country first" message of the McCain campaign and who realize how dangerously destructive this divisive rhetoric can be. They have shown the courage and wisdom to embrace the outcome of the election and made the decision to MOVE FORWARD along with the rest of us. That would account for the additional support reflected in the 75%.
You sound a lot more clear and level headed than most on this board...
even in your drug-induced state! Feel better soon!
JTBB - If you find a higher-level forum where
intellect is respected and informed debate is possible, please post that info a time or 2. I'm looking for a spot like that myself and this sure ain't it.
Taking it to a new level meaning posting a whole new thread
I still say no response is the best response.
Abortion Rate Continues to Drop, at Lowest Level Since 1976
Abortion: Just the Data
With High-Court Debate Brewing, New Report Shows Procedure's Numbers Down
By Naseem Sowti
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 19, 2005; HE01
A new analysis of the most recent abortion data shows that the number of U.S. women having the procedure is continuing its decade-long drop and stands at its lowest level since 1976.
In the year 2002, about 1.29 million women in the U.S. had abortions. In 1990, that number was 1.61 million.
The data, collected by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit group that collects information from abortion providers and public sources, show that for every 1,000 pregnancies that did not result in miscarriage in 2002, there were 242 abortions. This figure was 245 in 2000 and 280 in 1990. The institute's mission is to protect reproductive choice, but its reports are considered accurate across the political spectrum.
With President Bush preparing to nominate at least one new Supreme Court justice whose presence on the high court could produce new rulings on abortion, the data are already being interpreted differently by abortion rights advocates and antiabortion activists. But scientists say it is difficult to determine why the number of abortions has been dropping.
"There are so many things feeding into" the decline, said Lawrence Finer, associate director of domestic research at Guttmacher. Possible factors, he said, include changes in contraceptive technologies and use, changing ideas about family size and abortion, and reduced access to abortion services. Pregnancy clinics and abstinence programs may also have contributed to the declines, he said.
Who Gets Abortions?
Women with unintended pregnancies are those most likely to get abortions. According to the Guttmacher report, 47 percent of unintended pregnancies are aborted. Teenagers, unmarried women, black and Hispanic women, and those with low incomes are more likely than the population as a whole to have unintended pregnancies.
The report shows that non-Hispanic white women get about 40 percent of all U.S. abortions, black women 32 percent and Hispanic women, who can be of any race, 20 percent. Women of other races account for the other 8 percent. Black and Hispanic women have higher rates of abortion than non-Hispanic whites, the report states.
Other facts about U.S. abortions from the Guttmacher report:
· Six in 10 women who had abortions in 2002 were mothers. "Despite the common belief, women who have abortions and those who have children are not two separate groups," said Finer.
· A quarter of abortions occur among unmarried women who live with a male partner, putting this group at elevated risk of unintended pregnancy and abortion.
· The majority -- 56 percent -- of women who terminate their pregnancies are in their twenties. Teenagers between 15 and 19 make up 19 percent of abortions, although this percentage has dropped substantially in recent years.
This drop may be due to use of longer-acting hormonal contraceptives and lower rates of sexual activity, said Joyce Abma, a social scientist at the National Center for Health Statistics at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
She added that there has been a decline in sexual activity reported by teenage males, which could be a contributing factor to lower pregnancy and abortion rates among teens.
· The incidence of abortion spans the economic spectrum, but low-income women are overrepresented among those having the procedure. Sixty percent of women who had abortions in 2000 had incomes of less than twice the poverty level --below $28,000 per year for a family of three, for example. This is in part because "low-income women have lower access to family planning services" such as contraception and counseling provided by health departments, independent clinics or Planned Parenthood, Finer said.
· Almost 90 percent of abortions are performed in the first trimester -- during the first 12 weeks after the first day of the woman's last menstrual period -- with most performed before nine weeks. Because of newer surgical and medical techniques, the proportion of abortions performed at six weeks or earlier has almost doubled in the past decade.
