New bill to clear way for Congree to sue Bush for signing statements.sm
Posted By: LVMT on 2006-07-26
In Reply to:
http://www.fox21.com/Global/story.asp?S=5191362&nav=2KPp
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
Bush irresponsible statements
The other night I just about choked when Bush made that statement about WWIII. If that was not the most irresponsible statement by a world leader then I dont know what was..well, maybe the statement he made a while ago about bring it on or the approved post by the WH Mission accomplished. Throwing around words like WWIII can cause nothing but angst and make other countries get ready for WWIII. It is like stating in a marriage the word dirvoce, once it is out there, the questions and doubts arise.
The only clear posts are the Bush bashes. Go figure. nm
nm
Did Bush actually say he was against this bill
Do you have a link to an article or anything where he states that? I agree with you to some extent on that point. My only issue is that within the 6 months it takes to get a different bill ready to go kids in middle-income and lower-middle-income families with be spending another 1/2 year without health insurance, and what if the new bill gets held up for some reason - then it's just more waiting for something I think we should have had long ago - access to affordable heath insurance for America's kids. Poor people are already receiving free healthcare on Medicaid, obviously, but many middle-class children are slipping through the cracks. I just didn't see any articles where Bush said the illegal immigrants were part of the reason he was vetoing the bill. He always seems to be saying positive things about the hispanic community in generaly because he seems to want the hispanic vote (for his party).
I think all presidents are given too much power. Hundreds of representatives that we took the time and effort to vote for can have their bill vetoed by 1 guy with entirely too much power. A decent number of Republicans voted for the expansion to the SCHIP bill as well, and I definitely applaud their courage to go against their leader. If the plan is so seriously flawed, then why did those Republicans feel so passionate about voting for it and trying to talk the President into signing it? If the bill is allowing tons of immigrants onto it, then that is an issue, but aren't illegals getting hoards of free healthcare already just because they are poor? I don't want them to get free healthcare, but it seems like they are already, so is this issue really the best battleground to fight the illegals, or is this just a symptom of a far greater problem that needs to be dealt with on a greater scale? I just don't want the fact that illegals are sneaking onto the SCHIP program to be the only reason we don't pass the bill. If illegals receive a free hospital stay should we close down the whole hospital? Of course not. Maybe not the greatest analogy, but I think you get what I'm saying. If you do have a link to an article I would be happy to read it, as I want to know as much about this issue as possible.
Uh oh.......Bill Clinton, not BUSH
xx
I'm sad but not surprised. Bill was vetoed by Bush.
The president used the 4th veto of his presidency to veto the Children's Health Insurance Plan expansion. I do find it incredibly sad that we can spend 333 million dollars per day on the war in Iraq, but we can't spend 19 million on children's health care. We also spend insane amounts of money on numerous other programs that I consider waaaaay less important than affordable healthcare.
I knew I shouldn't get my hopes up since the President had promised to veto the bill, but I did and now I just feel like crying. I'm devastated and feel like the "bad guys" are winning and the good people and children are losing. What happened to caring about your neighbor? The world is an incredibly depressing place, and I already know that, but I think we have an obligation to make life as good as possible for the kids here. They don't choose what income level their parents are, but sadly whether or not they afford the best healtcare depends on it.
I can't wait until January of 2009. Maybe then my country will stop looking so much like a dictatorship and a little more like a democracy. I'm sick of one little guy with a big case of little-man's syndrome holding all the power and abusing it to a disgusting, appalling degree. When you conservatives come on here to defend your precious President Bush, it will not affect me in the slightest. I will only feel bad that you have been brainwashed by such a complete jerk and waste of oxygen.
you got Bush mixed up with Bill Clinton...it was....(sm)
all Clinton's cronies who ended up on Wall Street, FM/FM, etc., in charge, who were still there when everything tanked.....Clinton's cronies have profited, not Bush's
Bush Flip Flops on Immigration Bill...sm
Sensenbrenner: Bush Turned Back on Bill
Key House Republican Jim Sensenbrenner says Bush turned his back on immigration bill
WASHINGTON, May. 17, 2006
By FREDERIC J. FROMMER Associated Press Writer
 (AP) |
|
(AP) Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, who has pushed a tough border security bill through the House, accused President Bush on Wednesday of abandoning the legislation after asking for many of its provisions.
He basically turned his back on provisions of the House-passed bill, a lot of which we were requested to put in the bill by the White House, Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., angrily told reporters in a conference call. That was last fall when we were drafting the bill, and now the president appears not to be interested in it at all.
Sensenbrenner chairs the House Judiciary Committee and would be the House's chief negotiator on any final immigration package for Bush's signature. He said it was the White House that had requested two controversial felony provisions in the bill the House passed last winter.
We worked very closely with White House in the fall in putting together the border security bill that the House passed, he said. ... What we heard in November and December, he seems to be going in the opposite direction in May. That is really at the crux of this irritation, he said of Bush.
Who's REALLY signing up for the military these days.
Military's Recruiting Troubles Extend to Affluent War Supporters
By Terry M. Neal
washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Monday, August 22, 2005; 8:00 AM
There was an eye-opening article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette a few days ago that explored the increasing difficulty the military is having recruiting young people to enlist. As has been well reported in many newspapers, including The Washington Post, the Army and Marines are having a particularly tough time meeting recruitment objectives, in part because of Americans' concern about the war in Iraq.
When you dig deeper into the reason for this phenomenon, it turns out that parents of potential soldiers and sailors are becoming one of the biggest obstacles facing military recruiters. Even top military officials acknowledge this and unveiled a new series of ads this spring targeted at influencers such as parents, teachers and coaches.
But the Post-Gazette raises another issue. There has been much talk about the relationship between race and ethnicity and military recruitment. But what about social and economic class? Are wealthier Americans, who are more likely to be Republicans and therefore more likely to support the war, stepping up to the plate and urging their children and others from their communities to enlist?
Unfortunately, there has been no definitive study on this subject. But it appears that the affluent are not encouraging their children and peers to join the war effort on the battlefield.
The writer of the Post-Gazette article, Jack Kelly, explored this question in his story that ran on Aug. 11. Kelly wrote of a Marine recruiter, Staff Sgt. Jason Rivera, who went to an affluent suburb outside of Pittsburgh to follow up with a young man who had expressed interest in enlisting. He pulled up to a house with American flags displayed in the yard. The mother came to the door in an American flag T-shirt and openly declared her support for the troops.
But she made it clear that her support only went so far.
Military service isn't for our son, she told Rivera. It isn't for our kind of people.
The Post-Gazette piece focused on parental disapproval of military recruitment efforts, and dealt only tangentially with the larger question of class. What we do know is that recruiting is down across the board and that both the Army and Marines have fallen significantly behind their recruiting goals.
This is what the Army's hired advertising company, Leo Burnett, had to say about the ads targeting influencers that it began running in April: Titled 'Dinner Conversation,' 'Two Things,' 'Good Training' and 'Listening' (Spanish-language ad), the commercials portray moments ranging from a son telling his mother he's found someone to pay for college, to a father praising his son who has just returned from Basic Training for the positive ways in which he's changed. They capture the questions, hopes and concerns parents have about a career serving the United States of America and include families from many different backgrounds.
I asked Army spokeswoman Maj. Elizabeth Robbins for further explanation on the intent of the ads.
Clearly it was to talk to influencers, she said. She said studies have shown that today's young people yearn to serve their country in one way or another. The problem is that today the people who influence their decisions are less likely than they were in past generations to recommend [military service].
Why?
In part because the economy is strong, said Robbins. In part because they are concerned about the war. And in part because fewer of them have a direct relationship with the military or have ever served.
So would it be logical to conclude that, if the strong economy is one of the reasons it is more difficult to recruit, the most affluent parents should be the most difficult to reach? After all, their children have more options, including college, than less affluent parents? And if that's true, isn't it somewhat ironic that the military is paying millions of dollars ultimately to influence the behavior of the parents who are among the most likely to be supportive of the war in Iraq?
