My statement was more sarcasm because it seems to me everyone gets worked up over nothing here latel

• Let's see how worked up we can get now - - Amanda
  • Why would that get anyone worked up. - me
    • My statement was more sarcasm because it seems to me everyone gets worked up over nothing here latel - Amanda
      • I wasn't offended, I was just curious - me
    • I would be more concerned if it were - truffle
      • Replacement could be more liberal than Souter - but not much.

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

Having had at least three relevant opportunities to make a statement about the killing of an Army recruiter and wounding of another since this occurred on Monday, Obama has not said a single word about it - but a statement was forthcoming from him immediately concerning the killing of Dr. Tiller.

The media coverage of the two events has also been strikingly different.  Please note that the sympathies of the liberal cause provide a complete explanation of both of these phenomena.

More than passingly strange that they think we don't notice stuff like this, n'est-ce pas? Well, they'll discover their mistake soon enough.  The election cycle of 2010 is already starting up - and it isn't going to look anything like the cycle of 2008.

I just was not clear on her preference in this election.

That's the way it was and it worked. Do you see anything wrong with that? I don't. It gives th employee something to be proud of and the company a way to build a good reputation for good quality work and consistency in its product.

Nowadays, it seems it is employee vs. company and vice versa. That doesn't work. No loyalty to the employee gets no loyalty to the company.

Your snide remarks and insult to my intelligence is not worth my time to argue over.  However, the mere fact that he said it does raise some eyebrows, does it not? 

Maybe if you were a critical thinker (did you learn that anywhere along the way?), you might suspect that these comments would offend many Americans and that is a path he should not have taken.  The mere fact that he said it does not sit right with me, even if is in the context of a metaphor. 

Obama criticizes that some Americans cling to their guns and religion, but he is clinging to this religious reference to ride his magic carpet far.  I would say that is screaming hypocrisy. 

Democrats (radical ones such as yourself) want to keep God out of our government.  It's NOT okay when McCain makes a reference, but oh, yeah, we love whatever Obama gives to us.  Double standard as usual. 

As far as slaughtering his words, I merely took them from the donkey's mouth.  It's up to you to make up your own mind as to whether or not he is your personal savior.  I already have mine, thanks, and He's not running for president. 

Didn't realize you cornered the market.  But, hey, if you want some Bible verses, I can pitch a few of those too.

Sorry if I offended you, but I imagine the OP was perhaps a little offended at your insinuation that she was a paranoid lunatic.  Well, as momma always said, if you can't take the heat...

or

Don't dish it out if you can't eat it.

We aren't living high on the hog, and we've opened our home to those less fortunate. Over the past 25 years, we've had 10 people (friends not strangers) live with us until they could get back on their feet, rent-free, taking none of the money they could make, all meals provided.

Yes, welfare is very backwards, but if I knew of anyone abusing the system, I  would report them.  I don't know anyone on welfare or living in Section 8 housing since I now live in the country. If other people would do that, it would soon straighten out.

at the polling place yesterday.  Then we had a party.  There were only 4 present who voted for Obama and my husband and I were 2 of them.  We had an enjoyable time and on one thing all of us agreed.  ALL of us must get involved if we want to save this country.

I'm glad it's over.

who neatly solved that problem. 

He owned the company and he when quit smoking (or more accurately, he quit buying) any time he wanted a cigarette, he would 'bum' it from one of his employees.  Since O cannot nip out and get a pack of smokes now, maybe he gets by this way.  Would some secret service guy or Whitehouse domestic employee refuse him? 

My old boss should have run for Congress, so out of touch was he with his 'little people.'  Payday was Friday and the checks were locked in his desk until 4:30 Friday afternoon.  (This was to prevent someone from going to the bank at lunch and never returning, I guess.)  And I might add this was back when bankers hours were truly that, not open until 6 on Friday, and until noon Saturday. 

Trouble was, sometimes he would not return from lunch, or at all on Friday, so we did not get paid until Monday.  But he helpfully said that nobody should be living so hand-to-mouth that they absolutely needed their 2-week check before the weekend.  I mean, if you can't go to the grocery and therefore cannot feed your kids, you obviously are not budgeting properly.  Another neat solution, don't you think?  If only I had listened to this man, I would be wealthy today.

at McDonald's for 4 1/2 years? He couldn't get another job and wanted to know what O was going to do about it. I was absolutely shocked!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TptsP4ryido&feature=related

and collects SSD for his "mental illness." He checks himself into a state hospital when it comes close to the time when he has a review coming up. This is what I heard from my son, so I don't know how true it is, but I do know that he is healthy and doesn't seem to have any mental health issues.

