Nope....she just stated she was here to post issues for her fellow liberals...
Posted By: Observer on 2007-10-20
In Reply to: Yes.....and? - Observing
(or he, whichever the case may be), and I just mentioned I had not seen any issues posted. Are YOU the posting police?
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
To talk about issues....same as the liberals who go to the conservative board...
Also puzzled...what does it matter to you anyway?
I am concerned for my fellow democrats on this post
Is there possibly anything else you can discuss or raise cane about other than Bush? To say that Bush started the fires in California is just beyond the scope of common sense.
I am not a Bush supporter, never was, never will be....however, not all the ills in the world or in our own country can be blamed on him alone.
I am most astounded by some of these postings, as they don't seem to make much sense and make you sound much less intelligent than I am sure you are.
Blame the people who elected him and blame Congress for not pursuing further investigation, but to keep rehashing it is blarney.
And what facts to post....I hope you are really proud of your fellow posters...
right now.
I stated in my post that I had
posted that below. If you find it a waste of time, please feel free to ignore what I've said instead of being hateful.
What the original post stated
is that one of the issues that should be foremost on people's minds is why did we go to war with Iraq after 9/11 when Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11? At the time the Bush administration linked Iraq to 9/11 as justification for going to war with them. He lied. He knew the people of this Country were vulnerable after 9/11 and he used that vulnerability. Look at what his lie has cost us. Not only should the people in this Country be outraged, they should be asking why.
John McCain supported this war, as did many others at the time. Barack Obama did not. He knew the facts, understood the situation and made the right choice, though it wasn't a popular one at the time. Why didn't John McCain?
Read Bob Woodward's books. He got his information directly from interviews with Bush and his admininstration. Remember the 9/11 Commission Report? These are not opinions - they are facts.
People are being diverted from the issues for a reason. John McCain doesn't want people to think about his lack of sound judgment at such a crucial time.
Your right - I should have stated it in my orginal post
Democrats won't stop spending. They tax us more while at the same time continue to spend.
My mom told me once, if you don't stop spending your not going to have anything for retirement or pay off your bills. I would think its the same way with government. If they keep taxing us more and more and more, why isn't the deficit going down? Every president that gets in promises us he will get the deficit down and have a balanced budget. Not one president (to include Bill Clinton) as done this. The deficit keeps growing and growing and the following president inherits it.
Extremely well-stated post! I agree with you 100%
Most importantly, it was YOUR decision, along with your doctor. It was NOT the decision nor the business of anyone else.
Hats off to you!
A couple issues with this post
ALL religion has done horrible things. None is free from scrutiny.
Remember the Inquisition, Mountain Meadow Massacre, Witch Hunts, Roman persecutions, there are plenty of examples out there of different religions at one time or other.
To just point out one religion is wrong.
This post was addressed to LIBERALS.
I want to hear what the man has to say, and I don't care what you think or have to say regarding the subject because your posts on this board and the other board prove you are a Bush apologist and are not an objective person. As such, your repeated intrusion on this board doesn't surprise me in the least.
Whatever. How about addressing the actual issues I raised in my post for a change? (NT)
/
What issues. Endless rounds of Pro-Life and BL Theology post?
nm
Nope - I have to take all the blame for what I post.
One thing you have to understand is that I've been staggering around this old planet for quite awhile, and I've seen a lot of water flow under the bridge. I keep my eyes open - at least to the point that I haven't yet fallen into any open manholes - and I try to make sense out of the world around me the best I can.
So, if I yell "Here be dragons!" when I see fire belching from the cave and you think to yourself "What nonsense! It's only Dave Mann the Caveman burning his brontosaurus steaks again!", that's perfectly okee-dokee with me. Different strokes for different folks.
Nope. I don't just post talking points. I back it up.
see above.
Issues people, issues. I need issues
I'm not seeing any discussion about issues. Can we stick to the issues. Jeeze - I want to hear good and bad about both candidates but with facts to back whatever is being said.
P-L-E-A-S-E.....I want issues. How can I make any kind of determinatons about who I'm going to vote for if I don't hear about the issues. Reading some of this I'm thinking I'd get more truth if I read the National Enquirer.
Fellow Arkie
I know where that is! We used to shop in Fort Smith when I was little. From Mena, now south Arkansas. Your part of the country is beautiful. Where the Ouachitas meet the Ozarks! 
To my fellow Americans.....
we are all screwed. I don't think any one in government has a clue what is the right thing to do and the ones who do won't say anything as it might go against their party and who would want to do that. If one party has a good idea, the other party refuses to vote for it because it wasn't their party and let's face it.....neither party wants the other one to look good. Government is going to stick it to us again so we might as well be prepared and get the vaseline out for a little bit of lube.