I disagree with your premise, Robbins said, arguing that the military is represented strongly across the board by people of all income levels and faces challenges in recruiting at all income levels.
Referring to the Post-Gazette anecdote, she said, One woman saying stupid things does not a trend make.
Actually, I did have a premise, but it wasn't unshakable. But because neither the Army nor the Defense Department keeps detailed information about the household incomes of the people who join, it was not easy to prove or disprove.
So let's approach the issue this way: In the 2004 election, household income was a pretty decent indicator of how one might vote. Voters from households making more than $50,000 a year favored Bush 56 percent to 43 percent. Voters making $50,000 or less favored Kerry 55 to 44 percent. Median household income as of 2003 was $43,318, according to the U.S. Census.
The wealthier you become, apparently, the more likely you are to vote Republican. The GOP advantage grows more pronounced for people from households making more than $100,000. People from households with incomes exceeding that amount voted for Bush over Kerry by 58 percent to 41 percent. Those from households making less than $100,000 favored Kerry over Bush 51 to 49 percent. And nearly two-thirds of voters from households making more than $200,000 favored Bush over Kerry.
Those making more than $100,000 made up only 18 percent of the electorate, which explains why Bush won by a narrow 2.5 percentage points in the general election.
This raises all sorts of complicated socioeconomic questions, such as whether the rich expect others to fight their wars for them. Or, asked another way, are they more likely to support the war in Iraq because their families are less likely to carry part of the burden?
Certainly, there are no absolutes here. Many of the wealthy are Democrats, some of whom support the war. Some of whom oppose it. Many of the poor and working class are Republicans, and support the GOP on Iraq.
By looking at long-term trends, it seems logical that some of those most likely to support Bush and his Iraq policy are also those least likely to encourage their children to go into the military at wartime. And it raises questions, such as, if you are among those most likely to support the war, shouldn't you be among those most likely to encourage your child to serve in the military? Shouldn't your socioeconomic group be the most receptive to the recruiters' call? And would there be a recruitment problem at all if the affluent put their money where their mouth is?
Several social scientists have studied the question of economics and class in military enlistment. Many of these studies don't look at the officer ranks, which might tend to counter some of the class argument. But officers, of course, make up a relatively small portion of the military.
Among the more recent studies was one done last year by Robert Cushing, a retired professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin. He tracked those who died in Iraq by geography and found that whites from small, mostly poor, rural areas made up a disproportionately large percentage of the casualties in Iraq.
I talked to two other academicians who have studied the issue. Their conclusions, though reached prior to the war in Iraq, were helpful because of their understanding of the historical implications of the class question.
David R. Segal, director of the Center for Research on Military Organizations at the University of Maryland, said contrary to conventional wisdom both the poorest and the wealthiest people are underrepresented at the bottom of the military ranks, for completely different reasons. This trend held for both from the conscription years of Vietnam through at least the late 1990s.
Poorer people, he said, are likely to be kept out of the military by a range of factors, including higher likelihood of having a criminal record or academic deficiencies or health problems.
Back during Vietnam, the top [economic class] had access for means of staying out of the military, said Segal. The National Guard was known to be a well-to-do white man's club back then. People knew if you if joined the guard you weren't going to go to Vietnam. That included people like Dan Quayle and our current commander in chief. If you were rich, you might have found it easier to get a doctor to certify you as having a condition that precluded you from service. You could get a medical deferment with braces on your teeth, so you would go get braces -- something that was very expensive back then. The wealthy had more access to educational and occupational deferments.
Today's affluent merely see themselves as having more options and are not as enticed by financial incentives, such as money for college, Segal said.
The Army was able to provide socioeconomic data only for the 2002 fiscal year. Its numbers confirm Segal's findings that service members in the highest and lowest income brackets are underrepresented, but because those numbers chronicle enlistments in the year immediately following the 2001 terrorist attacks, it's difficult to ascertain whether this was a normal recruiting year.
Segal and Jerald G. Bachman, a research professor at the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research, have studied the correlation between a parental education levels and likelihood for their offspring to enlist.
Examining data from early to mid-1990s, they created five categories, with one being the lowest level. Perhaps not surprisingly, they found the children of the most-educated parents -- those with post-graduate degrees -- were the least likely to join the military. The children of parents with high school diplomas were three times more likely to enlist.
One of the interesting phenomenon of today's politics is that, in general, Republicans tend to be more educated on average than Democrats, with a larger percentage either holding a bachelor's degree or having attended some college. But Democrats represent a larger portion of the super-educated -- that is, those holding graduate degrees. So Democrats are made up of the least and the most educated, with Republicans congregated largely near, but not at, the top.
So how did those near the top of the educational tree do in Segal's and Bachman's study? They were half as likely as those in group two to enlist. And because there are far more people who have been to college or have bachelor's degrees than there are people who have post-graduate degrees, the former group has far more political influence, just in sheer numbers.
While there have been changes in racial and ethnic enlistment trends, with the number of black recruits dropping precipitously since the Iraq war, Segal and Bachman said they've seen nothing to indicate significant changes in the class -- of which education levels is a prime indicator -- trends in the military.
Journalists can get themselves in trouble by drawing simplistic conclusions based on less-than-exhaustive research, and we won't do so here. But we can at least raise the question of whether the rich are more likely to support the war because their loved ones are less likely to die in it.
Comments can be sent to Terry Neal at commentsforneal@washingtonpost.com.
© 2005 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive
He saw it coming while Clinton was signing
xx
Obama had no trouble signing 5 executive orders
if he is so opposed to bombing Pakistan, why did he give the order to do so? US drones bombing Pakistan. He is now in charge.....Bush can't call those shots.
Like I said, as long as Dems are in control, they suddenly have no problem with bombing ANYONE......just goes to show you what they will be doing to this country........just bend over and take it like a good little girl
Senate Armed Services defies Bush; Passes its own terrorism tribunal bill.
Bush should be grateful for this (even though he will probably ignore it, as usual), as the day may come when HE faces charges as a war criminal, and he would demand and be entitled to the same due process under the law.
Senate Armed Services Committee defies Bush; Passes its own terrorism tribunal bill
09/14/2006 @ 3:41 pm
Filed by RAW STORY
The Senate Armed Services Committee defied President Bush today by passing its own terrorism tribunal bill to protect the rights of terror detainees.
Four of the 13 Republicans on the panel joined the 11 Democrats to pass their version of the measure, rejecting Bush's proposal to bar defendants from seeing classified evidence prosecutors may want to use in court, reports Bloomberg News.
The four Republicans acted against the White House today only a few hours after the president paid a rare visit to Capitol Hill in order to personally lobby House members to support his plan.
President Bush visited Capitol Hill Thursday where he conferred behind closed doors with House Republicans on legislation to give the government more power to spy on, imprison and interrogate terrorism suspects, reported the Associated Press earlier today.
Bush told reporters later at the White House that he would resist any bill that does not enable this program to go forward with legal clarity.
The bill passed by the Senate panel had been drafted by Republican Senators John McCain, Lindsey O. Graham, and Chairman John Warner. Senator Susan M. Collins was the fourth Republican to vote for the bill.
Voting 15-9, the Senate Armed Services Committee approved the bill they said would provide suspects more legal rights than Bush wanted and resisted his attempt to more narrowly define the Geneva Conventions' standards for humane treatment of prisoners, reports Reuters.
Earlier today, former Secretary of State Colin Powell wrote a letter to Republican Senator John McCain (video link), supporting his opposition to the president's plan which would redefine the legal definitions in Article 3 of the Geneva Convention.
The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism, Powell wrote McCain. To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk.