Less than 1 percent of abortions are done after 24 weeks.
· The number of abortion providers declined by 11 percent between 1996 and 2000, to 1,800. In 2000, one-third of women aged 15 to 44 lived in a county that lacked an abortion provider.
About the Data
There are two main sources of national data on abortion: the Guttmacher Institute and the CDC. While both are regarded as dependable by major groups on both sides of the abortion issue, their numbers are different, and less precise than some other health statistics.
Not all states require reporting of abortions. The District, Maryland, New Hampshire and New Jersey do not mandate abortion reporting. California does not collect abortion data at all. Alaska and New Hampshire have not released statistics since 1998. This affects CDC's data, which is assembled every year from reports received from state health departments.
Due to differing reporting requirements and data-gathering procedures, abortion information for the District, Maryland and Virginia does not permit meaningful comparisons.
Guttmacher produces its reports by contacting abortion providers nationwide; its reports are considered more comprehensive than the CDC's. But the institute publishes the data only every four or five years. Neither group has published data for years beyond 2002.
Despite the inconsistencies of methods, the trends reported by CDC and Guttmacher correspond closely to each other. ·
Resources
For the complete Guttmacher report, visit http://www.agi-usa.org/sections/abortion.html , click on "An Overview of Abortions in the U.S."
For the CDC's complete report, visit http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/indss_2004.html , and click on "Abortion Surveillance -- United States 2001.
Or visit http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr52/nvsr52_23.pdf to download "Estimated Pregnancy Rates for the United States -- 1990-2000: An Update").
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
Abramoff Attended staff-level meetings at Bush White House
White House Silent on Abramoff Meetings
WASHINGTON, Jan. 18, 2006
(AP) The White House is refusing to reveal details of tainted lobbyist Jack Abramoff's visits with President Bush's staff.
Abramoff had a few staff-level meetings at the Bush White House, presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said Tuesday. But he would not say with whom Abramoff met, which interests he was representing or how he got access to the White House.
Since Abramoff pleaded guilty two weeks ago to conspiracy, mail fraud and tax evasion charges in an influence-peddling scandal, McClellan has told reporters he was checking into Abramoff's meetings. I'm making sure that I have a thorough report back to you on that, he said in his press briefing Jan. 5. And I'll get that to you, hopefully very soon.
McClellan said Tuesday that he checked on it at reporters' requests, but wouldn't discuss the private staff-level meetings. We are not going to engage in a fishing expedition, he said.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, along with three other Democratic senators, wrote Bush a letter Tuesday asking for an accounting of Abramoff's personal contacts with Bush administration officials and acts that may have been undertaken at his request. The American people need to be assured that the White House is not for sale, they wrote.
McClellan has said Abramoff attended three Hanukkah receptions at the White House, but corrected himself Tuesday to say there were only two _ in 2001 and 2002.
McClellan said Bush does not know Abramoff personally, although it's possible the two met at the holiday receptions.
Abramoff was one of Bush's top fundraisers, having brought in at least $100,000 for the Bush-Cheney '04 re-election campaign and earning the honorary title pioneer. The campaign took $6,000 of the contributions _ which came directly from Abramoff, his wife and one of the Indian tribes he represented _ and donated it to the American Heart Association. But the campaign has not returned the rest of the money Abramoff raised.
see message
I think the behavior you describe is pretty common for ignorant folks. Just because they voted for him, they feel they have to uphold every stupid decision he makes.
Thank you - please see message
I'm glad you felt comfortable responding to my post. I didn't realize how heated things had gotten but could tell from what remains on the conservative board that it had gotten pretty ugly, and I thought the tax issue was a fairly safe issue to broach to provide a cooling period while discussing an issue that pretty much everyone agrees on - a need for tax reform.
Note, though, that it was one post on one topic and the first I have submitted in some time. Most of the threads on the board begin with an issue/article posted by Nan or AG.