His one brother is on disability because he was on the drugs so much, they fried his brain and another brother had cirrhosis. He couldn't get help and died.

So why do you keep trying to demonize the Democrats.  Both parties made compromises - I believe the Democrats initially wanted about $20 billion more for the program, but they negotiated with the Republicans to secure their votes.

You seem so worried about the cigarette tax not covering the program, and yet what we spend in Iraq in a day would cover the S-CHIP program for a year.  The money is there, but people don't want to make it a priority.

Why is it so hard for you to believe that Democrats that voted yes on the bill (and don't forgot some Republicans did too) actually CARE ABOUT THE CHILDREN?  Is it so hard to believe that they actually want to do something to help kids?  I'm glad they are getting headlines, not because they are against Bush, because really - could public opinion get any worse for him?  I am glad because this is an issue that needs TONS of attention drawn to it.  I don't really care if more people dislike Bush over this issue.  People who like him will continue to and people who don't will continue not to like him.  I see bad headlines about him every week, but that is not my concern.  My concern is affordable healthcare for all children, no matter how high or low their parents' income level is.

that we have and WE should decide who to give it to, not Nobama. We are living the American Dream and will be penalized for it. If your child got all A's in school and the teacher told you that some kids got C's and B's and your child would have to give up some of their A's so the others would be on equal ground, would you object? Probably so. There is no incentive in socialism to work hard to acheive things when you can have the gov't provide everything for you. Don't you people know that you are playing right into the hand's of more gov't? You are being fed a bunch of lies and you won't even realize it until it is too late.

for 30 years at GM.  He was a salvage worker so he wasn't one of those guys who sat on his butt all day long making a ridiculous amount of money.  My dad retired in his 60s because his health didn't allow him to continue working or he would have.  I know how unions work and how they "protect" the employees.  I've also seen the proven statistics about how non-union states are more production and have higher job growth and as far as protecting your job.....no ones job is protected especially nowadays.  People are getting fired left and right so where is the protection.  What good was that auto bailout when all that money pretty much went to pay off the unions.  Unions are nothing but democratic pushed BS. 

Here is a tad bit on unions:

The truth is that unions are essentially parasitic organizations that thrive only by draining and ultimately destroying the companies and industries they control. The essential goal of the unions is to compel the payment of higher wages for the performance of less work and less productive work. Unions are notorious for their hostility to labor saving machinery and to any form of competition among workers, for featherbedding practices, indeed, for “making work” by deliberately and arbitrarily increasing the number of workers required to accomplish a given task and sometimes even by compelling the disassembly or destruction of products already produced.

It should be no wonder that the percentage of the labor force controlled by unions tends progressively to decline. Where the unions hold sway, companies cannot compete. Their market share falls and they ultimately go bankrupt. The only way that unions can maintain any given share of the labor force is by finding new victims to replace the ones they have sucked dry. The finding of new victims, by means of new government intervention is the unstated agenda of  Mr. Stern, Ms. Milkman, and The New York Times.

The actual effects of labor unions are arbitrary inequalities in wage rates, mass unemployment, and substantially lower real wages for the average worker. Labor unions are aptly described as a leading vehicle of what von Mises called “destructionism.”

Whenever a union succeeds in obtaining above market wage rates for its members, it also reduces  the number of workers who can be employed in its field. This is because of the operation of one of the best established principles of economics: Namely, the higher the price of anything, including the wage of any kind of labor, the smaller is the quantity demanded of that good or labor service.

Thus, workers who could have been employed in the lines controlled by labor unions are instead displaced and forced to seek work elsewhere. The added competition of these workers in other lines then serves either to depress wage rates in those other lines, thereby resulting in an arbitrary, union-imposed inequality in wage rates, or, if those other lines are also unionized or are forced to pay union wages in order to avoid becoming unionized (which is often the case), to cause still other workers to be displaced. It should be clear that to the extent that the effect of union activity is to depress wage rates in other fields, the union slogan “Live Better, Work Union” turns out to mean “Live Better by Forcing Other Workers to Live Worse.”

If wage rates in all lines of work are forced above the free-market level either because labor unions are able to impose their wage scales everywhere, or because upward union pressure on wage rates is joined by minimum-wage legislation, the effect is mass unemployment. In this case, there is simply no branch of the economic system that is allowed to pay wage rates low enough to make possible the absorption of workers displaced from elsewhere by the imposition of union wages. The result is the kind of situation presently existing in France and Germany, where unemployment is in excess of ten percent. And, of course, the cost of supporting the masses of unemployed falls mainly on the workers who manage to keep their jobs. Here higher taxes are their reward for “working union.”

For the full article:  http://mises.org/story/1861