REPUBLICANS
John Warner (Virginia) Chairman
John McCain (Arizona) James M. Inhofe (Oklahoma) Pat Roberts (Kansas) Jeff Sessions (Alabama) Susan M. Collins (Maine) John Ensign (Nevada) James M. Talent (Missouri) Saxby Chambliss (Georgia) Lindsey O. Graham (South Carolina) Elizabeth Dole (North Carolina) John Cornyn (Texas) John Thune (South Dakota)
DEMOCRATS
Carl Levin (Michigan) Ranking Member
Edward M. Kennedy (Massachusetts) Robert C. Byrd (West Virginia) Joseph I. Lieberman (Connecticut) Jack Reed (Rhode Island) Daniel K. Akaka (Hawaii) Bill Nelson (Florida) E. Benjamin Nelson (Nebraska) Mark Dayton (Minnesota) Evan Bayh (Indiana) Hillary Rodham Clinton (New York)
When Bill Clinton was in office, OHHH you better believe Bill and Carter have had..sm
their day of mudslinging matches, at the pleasure of a many conservatives. So, no there's not a double standard here.
Bill Maher Takes On Bill O'Reilly
BILL O'REILLY, HOST: In the "Personal Story" segment tonight, political humorist Bill Maher (search), he has a new book out called "New Rules: Polite Musings from a Timid Observer." Of course, Mr. Maher is about as polite as I am and as timid as Dracula. He joins us now from Los Angeles.
You know, you've had some celebrities on your HBO show, "Real Time," which begins again on Friday, talking about policy and war on terror and stuff like that. I get the feeling they don't know very much, but you do. So I'd like to make Bill Maher, right now, the terror czar. Bill Maher, the terror czar. Could be a series.
How would you fight this War on Terror? How would you fight it?
BILL MAHER, HOST, HBO'S "REAL TIME": I think the first and most important thing is to get the politics out of the War on Terror. You know, maybe I'm a cockeyed optimist, Bill, maybe I'm naive, but I thought that 9/11 was such a jarring event that nobody would dare return to business as usual on that one subject after that.
But of course, we found out that nothing could be further from the truth. And your president, my president too, but the one you voted for...
O'REILLY: You don't know that. Were you looking over my shoulder there? I could have voted for Nader. I could have voted for Kerry, but Kerry wouldn't come on the program, so I wouldn't vote. But I could have gone for Ralph. Ralph's a friend of mine.
MAHER: Yes. Anyway, I said the guy you voted for, President Bush, you know, how come this guy, who was supposed to be such a kick-and-take- names kind of guy, how come he has not been able to get the politics out of this?
You know, as a guy who's been accused of treason, I'll tell you what real treason is: Treason is when legislators vote against homeland security measures because it goes against the wishes of their political or financial backers. Treason is the fact that, as a terrorist, you could still buy a gun in this country because the NRA (search) lobby is so strong.
O'REILLY: OK. But you're getting into the political, and I agree with you. I think that the country should be united in trying to seek out and kill terrorists, who would kill us.
But I'd like to have some concrete things that you, Bill Maher, the terror czar — and take this seriously, this could be a series — what would you do?
All right, so you've got bin Laden. You've got Al Qaeda (search). You've got a bunch of other lower-level terrorist groups. What do you do to neutralize them?
MAHER: OK. Well, first of all, you discounted my answer, which is get the politics out, but OK.
O'REILLY: Well, assume you can do that. They're gone.
MAHER: We'll let that go. Keep going. I wouldn't worry that much about bin Laden. I mean, capturing bin Laden at this point, it doesn't really matter whether he's dead or alive. He's already Tupac to the people who care about him and work for him. Capturing bin Laden, killing him would be like when Ray Kroc died, how much that affected McDonald's.
O'REILLY: It would be a morale booster. But I understand. You're not going to send...
MAHER: A morale booster, right. Well, we've had plenty of morale boosting. We've had plenty of window dressing. What we need is concrete action.
In the book I wrote before this one about terrorism, I suggested that we have a Secret Service for the people. I said whenever the president goes anywhere, he has very high-level, intelligent detectives who look around at a crowd. They know what they're looking for. They're highly paid. They're highly trained.
We don't have that in this country. We should have that. We should have a cadre of 10,000 highly trained people who would guard all public events, bus stations, train stations, airports — and stop with this nonsense that this robotic sort of window dressing...
O'REILLY: OK, so you would create a homeland security office that was basically a security firm for major targets and things like that. It's not a bad idea. Costs a lot of money. Costs a lot of money. It's not a bad idea.
MAHER: Costs a lot of money compared to what? If you paid 10,000 people a salary of $100,000 a year, that would, I think, cost $10 billion or something. That's nothing. There's that much pork in the transportation bill before you get...
O'REILLY: Yes, 10,000 wouldn't do it, but I get your drift.
MAHER: Whatever it costs.
O’REILLY: You would create a super-security apparatus. OK, that's not bad. That's not bad. How about overseas now?
MAHER: What we need to do is what I call get Israeli about this. Because the Israelis are not afraid of profiling. The Israelis are not afraid to bury politics in the greater cause of protecting their nation. We don't act that way. You know, I'm afraid 9/11 really changed nothing.
O'REILLY: Boy, your ACLU (search) pals aren't going to like that. You're going to lose your membership card there.
MAHER: I'm not a member of the ACLU.
O'REILLY: Oh, sure you are, just like I voted for Bush. You're a member of the ACLU. I can see the card right in your pocket there.
MAHER: Bill, I'm not a joiner. I'm not a joiner. I don't like organizations.
O'REILLY: They won't have you, Maher, let's be honest about that. All right, now, in your book, which is very amusing, by the way — if you want a few laughs buy Maher's book.
MAHER: Thank you.
O'REILLY: You take some shots at FOX News, which is your wont, and I just want to know why you think we're so fabulously successful here.
MAHER: Well, I think that question has been answered many times. It's because the conservative viewer in this country, or on radio the conservative listener, is very predictable. They like to hear what they like to hear. They like to hear it over and over again.
O'REILLY: All the surveys show that the viewers are all over the map. They're not conservative in a big bloc. Some of them are moderate. Some of them are Democrats. Some of them are Moroccans. I mean, they're everywhere. That's your analysis? That just the conservatives watch us?
MAHER: Well, I think mostly the conservatives do watch you. That's not to take anything away from what you guys have achieved over there. It's a very well-produced broadcast, and they have excellent personalities like yourself, Bill. Who could resist watching you when you get home from work at night?
O'REILLY: Whoopi Goldberg, maybe? I don't know.
MAHER: Yes.
O'REILLY: Anyone who doesn't watch here is misguided. We identify them as such.
But look, I think there's more to it than — you're in TV. You know the ratings game. I mean, if you don't provide a product that is satisfying people, no matter what your ideology, they tell you to take a hike.
There's a guy over at MSNBC. He's a very conservative guy. He was hired and nobody's watching him. They hire liberals. Nobody watches them. Air America (search). Nobody's listening to it.
I mean, there's got to be a reason why we're No. 1, a punch line for you, and No. 2, you know, becoming the most powerful news network in the world.
MAHER: Well, I think, as I say, it's a well-produced product. You know, your program moves along, always at a clip that never seems to bore. You know, you move along to the next topic, the next guest. It never sort of drags. I don't think a lot of people know how to produce that stuff that way.
O'REILLY: All right. It's bells and whistles and my charming personality. That's what I thought it was.
Last thing: You know, one thing I like about Maher is he's not a hypocrite. He drives a little hybrid vehicle. Right? You putter around there. Does it have training wheels? What's it like?
MAHER: Actually, I had the Prius hybrid for three years. I was one of the first ones to get it right after 9/11. And I traded it in a few months ago for the Lexus hybrid.
O'REILLY: I think we should all cut back on our energy consumption, and I think we should all get these hybrids as fast as we can.
Hey, Bill, always nice to see you. Thanks very much. Good luck with the season on the TV show.
MAHER: Continued success there, Mr. No. 1.
O'REILLY: All right. Thank you.
Watch "The O'Reilly Factor" weeknights at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. ET and listen to the "Radio Factor!"