However, regardless of who contributes most to the conservative forum, I must agree with Brunson and thank him/her for recognizing that the conservative forum is the conservative forum. I realize that tempers have flared there and things got out of hand, but the conservative posters have given no worse than they received. It seems to me that, at any time, liberal posters tired of dealing with Nan and AG (and MT, as well) on the conservative board could have done as Nan and AG did - remained on the forum dedicated to their point of view.
Thank you for your welcome to this forum - you have been very congenial, and I have enjoyed the discussion today. Frankly, I cannot see myself fitting into this liberal forum - as I said, my views on most issues tend to be pretty conservative. I don't see much point in hanging around the conservative forum if there isn't anybody there, so it looks like I'll probably just be peeking in now and again to see if/when discussion resumes. If I reply again on this forum, I will certainly try to do so with as much respect and kindness as you have shown me today, even though my opinions will probably differ.
Hey.....see my message!
I live in a rural area, have three dogs and do weight training also!!!
Actually it is said by the experts that if you are inexperienced with a gun you're better off not having one. It's kind of complex, but check out the info if you're interested.
I used to have military mace (actually from when I lived in a big city) - not sure if it's available to the public - probably easier to use than a gun and just as effective. Otherwise, not sure who we're supposed to be afraid of here.....I generally am not afraid of intruders and I don't have any weapons in my house other than my dogs and my mouth!!!
See Message.
Maybe if you were more tolerant and didn't pose such a rude message, someone would be interested in debating with you. I think it's just human nature to not want to associate with people who approach others in such a nasty confrontational way. If you were nicer to others, others would be nicer to you.
See message.
I can't wait to see what Fitzgerald's investigation unfolds.
Libby and Rove both were sources for the leak of Plame's occupation.
This was after Joe Wilson made public that Bush's claim that Saddam Hussein was purchasing uranium to make nukes was FALSE. The administration KNEW it was false, yet Bush used this fake threat of nukes in his State of the Union address to scare the heebie-jeebies out of the American public so they would support this bogus war.
That's how Bushies handle people who cross them. Don't DARE tell the truth or expose the administration for what it truly is. If you do, they'll not only put the life of a CIA agent in danger, but every single person she worked with around the globe pertaining to WMD. Why isn't this treason? It's the Bush way of doing things, and Karl Rove is an expert and accomplished thug.
I hope this goes beyond Rove and Libby and goes straight to Bush and Cheney. This is definitely an illegal war, brought on totally false premises, and Bush and Cheney should be personally held accountable for all the deaths (American and Iraqi) that have resulted from their lies.
It's truly sad when the only man on earth who can make Saddam look not so bad is GEORGE W. BUSH. I'm very ashamed of my government. 
See message.
I'm writing to my Congressman and Senator and see if this is true, express my objection and see if they can BOUNCE the *blank check* they gave him regarding Iraq and require Congressional approval for air strikes.
The article you posted included the following:
After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the former official said, he was told that Bush felt that “God put me here” to deal with the war on terror. The President’s belief was fortified by the Republican sweep in the 2002 congressional elections; Bush saw the victory as a purposeful message from God that “he’s the man,” the former official said. Publicly, Bush depicted his reëlection as a referendum on the war; privately, he spoke of it as another manifestation of divine purpose.
Someone needs to tell Bush that God thinks Bush is too engulfed in his own ego to fully understand God's REAL message to him, and that's why God gave us POLLS.
See message.
I don't believe religious symbols of ANY kind belong in schools (unless they're religious schools) or government buildings. If Walmart or Target wish to be inclusive to all religious beliefs, more power to them. Private businesses should be free to do as they wish. If they want to limit it to the religious Christmas and exclude the secular *Christmas,* some people might not want to shop in that kind of *exclusive* shop. You can bet their profit margin is the bottom line for them.
For every religion out there, there are buildings: churches, mosques, temples, etc. where like-minded people gather to worship. Trying to control the very WORDS people say isn't going to work unless and until you guys figure out a way to implant a chip in every American that will force them to speak, think, believe and worship just like you do. Maybe some of us think you'd do that if you had the ability, and maybe THAT'S the underlying thing that people are fighting.
OMG!!! (see message)
That mental image HURTS.
I am so SICK of this man's lies. Bush needs to get them straight. When he said the following in 2004, he was clearly lying and KNEW IT, as we now all know. I just wonder if there's ever been just ONE TIME in the last 5 years when he's actually told the truth. Have you seen this?
Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order, he said on April 20, 2004 in Buffalo, New York.
Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so, he added.
On April 19, 2004, Bush said the Patriot Act enabled law-enforcement officials to use roving wiretaps, which are not fixed to a particular telephone, against terrorism, as they had been against organized crime.
You see, what that meant is if you got a wiretap by court order -- and by the way, everything you hear about requires court order, requires there to be permission from a FISA court, for example, he said in Hershey, Pennsylvania.
Please see message.
I totally agree this absolutely reaches across the board. This monster repeatedly raped this child for 3 years, but the damage he's done to her is going to affect her entire life. How about putting him in jail FOREVER so he can't hurt anyone else??? I also wouldn't have a problem with the death penalty for animals such as this.
I've recently seen this judge on TV, actually defending his actions, as if there is a defense for them. Thank God for Bill O'Reilly (I don't usually care for him) and Joe Scarborough and Dan Abrams (and others, I'm sure) who are publicizing this. Hopefully, this judge will be removed soon so maybe more children won't suffer. This judge, in my opinion, is just as guilty as the molester himself.
I sat here, trying to put myself in the parents' shoes, and I wonder how many parents will begin to feel that taking the law into their own hands and killing these rabid animals is the only way to keep their children safe in lieu of a judge that cares more about the criminals than their victims. If and when that happens, I'm not sure I could blame them.
I've written to Vermont's governor, as well. I'm glad so many people are writing and publicizing this issue. It's the only way things will change.
See message.
Number one, despite what is so *obvious* to you, I do not hate my country. In fact, I miss it very much. And I don't hate Bush because I don't *hate* anyone. When he took over the Presidency, I began my impressions of him on an even keel. Slowly, bit by bit, he has corroded any good impressions I ever may have had of him with his constant lying, dirty tricks, contempt for the Constitution, total and complete refusal to admit that he is NOT PERFECT, blatant disregard for the security of our borders, presiding over an econmy where people can barely afford gas but oil company executives get richer and richer, etc., etc. I truly and sincerely believe he poses a HUGE threat to the security of every American citizen.
Regardless of what the Iranian President (his name is Ahmadinejad, by the way) claims to have, they don't have the capacity to nuke anyone, but the USA does, and Bush has a ZERO record when it comes to diplomacy. Again, both Bush and Ahmadinejad are whack jobs, and neither can be reasoned with. I believe this is a very dangerous combination of two out-of-control egos, and the end of humanity could very well be imminent. I'm not going to apologize for caring if my grandchildren might not have the opportunity to reach voting age in this country because of a president who doesn't care about his legacy because, when asked, he said Who cares? We'll all be dead, anyway. That statement, combined with his love of war, I find to be quite chilling.
As far as being *lost in my world,* I can see very clearly a President who is losing more and more credibility, not on a daily basis any more but on an HOURLY basis. I have ZERO faith or trust in this man. Again, contrary to your implied intimate knowledge of me, my brain, my heart and my soul, these aren't because of any preconceived notions I might have about Bush. These are because the actions of Bush himself. As polls are evidencing more and more each day, I'm not alone in my skepticism of him.
Regarding where I got the quotes, if you are genuinely interested, I would suggest you Google them. You've already indicated an inclination to not believe them, so I'm not going to waste my time by going back to the multiple sources I found, simply to provide you with a link that you've already decided not to believe. If your interest is sincere, you'll look it up. 
Regarding your response to my *shopping spree* statement, I'm sorry, but it didn't come across as a joke to me. It sounded like a negative character judgment regarding someone who doesn't agree with you, which is a common Neocon MO from Bush and his cronies all the way down to the lowest peon on the totem pole who is convinced Bush is on his or her side. 