Content and Programming Copyright 2005 Fox News Network, L.L.C. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2005 eMediaMillWorks, Inc. (f/k/a Federal Document Clearing House, Inc.), which takes sole responsibility for the accuracy of the transcription. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material except for the user's personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon Fox News Network, L.L.C.'s and eMediaMillWorks, Inc.'s copyrights or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.
Bill Clinton and his ties to India (yes, Bill),...
and China (yes, Bill) sent a lot of our jobs their way. Google it some time. Even I was amazed.
Look, it is simple economics. The big bad corporations everyone hates...first of all, it is not 5 or 6 rich guys and that's it. They employee thousands of people just like us...and when the government puts those huge taxes on them, if they want to stay in business, they are forced to move offshore. Higher taxes are responsible for more jobs going overseas than "greed." The DNC has told its members for years that "corporations" and "the rich" are the cause of all their problems and they have bought that Marxist rhetoric hook, line, and sinker. Corporations are not the cause of ill in this country. They are the backbone of the economy in this country. That is simple economics 101. And I am certainly not rich...and I certainly am not on the upper echelon of a corporation, but I do understand reality and I understand how the economy works. Yes, there is wrongdoing by some upper level folks in corporations. There is wrongdoing in the government. Where there is power, there will be wrongdoing. But for every Enron there are thousands of other good, solid companies that employ thousands of Americans, but the DNC does not share the success stories, because it does not promote their agenda. In order to control people they want them beholden to government and hating free enterprise. They want big government, total power, and control. And following Alinksy's program...you have to instill class warfare. You have to make corporations the enemy. You have to make classes envy the next rung up. Classic Marxist socialism. It is being played out in this country every day.
It is just that some of us have not bought the myth and jumped on the socialism train.
Did you read the bill? It was a regulatory reform bill...
asking them to regulate, not de-regulate. But Democrats blocked it...no wonder. Fannie was greasing a lot of Democratic palms...and Frederick Raines, the Dem CEO at the time...was in the Clinton administration. They were taking care of their own...and we are paying for it.
if abe is on the $5 bill & george is on the $1 bill, what is Obama on?
****censored****
Sorry, CJ...it is not as clear to me as it is to you..
that John McCain wants to continue fighting anywhere. What John McCain understands is that you cannot reason with some people (including terrorists) because they have no interest in getting along. That is not their agenda. They want us dead and our way of life dead. That is not going to change by sitting down and talking to them.
Seriously, I believe that all the things that enable a person to endure such torture over an extended period of time builds character and traits that are essential to leadership. So if you put 5 years in a prison camp up next to 4 years as a senator (2 of those at state level) where you voted present when you voted...then yes. I think 5 years in a prison camp plus serving as a military officer and commanding hundreds of soldiers makes him more qualified than Obama on the face of it...at the very least, AS qualified. And, at the very least, it demonstrates to me that John McCain puts his country first, even before himself. And to me, friend, that speaks volumes.
Obviously I was not clear enough either...
you could always ask where someone stands on a ban on gay marriage without asking how they VOTED on an issue.
I have not seen that many people on this board who were really invested in gay marriage.
If you're not gay and you don't live there...not sure why it matters to you so much? What anyone thinks?
Oh no, you have been quite clear,
and throughout this discussion you have been very cordial (I do apologize for the momentary snapishness in my last post.) Nor in your most recent post did you sink to the level of saying 'I will type slower - or use smaller words - so you can understand.' However, when someone tells me that my argument lacks merit because I do not truly understand the problem or have not thought the implications through, it brings out a bit of bitchiness in me. It is the same reaction I have when I read posts on this board saying that those who listen to Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, etc., are being manipulated and not thinking for ourselves. (I actually consider myself a conservative, strangely enough.)
I think you do see and maybe even understand my point, as I see and feel I get where you are coming from. We see, but will have to agree to disagree.
I do not pretend that legalizing marijuana will make the world a better place, only that it will make our laws more consistent. The legality of alcohol and tobacco while marijuana remains illegal is very inconsistent. And I think the bottle no longer contains that particular genie (if it ever did). The criminalization of such behavior creates small criminals and enriches bigger criminals.
You say 'I wish no one took any mind-altering substances of any kind.' Does this mean you are a teetotaler and not somebody who enjoys a brewski on a summer day after mowing the lawn, maybe a glass of wine with dinner, as I do?
I think kids hear their government, teachers and parents painting marijuana as the 'demon killer weed' which opens the floodgates to all other substance abuse. Smoke a joint, die with a needle in your arm. Then they watch those same adults drink legal alcohol, smoke legal cigarettes, overuse prescription drugs and they see the entire thing as yet another example of extreme phoniness.
Maybe some people will try legalized marijuana who never did when it was illegal. Maybe, deprived of its mystique and the element of rebellion, fewer kids will need to act out in that particular way. If alcohol were illegal for everyone and their parents were committing a criminal act just to obtain it (which you know they would do) would fewer or more teenagers use it? If a kid walking into a 'speakeasy' were no more or less illegal than his parents doing it, what would be the result? Interesting question.
And now I am going to offer you something a woman seldom does - the last word. The final post can be yours. I've said my piece.
So clear this up for me
The man who rapes and kills a young child, but truly believes in Jesus, acknowledges that what he did was wrong and a violation of both God's law and man's law...this man gets into heaven. The Jewish man, who spent his life working hard, raising his family to be wonderful human beings, donated regularly to the American Heart Association, and volunteered his time in an inner city school in a literacy program...he is doomed?
And I refer to myself as a heathen because I believe that it is my character and the life I have lived here that will determine my entrance to heaven, not my belief in Jesus's death and resurrection. Of course, maybe I'm just pragmatic. Just in case the Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, or even the Native Americans have it right, I'd like to think I've still got a chance at getting past St. Peter or whoever their respective gatekepper is.
So clear this up for me
The man who rapes and kills a young child, but truly believes in Jesus, acknowledges that what he did was wrong and a violation of both God's law and man's law...this man gets into heaven. The Jewish man, who spent his life working hard, raising his family to be wonderful human beings, donated regularly to the American Heart Association, and volunteered his time in an inner city school in a literacy program...he is doomed?
And I refer to myself as a heathen because I believe that it is my character and the life I have lived here that will determine my entrance to heaven, not my belief in Jesus's death and resurrection. Of course, maybe I'm just pragmatic. Just in case the Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, or even the Native Americans have it right, I'd like to think I've still got a chance at getting past St. Peter or whoever their respective gatekeeper is.
If it is all clear cut that
Pelosi told the truth and the CIA is, in fact, lying....why not just let the investigation go on so the dems could tell the GOP to stick it and prove once and for all who was involved and who is lying, etc. If Pelosi is telling the truth, which I highly doubt, there should be no reason to avoid an investigation.
statements from neocons
Read at your own risk..make sure you have a puke bucket close by.
Quotes from the The American Taliban
Ann Coulter |
|
"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."
"Not all Muslims may be terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims."
"Being nice to people is, in fact, one of the incidental tenets of Christianity, as opposed to other religions whose tenets are more along the lines of 'kill everyone who doesn't smell bad and doesn't answer to the name Mohammed'"
|
Bailey Smith |
"With all due respect to those dear people, my friend, God Almighty does not hear the prayer of a Jew."
|
|
Beverly LaHaye (Concerned Women for America) |
|
"Yes, religion and politics do mix. America is a nation based on biblical principles. Christian values dominate our government. The test of those values is the Bible. Politicians who do not use the bible to guide their public and private lives do not belong in office."
|
Bob Dornan (Rep. R-CA) |
"Don't use the word 'gay' unless it's an acronym for 'Got Aids Yet'"
|
|
David Barton (Wallbuilders) |
|
"There should be absolutely no 'Separation of Church and State' in America."
|
David Trosch |
"Sodomy is a graver sin than murder. – Unless there is life there can be no murder."
|
|
Fob James (Governor of Alabama) |
|
"Behind this judicial wall of separation there is a tyranny of lies that will fall... I say to you, my friends, let it fall!"
"A good butt-whipping and then a prayer is a wonderful remedy."
|
Fred Phelps (Westboro Baptist Church) |
"If you got to castrate your miserable self with a piece of rusty barb wire, do it."
"Hear the word of the LORD, America, fag-enablers are worse than the fags themselves, and will be punished in the everlasting lake of fire!"
"You telling these miserable, Hell-bound, bath house-wallowing, anal-copulating fags that God loves them!? You have bats in the belfry!"
"American Veterans are to blame for the fag takeover of this nation. They have the power in their political lobby to influence the zeitgeist, get the fags out of the military, and back in the closet where they belong!"
"Not only is homosexuality a sin, but anyone who supports fags is just as guilty as they are. You are both worthy of death."
|
|
Gary Bauer (American Values) |
|
"We are engaged in a social, political, and cultural war. There's a lot of talk in America about pluralism. But the bottom line is somebody's values will prevail. And the winner gets the right to teach our children what to believe."
|
Gary North (Institute for Christian Economics) |
"The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to His Church's public marks of the covenant–baptism and holy communion–must be denied citizenship."
"This is God's world, not Satan's. Christians are the lawful heirs, not non-Christians."
|
|
Gary Potter (Catholics for Christian Political Action) |
|
"When the Christian majority takes over this country, there will be no satanic churches, no more free distribution of pornography, no more talk of rights for homosexuals. After the Christian majority takes control, pluralism will be seen as immoral and evil and the state will not permit anybody the right to practice evil."
|
George Bush Sr. (President of the United States) |
"I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
|
|
George W. Bush (President of the United States) |
|
"I don't think that witchcraft is a religion. I wish the military would rethink this decision."*
"God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."
"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
"This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while."
|
*Comment about Wiccans in the military
|
Henry Morris (Institute for Creation Research) |
"When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data."
|
|
J. B. Stoner (White Supremacist) |
|
"We had lost the fight for the preservation of the white race until God himself intervened in earthly affairs with AIDS to rescue and preserve the white race that he had created.... I praise God all the time for AIDS."
"AIDS is a racial disease of Jews and Niggers, and fortunately it is wiping out the queers. I guess God hates queers for several reasons. There is one big reason to be against queers and that is because every time some white boy is seduced by a queer into becoming a queer, means his white bloodline has run out."
|
James Dobson (Focus on the Family) |
"Those who control the access to the minds of children will set the agenda for the future of the nation and the future of the western world."
"State Universities are breeding grounds, quite literally, for sexually transmitted diseases (including HIV), homosexual behavior, unwanted pregnancies, abortions, alcoholism, and drug abuse."
"Today's children... They're damned. They're gone."
|
|
James Kennedy (Center for Reclaiming America) |
|
"The Christian community has a golden opportunity to train an army of dedicated teachers who can invade the public school classrooms and use them to influence the nation for Christ."
|
James Watt (Secretary of the Interior) |
"We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand."*
|
|
*Secretary of the Interior in the Reagan Admin. Responsible for National Policy regarding the Environment
|
Jay Grimstead (Coalition on Revival) |
|
"We are to make Bible-obeying disciples of anybody that gets in our way."
|
Jerry Falwell |
"We're fighting against humanism, we're fighting against liberalism...we are fighting against all the systems of Satan that are destroying our nation today...our battle is with Satan himself."
"AIDS is the wrath of a just God against homosexuals. To oppose it would be like an Israelite jumping in the Red Sea to save one of Pharoah's chariotters."
"The Bible is the inerrant ... word of the living God. It is absolutely infallible, without error in all matters pertaining to faith and practice, as well as in areas such as geography, science, history, etc."
"AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals."
"If you're not a born-again Christian, you're a failure as a human being."
|
|
Jesse Helms (Sen. R-NC) |
|
"The New York Times and Washington Post are both infested with homosexuals themselves. Just about every person down there is a homosexual or lesbian."
"All Latins are volatile people. Hence, I was not surprised at the volatile reaction."
"Your tax dollars are being used to pay for grade-school classes that teach our children that cannibalism, wife-swapping and murder of infants and the elderly are acceptable behavior."
"Homosexuals are weak, morally sick wretches."
|
Jimmy Swaggart (Jimmy Swaggart Ministries) |
"The Media is ruled by Satan. But yet I wonder if many Christians fully understand that. Also, will they believe what the Media says, considering that its aim is to steal, kill, and destroy?"
"Sex education classes in our public schools are promoting incest."
"Evolution is a bankrupt speculative philosophy, not a scientific fact. Only a spiritually bankrupt society could ever believe it...Only atheists could accept this Satanic theory."
|
|
John Ashcroft (Attorney General) |
|
"Civilized people – Muslims, Christians, and Jews – all understand that the source of freedom and human dignity is the Creator."
|
John Whitehead (Rutherford Institute) |
"The [Supreme] Court, by seeking to equate Christianity with other religions, merely assaults the one faith. The Court in essence is assailing the true God by democratizing the Christian religion."
|
|
Joseph McCarthy (Sen. R-WI) |
|
"Today we are engaged in a final, all-out battle between Communistic Atheism and Christianity."
|
Joseph Morecraft (Chalcedon Presbyterian Church) |
"Nobody has the right to worship on this planet any other God than Jehovah. And therefore the state does not have the responsibility to defend anybody's pseudo-right to worship an idol."
|
|
Joseph Scheidler (Pro-Life Action League) |
|
"I would like to outlaw contraception...contraception is disgusting – people using each other for pleasure."*
|
*I get the distinct impression that Mr. Scheidler's poor wife isn't guilty of feeling any pleasure…
|
Kay O'Connor (Kansas Senate Republican) |
"I'm an old-fashioned woman. Men should take care of women, and if men were taking care of women today, we wouldn't have to vote."
|
|
Keith A. Fournier (Catholic Way) |
|
"We need a legal strategy which protects the rights of those of us who hold Christian convictions which will afford us the opportunity to contend once again for the mind of this culture."
|
Laura Schlessinger |
"I want to coin a phrase here, and I don't mind help. What would be the communication version of "ethnic cleansing?" Because that's what in particular the homosexual activists try to do."
|
|
Lester Roloff (Texas Homes for Wayward Youth) |
|
"Better a pink bottom than a black soul."*
|
*Roloff opened a chain of homes for "wayward" youth in the state of Texas; he was later jailed in 1973 and again in 1975 for child abuse due to the punitive punishment techniques used in his homes. He would have been finished had he not of been specifically given permision to re-open his homes by, you guested it, Governor George W Bush.
|
Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin |
“George Bush was not elected by a majority of the voters in the United States, he was appointed by God.”
|
|
Pat Buchanan (Presidential Candidate) |
|
"Our culture is superior. Our culture is superior because our religion is Christianity and that is the truth that makes men free."
"There were no politics to polarize us then, to magnify every slight. The "negroes" of Washington had their public schools, restaurants, bars, movie houses, playgrounds and churches; and we had ours."
"Rail as they will about 'discrimination,' women are simply not endowed by nature with the same measures of single-minded ambition and the will to succeed in the fiercely competitive world of Western capitalism."
|
Pat Robertson (Christian Coalition) |
"The Islamic people, the Arabs, were the ones who captured Africans, put them in slavery, and sent them to America as slaves. Why would the people in America want to embrace the religion of slavers."
"Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It's no different...More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history."
"When lawlessness is abroad in the land, the same thing will happen here that happened in Nazi Germany. Many of those people involved with Adolph Hitler were Satanists, many of them were homosexuals – the two things seem to go together."
"The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians."
"You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense, I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist."
"I know this is painful for the ladies to hear, but if you get married, you have accepted the headship of a man, your husband. Christ is the head of the household and the husband is the head of the wife, and that's the way it is, period."