Likewise, you can't possibly know the extent of my intelligence since you don't know me, have never met me and aren't qualified to offer such an opinion. Inherent in your assessment that I'm *not that stupid* is the notion that you feel I do possess a certain degree of stupidity, which leads me to your comment that I feel I have to *label everyone who disagrees* with me as *uninformed and unthinking.* I respectfully point out that these *labels* are YOUR words, not mine, and I would challenge you to point to those words in my above post to you.
Have a very pleasant day. 
Please see message.
I try to get my information from a variety of sources. These days, it's hard to find a completely neutral source.
The main thing I'm interested in is finding the truth, and it seems that the party with the most to hide is the least likely to provide it.
When Clinton was President, I listened to a lot of right-leaning news sources for the very same reason. I thought the lack of respect Clinton showed in the Oval Office was terrible, and I was actually in favor of impeaching him for that. I didn't buy into and agree with the notion that what he did in his private life was his business. In my opinion, the Oval Office doesn't belong to the President; it belongs to every American tax-paying citizen.
I voted for Ronald Reagan, and to this day, I still think of him as a wonderful President. Historians may disagree with me on that point, and they may be right, because I'm obviously no expert in that field. I even voted for George Herbert Walker Bush, so I'm not some hardline lefty who hates the United States, is godless and has no moral values.
(I just wanted to share a thumbprint of who I really am because some people want to crucify me on this board simply because they see my name and couldn't care less what I have to say. You, on the other hand, have been posting here in a very respectful, intelligent manner, and I'm very appreciative of that and hope you continue to do so. I'm beginning to look forward to reading your posts after the last day or so.)
I believe that many people were looking for a big change in the White House when they voted for George W. Bush. I believe they wanted some sense of decency and honor restored to it. I was one of those people.
When I look back at the thing Clinton did that I thought was so terrible, and I look at what Bush has done, I guess the only thing I can say to sum it up is what Jay Leno said in his monologue the other night: At least Clinton only screwed one American at a time (I'm paraphrasing, but that's the gist of it).
What amazes me the most about (what seems like) blind loyalty to Bush is that I wonder what they thought they were voting for, compared to what they got. I thought Republicans (conservatives) were supposed to beiin favor of less spending, smaller federal government and fiscal responsibility. After really disliking President Clinton, I actually feel that when it came to things important to the everyday lives of Americans, Clinton was a far better President.
I feel no sense of trust for President Bush. I don't feel he is on the side of the average American. I truly believe he wants to get rid of the middle class altogether, so the only ones left are the rich (who he referred to as his *base*) and the poor.
Whether he made the pejorative comment about the Constitution or not, he ACTS like he has no respect for it (as was also mentioned in the article). There is truly no need any more for Congress, regardless of whether it's a Republican or Democratic Congress because it doesn't matter what laws they write, if Bush doesn't like it, he will simply issue a *signing statement* expressing that he will do what he wants, anyway.
We have a system of checks and balances for a reason, and he seems to totally disregard it. To me, it's ironic that he seeks to search and destroy all dictatorships -- except the one that is of his own creation here in the United States.
There's a growing history of how he treats those who either tell the truth or simply don't agree with his policies. He *Swiftboats* them.
There are many stories out there about the Diebold machines being rigged so that a certain political party wins. I have a friend who voted on a Diebold machine that produced a paper receipt. Sure enough, it reflected that she voted for the other party, when, in fact, she did NOT.
I'm completely against his views on immigration. I believe we should have immediately tightened and secured ALL our borders after 9/11 and, at least for the time being, not allow ANYONE in. Instead, we used that money to go to war with Iraq, not because Saddam Hussein was a threat but because Bush needed a war to insure a *successful Presidency.* Did you know that the President's itinery was found by an ex-con in a trash can last week? Why was that allowed to happen?