"[Homosexuals] want to come into churches and disrupt church services and throw blood all around and try to give people AIDS and spit in the face of ministers."
"[Planned Parenthood] is teaching kids to fornicate, teaching people to have adultery, every kind of bestiality, homosexuality, lesbianism – everything that the Bible condemns."
|
|
Patrick Mahoney (Christian Defense Coalition) |
|
"It is deeply troubling to have an appointed, unelected commission remove an elected official from office [Roy Moore]. The Court of Judiciary has overturned an election and crushed the democratic process through their actions."*
|
*Interesting perspective coming from someone who's President was appointed by a group of "unelected judges", thus overturning a democratic election.
|
Paul Cameron |
"I think that actually AIDS is a guardian. That is I think it was sent, if you would, about forty years ago, to destroy Western civilization unless we change our sexual ways. So it's really a Godsend."
"Homosexuality is a crime against humanity."
"Causes of homosexuality include: 'sex with animals'"*
"Unless we get medically lucky, in three or four years, one of the options discussed will be the extermination of homosexuals."
|
|
*Paul Cameron was discharged from the American Psychological Association, the Nebraska Psychological Association, and the American Sociological Association due to his unethical practices and biased research regarding Homosexuals. His "research" has since been discredited by the scientific community; however his work is still referenced by many fundamentalist organizations as credible.
|
Randall Terry (Operation Rescue) |
|
"I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good...Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a biblical duty, we are called by God to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism."
"Our goal must be simple. We must have a Christian nation built on God's law, on the ten Commandments. No apologies."
"I don't think Christians should use birth control. You consummate your marriage as often as you like – and if you have babies, you have babies."
"When I, or people like me, are running the country, you'd better flee, because we will find you, we will try you, and we'll execute you. I mean every word of it. I will make it part of my mission to see to it that they are tried and executed."*
"There is going to be war, [and Christians may be called to] take up the sword to overthrow the tyrannical regime that oppresses them."
|
*It is interesting to note that Randell Terry's son is Gay
|
Jerry Vines (Southern Baptist Convention) |
"They would have us believe that Islam is just as good as Christianity. Christianity was founded by the virgin-born son of God, Jesus Christ. Islam was founded by Muhammad, a demon-possessed pedophile who had 12 wives, the last one of which was a nine-year-old girl."
|
|
Rick Santorum* (Sen. R-PA) |
|
"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [Gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything!"
|
*Now known as Rick "Santorum" Santorum
|
Robert Simonds (Citizens for Excellence in Education) |
"As the church watches from the sidelines, the ungodly elect atheists and homosexuals to school boards and legislatures to enact policies and laws that destroy our Christian children and discriminate against Christian families."
"Atheistic secular humanists should be removed from office and Christians should be elected...Government and true Christianity are inseparable."
"We'll take away their power and their money. Money comes from students. We'll break their backs by taking 24 million kids out of the public schools."
|
|
|
|
"Raising your children under Americanism or any other principles other than true Christianity is child abuse."
"You do not have the right to be wrong, regardless of what any man-made or demonic charter says."
"Democracy originated in the mind of a rational being who has the deepest hatred for God."
"Do you realize that the only thing that gives democracy existence is sin? The absence of democracy is perfect obedience to god."
"The best way to insure the earth is never over populated is for sensible and righteous governments to clear all forms of atheism and heresy."
|
Ronald Reagan (President of the United States) |
"For the first time ever, everything is in place for the Battle of Armageddon and the Second Coming of Christ."
|
|
Roy Moore (Former Alabama Judge) |
|
"If they want to get the Commandments, they're going to have to get me first."*
"Worship With Your Vote"
|
*Interesting observation of the Radical Right, Judge Roy Moore commits peaceful civil disobedience by refusing to remove the Ten Commandments Monument from the Court. He is considered a Hero. Mayor Gavin Newsom commits peaceful civil disobedience by issuing same-sex marriage licenses. He is considered an Anarchist.
|
Rush Limbaugh |
"Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society."
"If you commit a crime, you're guilty."*
"There is only one way to get rid of nuclear weapons... use them"
|
|
*Seems logical enough, doesn't it Rush?
|
Star Parker (Coalition on Urban Renewal & Education) |
|
"Anybody that believes in separation of church and state needs to leave right now."
|
Tony Evans (Promise Keepers) |
"The demise of our community and culture is the fault of sissified men who have been overly influenced by women."
|
|
William Rehnquist (Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court) |
|
"The 'wall of separation between church and state' is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned."
|
Michael Savage (Savage Nation) |
"Oh, you're one of the sodomites. You should only get AIDS and die, you pig. How's that? Why don't you see if you can sue me, you pig. You got nothing better than to put me down, you piece of garbage. You have got nothing to do today, go eat a sausage and choke on it."*
|
|
*Statement made on live national television
|
I said your statements were ignorant - not you,
.
He does not agree with the statements
This does not affect my decision - He does not agree with what this preacher is saying. He gave a very moving speech yesterday.
Innappropriate statements?
An assassination pool on our new president (whether we like him or not) is just an inappropriate statement? Promoting it is just an inappropriate statement? My God we are talking about a bet on a human life here!
I think there were statements to the illusion.... sm
that she would run in 2012 even before the election, but I don't have time to dig back for anything to substantiate that. Just my recollections.
I think we need to wait until it is a little closer to 2012 before we get all up in arms about who may or may not run and start fueling the fires. The political climate will likely be a lot different in 2012 than it is now and there will likely be a whole 'nuther set of issues in addition to the ones that were faced during this election.
Profound statements
In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm and three or more is a congress.
John Adams
If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed, if you do read the
newspaper you are misinformed.
Mark Twain
Suppose you were an idi0t. And suppose you were a member of Congress …..
But then I repeat myself.
Mark Twain
I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a
man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.
Winston Churchill
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the
support of Paul.
(So true!!!!!)
George Bernard Shaw
A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man,
which debt he proposes to pay off with your money.
G Gordon Liddy
Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep
voting on what to have for dinner.
James Bovard, Civil Libertarian (1994)
Foreign aid might be defined as a transfer of money from poor people
in rich countries to rich people in poor countries.
Douglas Casey, Classmate of Bill Clinton at Georgetown University
Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and
car keys to teenage boys.
P.J. O'Rourke, Civil Libertarian
Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors
to live at the expense of everybody else.
Frederic Bastiat, French Economist (1801-1850)
Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
Ronald Reagan (1986)
I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts.
Will Rogers
If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it
costs when it's free!
P.J. O'Rourke
In general, the art of government consists of taking as much money
as possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other.
Voltaire (1764) (Oh yes)
Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics
won't take an interest in you!
Pericles (430 B.C.)
No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in
session.
Mark Twain (1866 )
Talk is cheap...except when Congress does it.
Anon
The government is like a baby's alimentary canal, with a happy appetite
at one end and no responsibility at the other.
broad statements such as this
reveal much, much more about the thinker than the group he is maligning. Ask any psych professional. Ask Niles Crane. Dr. Phil. Dr. Ablow. Dr. Freud.
I applaud you for your statements but
I doubt anyone will listen for the reasons you listed. Everything you said is true and I agree wholeheartedly.
When I first came to this board, it was about the issues. There was no name-calling or nastiness, but as the election went on, it got really nasty. Links were posted so we could verify the information and/or come back with a retort. I came back after the election hoping that was all over with and was confronted with messages that were even WORSE than before the election. Like you said, there are no discussions on the issues. There aren't any links to verify anything. It's nothing but rumors and inuendos and O worshipping.
I've said it many times and it always falls on deaf ears. I see some are even on the gab board now about taking off work tomorrow for the inauguration. Lose money just to see "one of the most historical moments in history"? Not me. I've had it up to here with all of it. I've never seen an election where they had so many "historical" items for sale either. It's not the serious ceremony it should be this year. It's more like a circus or parade.
Sure, I wish him luck. He's really going to need it, but I doubt he can pull it off. There's going to be a lot of disappointed people in this country in a year or two.
Yes, let us get our statements correct.
Special Report: Barack Obama: The 44th U.S. President
WASHINGTON, Jan. 27 (Xinhua) -- U.S. President Barack Obama Tuesday held talks with congressional Republicans and urged them to quickly approve an 825 billion U.S. dollar stimulus package.
"The statistics every day underscore the urgency of the economic situation. The American people expect action," said Obama after meeting with Republicans.
"As I explained to the Republican House Caucus and I will explain to my former Senate colleagues, the recovery package that we've proposed and is moving its way through Congress is just one leg in a multi-legged stool," said the new president.
House will vote on the package Wednesday, and Senate committees began their own deliberations over it on Tuesday.
However, many Republicans turned against the large stimulus package. And after the meeting with Obama last week, House Republican Leader John Boehner said he and his colleagues told the president they feel the stimulus package is too expensive and too slow.
I personally think, Republicans do not have a chance with Obama. Look what our new president and the dems state about Rush Limbaugh. NO FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Must do what Obama says or he will back stab you. After he, Obama states, "I won and I will trump you."
I heard their statements too and
Although, I think it is to cover their own butts for something. If I could, I would have had them FIRED FROM THEIR POSITION. No open mind at all, just being arrogant.
I thought many of his statements........... sm
were right on. Just because he doesn't march in step with the rest of Hollywood does not make his opinions any less valid. People really do need to wake up and smell the coffee.
Obama has proven himself a liar and a manipulator. He is most definitely against Israel which is a place that no one in their right mind should want to be. He has burdened this country with debt for generations to come and has changed the economic face of this nation for the worse forever....or at least for any foreseeable future.
Oh, I red you loud and clear
and "red" was not a spelling error. Strong arming anyone into producing anything for the government is like pre and post WWII Soviet Union....you got it right when you said red and I'm not referring red state conservatives either.
Many (not all) think you have all the answers, but when it turns to action you are ready to guilt and strong arm SOMEONE ELSE to do the work.
Yep...clear....said talking to me was
like talking to your mother who had a personality disorder. Bashing me and using your mother's illness to do it. Not many ways you can take it. YOU said it. YOU brought it up. This is YOUR can of worms.
I would like to clear up perhaps some confusion.....
About "socialized" medicine. What most of you may not know is that we already have socialized medicine. That is what Medicade and Medicare is (which is financially driven by insurance companies for insurance companies tell the government what they will pay. In essense, the insurance companies are setting the bar). Most countries have some sort of socialized medicine. Canada has what is referred to as single-pay medicine, which is soley funded by the government. Those opposed to single-pay medicine here in the US are the ones stating that it does not work. However, those who have it in Canada and Britain for the most part are not complaining. Of course, you can't please everyone.
For every $50,000 in income that you make about $10,000 of your tax dollars (equal to what is allocated for defense) is going toward healthcare. Add that along with roughly the $10,000 dollars that most companies pay for your insurance, that's quite a chunk of change. But you say, well the company is paying for it, not me. But that is wrong as well, if the companies whom we work for did not have to provide medical insurance for us, there would be higher wages.
So, for someone like me, a healthy 40 something :o), who spends about $1000 dollars a year in preventative health maintenance, why am I paying $20,000, which I might add that for any catastrophic healthcare issue should occur, I would still be desitute from the financial responsibility of picking up where my insurance company falls short? If this is not an argument for healthcare reform.....
Healthcare in the US is the hands of insurance companies, where I don't believe it should be. So for those of you opposed to socialized or single-pay medicine, you are already paying for it, why not make it function better and pull it out of the hands of the fat-cat insurance companies?
Let me be perfectly clear about what I said.
Since the poster above seems to think he/she can put words in my mouth, I will tell you exactly what I said.
I fully expect all posters to be respectful and not put down the President (current or past) or anyone else for that matter. I don't care if they're Liberal, Conservative, or polka dotted.
On the forum, you will be respectful in posting or you won't be allowed to post.
Think you can handle that? If you can't, don't post. It's just that simple.
Let me make something clear.
I am African American. I have never seen Africa. The human race originated on the continent of Africa. Now, what do you consider yourself? You can call yourself whatever you want. We want to be known as African American.
Let's make this a little more clear as well...
Both Obama and Biden voted to fund the bridge to nowhere and then voted to defund it. Who flipped first? biggg LOL.
Well, Howard Dean was governor of Vermont, right? Little old Vermont? Fewer folks than Alaska. His approval rating wasn't that high. He also ran for Presidential nomination. Only having been a governor of a state with population smaller than Alaska's. He is now the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Apparently Democrats only have problems with smaller population governors if they are Republican. That is a belly LOL.
Oh please...cheating? Have you done any research on how Obama had one of his early rivals for office kicked off the ticket so he would not have to run against her? Now THAT is cheating I can believe in. Because that was cheating in politics, not his personal life.
What McCain did in his personal life does not excuse Barack Obama for what he did in his public life. I don't care what either of them does in his personal life...what I care about is what they have done in their public life. McCain certainly keeps better company than Obama does...talk about "uglies." And they are not in the past.
I think we can retire the bridge to nowhere since Obama and Biden were for it before they were against it also. THEY voted with COngress to defund it, so she turned the money to other infrastructure projects that she felt Alaska needed more. Sounds like good judgment to me.
Don't understand the Wild West comment. "Maverick" was a term applied to cattle who refused to run with the herd.
Actually, you are rehashing the same old stuff and accusing her of rehashing old stuff. Does that mean you need a thesaurus also? Just asking.
The difference is clear.
No one is saying it's all 'we people' have to worry about. But it does give us a glance in to O's morals. Win at all cost. No matter who he has to betray in the process. Doesn't that concern you at all?
And I fail to see your correlation between Obama exploiting a bracelet he was not asked specifically NOT to, and McCain choosing a woman as his running mate. If Clinton had been O's running mate, what would your argument be then?
And I beg you to do a bit more research on exactly what O is proposing to do to the middle class. Just because someone tells you something, it doesn't mean you should believe it without checking the facts, especially from a man running for president.
It reminds me of grade school class president elections. There was always that 'popular kid' who didn't know jack but got everybody to vote for him by promising longer lunch periods and movies on friday and free pop in the lunch room. The difference is, we're not twelve anymore.
Forgive me for not being clear enough for you (sm)
I guess the simplified question for you would be -- why bring religion into a post that had nothing to do with religion?
I think it is perfectly clear
how things will go with regards to Obama. As evident by this board, I think it is very obvious that some people may hold back their "judgments" or concerns about Barrack Obama for the simple fact that any criticism aimed at the president thus far is construed as racism. How dare we criticize what he does, his agenda, etc. because he is the first mixed race president.
I also think that he will be judged less harshly because the liberal media will not cover things fairly. They will continue to portray Barrack Obama as the savior/rock star.
When this stimulus package fails to stimulate the economy and when our economy is still suffering at the end of his term, we will see how fairly he will be judged. Until then, he is getting a free pass by the liberal media and people too eager to throw out the race card or people who are too afraid to criticize for fear of being called racist.
Oh, I get it alright and it's becoming more clear by
--
making false statements
Well, if someone posts that I have called them a bigot TEN TIMES and all I see is the heading of my post talking about bigotry..what do you call it? I call em as I see em..Liar is someone putting out false and misleading statements. Stating that I called you a bigot 10 times is false and misleading..hence, liar..
I can square it because they are questions not statements.
Biblically, only those who accept Jesus as their savior will go to heaven. That is a CHRISTIAN view. Jews have their own Messiah and their own belief as to heaven. As for me, I would gladly welcome all to heaven. But I am not God.