Did you know that part of his Iraq war spending includes a comphrehensive healthcare plan for every Iraqi? Look at the healthcare system in the United States. Shouldn't the healthcare for Americans take precedence over the healthcare of Iraqis?
Do I want our troops to come home? You bet I do. I believe the best way we can support them is to get them out of there.
Having said that, I also believe we simply cannot *cut and run.* We simply cannot go into a country and completely destroy and then leave without fixing what we broke. I believe we morally owe it to the people of Iraq to leave their country in a better place than when we found it. I wish democracy would have worked in Iraq INSTANTLY. Then maybe Bush would have hopefully begun to worry about fixing the massive problems in his own country. Having said that, I have serious doubts that a long-lasting democracy will survive in that region. I believe that many of them view us as being evil and having no morals. (I can't really disagree with this view, considering some of the things that go on in this country.) I think Joe Biden had an excellent idea of dividing Iraq into three provinces (which is supported in the Iraqi Constitution).
Instead, I believe this war was a whim, based on his own personal goals, without regard for one single soldier he sent to die. To me, that is unforgiveable.
Should he be allowed to spy on innocent Americans during wartime? I guess that depends on the definition of *innocent.* I sure don't know any terrorists. Heck, I don't even know my own neighbors. But I have repeatedly expressed my disagreement with his policies, and I've read how innocent Americans whose only *sin* is disagreeing with this President, so I have no reason to believe that I won't find myself being *investigated* by some agency eventually, maybe even the IRS in the form of an audit or some other intimidating tactic that this President is so fond of using.
As far as the Democrats are concerned, I personally can't stand Hillary Clinton and would never vote for her (even if I DID live in a country where my vote actually counted). I'm as disgusted with the Democrats as I am with the President.
I'm not some Godless heathen without morals simply because I don't agree with Bush. I very much believe in God. In fact, I believe God has been sending Bush a series of *signs* that he has chosen to ignore. What I don't believe is pushing my religion down everyone else's throats. What I believe in most of all is tolerance and respect for everyone, regardless of their religious beliefs. When one religion acts as if it is superior to all others, that concerns me and automatically forces me further to the left. Freedom of religion in this country is a wonderful thing, and nobody's religion is better than someone else's (including those who simply don't believe at all). Yet, the fallacy that all Democrats (or anyone else who doesn't believe in Bush) are godless heathens is alive and well. Ann Coulter, who can't seem to remember her address and is under investigation for voter fraud (see http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002807.htm, complete with the complaining document) plans on releasing a book outlining evil devils (such as myself and other millions of Americans she's never met) on none other than 6/6/06. I believe that one particular religion has no place in government. Do I have a problem with *In God We Trust* on our money? Of course not. When the word *God* is used in a generic term, it's INCLUSIVE, not EXCLUSIVE. But whether or not I can read it as I purchase a newspaper is irrelevant to what I feel in my soul and my heart. I can assure you my morals are very high, and it truly hurts (thus turning to anger) when certain conservatives accuse people like me of being evil and Godless. They say that most anger is the result of fear. The times I'm most angry is truly when I'm the most frightened. It's really hard to carry on a dialogue with someone who has labeled you so negatively, a sense of self-defense kicks in, and often arguments and more name-calling ensues, none of which is productive and all of which is hurtful and fruitless.
I'm sorry this is so long, but as I said, I enjoy reading your posts. Although I don't know you or your political beliefs, you seem to be conservative. You also seem to be intelligent and respectful and don't resort to personal attacks on posters, which is very refreshing on these boards. I was just trying to give you some insight into who I am and the reason I don't like Bush. In fact, I'm very frightened of him.
As I've said before, if I felt my President was honest, trustworthy, ethical and truly had the interests of ALL Americans foremost in his mind, I would have no problem at all with his obtaining lists of my telephone calls because I truly have nothing to hide, and if it saved one life, to me, it would be worth it. I just don't trust him to do the right thing, and that isn't based on anything I've heard or read from any left-leaning media. It's based solely on his own actions in the last six years.