If you will copy and paste each of the statements...
into a Google search, it will give you some sites with the full context of what she said. However, if you take the totality of the statements, and look at her basic agenda...Hillary does have strong socialist tendencies. Read up for yourself on socialism...how it starts and how it invariably ends. Veneuela being an example...Chavez took power saying he was going to return power to the people. What he did was take all the power for himself...that is where socialism invariably goes...to dictatorship. Cuba is another example. Chavez recently took control of all the television stations and radio stations so he could control the content and people who would disagree with him. We just need to be very careful to look at all aspects of something that looks good on the surface...need to make sure we push the lid off and see what's underneath. Educate ourselves. No matter what our political leanings are. We need to keep our individuality. It is vital...in my opinion.
First of all...please do not classify my statements as ignorant...
who are YOU to decide that??
We are NOT France, piglet. Do you honestly think that Cornell or Harvard or any of the premiere medical programs in this country could train doctors as well if they were dependent upon the government for funding? You have GOT to be kidding. To bring those schools to the level they are right now, do you have ANY idea what that would cost? I repeat...you have GOT to be kidding. You might as well sign your entire paycheck over to the government.
And what great medical minds have come out of French schools lately? Any great medical minds in France probably graduated from Cornell or Harvard. Well I take that back...if they came to school here, they stayed here. That is another thing...I would be interested in the numbers of Canadian doctors who fled that wonderful system and now work here? I would venture to say....hundreds.
As to 78% of the French as satisfied with their program...I doubt that is a real number unless someone went door to door in person to 78% of the French and asked them if they were satisfied. After they take a big tax hit to pay for this program, as the cost is catching up with them...ask them AGAIN. I would bet that figure, real or not, takes a nose dive.
Yes, I can argue that citizens under socialized health care are satisfied with it. If they are satisfied with it, why do they cross the border to come HERE when they need an operation and can't jump the line? Why do people from those countries bring their children to Cornell or other hospitals to be treated because of lines and quotas? Why do they bring children with significant diseases here? Because the best medical minds in the world are HERE. And whether you agree or not, that will no longer be the case under socialized medicine. Socialized medicine has a smothering effect on research because it sucks up all the research money. It sucks up the money from a LOT of places. You need to think this through, piglet, and stop focusing on "free" because that is what you are focusing on. And what a, to use your word, "ludicrous" thing THAT is.
Your relatives in Montreal may be fine with it.....however, I have read article after article from Canadian newspapers with people fed up with Canada's system...a system which will give clean needles to drug addicts but won't supply needs to diabetics. And whatever the "universal plan" won't cover, still comes out of your pocket.
And while you may want the government to decide when and where you need health care and to what degree, and where they have to draw the line because of cost, taking any choice from you, that is up to you, I do not, and I will fight it tooth and nail. Which is my right. I do NOT want to end up with over half my paycheck going to taxes. I will fight THAT tooth and nail. It is already 35%. Piglet, that is ENOUGH. If they cannot provide entitlements for that amount, then they need to decide what entitlement is the most important and prioritize. There are a great MANY Canadians who are at the 50-55% point already. Please do not say you are okay with all your fellow Americans having 50% of their wages taken off the top so you don't have to pay an insurance premium.
You know, the reason insurance companies are walking up and down aisles doing those studies is because the health care profession would not police itself and start looking at cost realistically. Insurance coompanies organizing large groups of people gave them the push they needed to negotiate these costs down. Much like unions did in the beginning. And you want to remove that and hand it over to government. Basically you are wanting to take from insurance companies the right to negotiate prices down for consumers, and instead let the government take all choice out of it and make all your choices for you. You are willing to relinquish total control to the government just so you don't have to pay for your own insurance. What you are asking is that your fellow Americans cough it up so you don't have to. Because that is where the government gets every dime it spends. From your fellow Americans. Pardon me if I do not understand that. I do not expect my fellow Americans to insure me or my kids, feed me or clothe me or give me a check when I am fully capable of doing all that for myself. I may have to work harder or longer than some, but I will do that before I will ask you or any other American to pay any more taxes so that I do not have to pay an insurance premium.
His campaign has released several statements
stating that she was vetted. Just go to cnn.com and you can read them all there.
Here is a partial article (also explains that this was a rumor...that she had not been vetted:
Nicolle Wallace, a senior McCain adviser, told ABC's "Good Morning America" on Tuesday that Palin disclosed her daughter's pregnancy during the vetting process, and that the McCain campaign had been forced to reveal the pregnancy publicly Monday because of "lewd and outrageously false rumors" spread by "Democratic-leaning blogs and a few in the mainstream" media. She did not identify them.
Since McCain publicly disclosed his running mate on Friday, the notion of a shoddy, rushed review has been stoked repeatedly.
First, a campaign-issued timeline said McCain initially met Palin in February, then held one phone conversation with her last week before inviting her to Arizona, where he met with her a second time and offered her the job Thursday.
Then came the campaign's disclosure that Palin's unmarried 17-year-old daughter, Bristol, was pregnant. The father is Levi Johnston, who has been a hockey player at Bristol's high school, The New York Post and The New York Daily News reported in their Tuesday editions.
In addition, the campaign also disclosed that Palin's husband, Todd, then age 22, was arrested in 1986 in Alaska for driving under the influence of alcohol.
Shortly after Palin was named to the ticket, McCain's campaign dispatched a team of a dozen communications operatives and lawyers to Alaska. That fueled speculation that a comprehensive examination of Palin's record and past was incomplete and being done only after she was placed on the ticket.
Steve Schmidt, a senior adviser, said no matter who the nominee was, the campaign was ready to send a "jump team" to the No. 2's home state to work with the nominee's staff, work with the local media and help handle requests from the national media for information, and answer questions about documents that were part of the review.
At several points throughout the process, McCain's team warned Palin that the scrutiny into her private life would be intense and that there was nothing she could do to prepare for it.
Culvahouse disclosed details of his examination in a half-hour interview with the AP.
First, a team of some 25 people working under Culvahouse culled information from public sources for Palin and other prospective candidates without their knowledge. For all, news reports, speeches, financial and tax return disclosures, litigation, investigations, ethical charges, marriages and divorces were reviewed.
For Palin specifically, the team studied online archives of the state's largest newspapers, including the Anchorage Daily News, but didn't request paper archives for Palin's hometown newspaper. "I made the decision that we could not get it done and maintain secrecy," Culvahouse said.
Reports, 40-some pages and single-spaced, on each candidate then were reviewed by McCain, Schmidt, campaign manager Rick Davis and top advisers Mark Salter and Charlie Black.
Among the details McCain's campaign found: Palin had once received a citation for fishing without a license.
Palin, like others on the short list, then was sent a personal data questionnaire with 70 "very intrusive" questions, Culvahouse said. She also was asked to submit a number of years of federal and state tax returns, as well as any controversial articles she had written or interviews she had done. The campaign also checked her credit.
Then, Culvahouse conducted a nearly three-hour-long interview.
He said the first thing she volunteered was that her daughter was pregnant, and she also quickly disclosed her husband's DUI arrest.
Early on, the public search unearthed details of the investigation by the Republican-controlled legislature into the possibility that Palin ordered the dismissal of Alaska's public safety commissioner because he would not fire her former brother-in-law as a state trooper.
Culvahouse said that he asked follow-up questions during the interview, and "spent a lot of time with her lawyer" on the matter.
"We came out of it knowing all that we could know at the time," he said.
As for the financial records review, Culvahouse said: "It was very clean. We had no issues there."
Throughout the process, the campaign said, Davis had multiple conversations with Palin.
In what context would those statements not be racist? nm
nm
because these statements do demonstrate racism
and I people should be aware they were made. As I said, but you obviously didn't take the time to think about, I am against ANY racism.
Your making statements you can't back up.
In your dreams - yes, you do just pull out statements, but they are not out of your bellybutton.
For every poll you come up with that Obama is ahead I can find a poll where McCain is ahead. Polls are polls and they don't mean anything. Even all the liberal media people on MSNBC say that (especially when Obama is losing). They're the first to admit polls don't mean anything.
|