I'm no far left-leaning whacko. In fact, I'm truly a middle-of-the road kind of thinker. I think there are a lot of us out there. Speaking personally, it's just that the *righter* he goes, the *lefter* I automatically wind up, not because I voluntarily choose to, but because in order to maintain my original thoughts, that's where he pushes me.
I don't expect you to agree with me. In fact, I fully expect you not to agree with me, and I hope you respond because I am very interested in hearing your views. Again, I thank you for being respectful and not resorting to name calling. You have opened the door to serious, honest and intelligent debate, and for that, I thank you.
I hope you have a wonderful weekend.
Please see message.
I hope you had an opportunity to read the article I posted before it was censored. It certainly explains the few bad apples in an otherwise wonderful military and also answers the question you raised regarding the recruiting tactics.
Please see message.
It was just a very angry hateful person who wished bad things on America. Just a one-line post on the subject line with a red angry face in the text portion of the post. (I don't want to repeat it because it might cause this thread to be deleted again.)
See Message...
I have decided to lock this thread. I do not believe the OP had bad intentions, but I do not like the direction in which this thread is going.
Moderator 
See message....
Please watch your comments. This is the second post of yours I have edited based on inappropriate remarks. Let this serve as a warning to you.
Moderator
See message...
Your comments about race were inappropriate. They were bound to offend, and it is best to leave those kind of remarks off this site.
Moderator
Please see message.
You've just summed up exactly my impression of Hillary Clinton, and my impression wasn't formed by anybody who is anti-Clinton. It was formed by Hillary's own self-portrait that she eagerly showed to the world.
Thanks - see message
Thanks - its such a breath of fresh air to hear more people feel the same way I do. I'm am sick to death of her people trying to push her in the VP slot (which just is not going to happen) but seems thats all that's on the news just can't wait for it to end. If it does happen well they can be assured that McCain will definitely win. The Clintons should not be allowed anywhere near the white house. Don't people remember what they did the last time they were in there? I listen to the people who support her and think...why? there is not one good quality about that woman. People are saying she's a good role model for their children??? People think that someone who is a liar, cheater, thief, bribes people, gives people false hope, walks all over people not caring who she steps on just as long as she is on top, is a sore loser, not humble, has a foul mouth to match her attitude, is just downright nasty to people when she doesn't get her way, etc, etc, well I then question their character. Never mind all the people whose lives and careers have been destroyed because they went against the Clintons. And another thing they talk about the Clinton Dynasty or Clinton Legacy? I always thought a Dynasty was if you have a long line of people in the family who have been in politics (like the Kennedys). It is only the two of them. Nobody in their family is in politics or is decent. These two came out of nowhere and they've only done harm to the democrat party. They are tearing the party apart for their own personal gain and they don't care.
See message...
The portion that I edited were not statements made by Hillary Clinton. Those statements were made by you. They were aggressive and strange, to say the least, and those kind of comments have no place on this site.
Moderator
Please see message.
Well, it worked just as well for me during this occasion. I think different people react differently, depending on the dosage, their tolerance, and how tired they might be. It might work differently for you than it does for me. Heck, it might (and does) work differently for ME, depending on the above. I have an illness which may (and usually does) awaken me in the middle of the night. If it's not too bad, I can take a pain pill and actually even be able to work a little. (If it's hospital-worthy, then I slap on a Fentanyl patch, and once that enters my system, I'm usually out like a light for a couple days. If that doesn't work, then it's back to the hospital again, which I try to avoid.) However, when this stuff happens, I wind up in a backwards sleep cycle and wind up being awake all night. This is what happened to me Friday/Saturday, and if you'll note, I began the post by stating I had been up most of the night.
Secondly, it was not a two-hour nap. Please read the post again and note the difference between 10:26 a.m. and 7:14 P.M.
Thank you OP - appreciate your message.
Thanks.
Sam (see message)
 If you can't stand the heat....Get out of the kitchen!
|