Hello there fellow vegan
Okay, have to admit I'm not total vegan but am trying. I love beans too. We eats tons of black beans, garbanzo's, and some navy beans and lately been on a homemade split pea soup kick. I do love beans, less meat (we stick to mainly chicken and ham. Although I still won't eat a fava bean (mainly because they said it was like a lima bean and lima beans are repulsive to me).
Is that what they laughed about. I had forgotten.
So am trying here to be more vegan myself. There are certain veggies I just cannot get enough of (brussel sprouts for one).
If you have or know of any good recipes or websites of how to transition more veggie I'd love to hear from you. More than welcome to send me an email.
Thanks and let me know how you like the fava beans.
As I pointed out before...that fellow is not entirely honest either...
and Bush did not lie. While the bill does not explicitly state it will cover families to $83,000, it opens a loophole that will allow New York to again ask for the $82,600 raise and under the new bill would probably get it, because the stipulation preventing it was being removed. So basically what Bush said is true...he should have worded it differently.
Here are some things that were not brought forward that are also bad things about the bill:
Bush had good reason to veto SCHIP
By Grace-Marie Turner
Article Launched: 10/14/2007 01:33:38 AM PDT
Is President Bush a liar who hates children? That's what many of his critics now are asking in the opinion pages of major newspapers across the country. Why else, they say, would he refuse to sign a bill providing health insurance to poor kids?
Specifically, the president has vetoed a bill expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program designed to provide health coverage to lower-income children. One nationally syndicated columnist went so far as to call Bush's rationale in vetoing the bill a "pack of flat-out lies."
This kind of rhetoric is wrong and misleads readers about the facts of this important issue.
There is no debate over whether to reauthorize the SCHIP program so it can continue to provide insurance to needy children. That's a given. The debate is about whether children in middle-income families should be added.
The president is absolutely right in insisting that SCHIP focus on its core mission of needy children. When SCHIP was created in 1997, the target population was children whose parents earned too much for them to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford private insurance. The president wants the program to focus on children whose families earn less than 200 percent of the federal poverty level. In today's dollars, that's $41,300 a year.
About two-thirds of the nation's uninsured children already are eligible for either Medicaid or SCHIP, but aren't enrolled. Raising the income threshold won't solve this core problem. Congress should require states to focus on the 689,000 children whom the Urban Institute says are uninsured and would be eligible for SCHIP if eligibility were limited to the $41,300 income level.
The other big problem is that, across the country, states are using SCHIP dollars to insure adults.
Fourteen states cover adults through SCHIP, and at least six of them are spending more of their SCHIP dollars on adults than on children. For example, 78 percent of SCHIP enrollees in Minnesota are adults, 79 percent in New Mexico, and 72 percent in Michigan.
With these statistics in mind, the Bush administration issued a ruling in August requiring states to demonstrate that they had enrolled 95 percent of eligible needy children before expanding the program.
Yet the bill that Congress passed, and which the president vetoed, nullifies that ruling and effectively refuses to agree that needy kids should get first preference. Instead, the congressional measure would give $60 billion to the states over five years to enroll millions more "children" - although many of them will, in fact, be adults. Others will be from higher-income families.
New York, for instance, could submit a plan that would add children in families earning up to $83,000 a year to SCHIP. New Jersey could continue to cover kids whose parents make up to $72,000. All the other states would be allowed to cover kids in families with incomes up to $61,000.
Most children in these higher income families are already covered by private insurance. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 77 percent of children in families earning more than twice the poverty line have private health insurance now.
No one doubts that SCHIP is a vitally important program for needy children, and that our nation needs to do a better job of helping working families afford health insurance. But giving the states incentives to add middle-income kids to their SCHIP rolls will prompt families to replace private insurance with taxpayer-provided coverage.
This is completely backward. The goal of SCHIP should be to provide private coverage to uninsured children. If Congress would send the president a bill that does that, he says he would sign it in a minute.
How I hate to disagree with my fellow....
But that is just nonsense. It would do nothing but create anarchy and keep the government so busy rotating presidents in and out of office, that absolutely nothing would get done. I will agree with you that the Bush presidency is one of the worst and that we will be seeing the ramifications of it in the many, many years to come and I am just hoping that he can keep things on an even keel until his term is over. But a no convidence vote? Never.
Not a fellow liberal, just a few things to say...
the National Right to Life Committee is not a religious organization. This from Wikipedia: The National Right to Life Committee is the largest right to life/pro-life organization in the United States with affiliates in all 50 states and over 3,000 local chapters nationwide. The group works through legislation and education to work against abortion, infanticide, euthanasia and assisted suicide. It was founded in Detroit in 1973 in response to the Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade which legalized the practice of abortion in all fifty states. It a non-sectarian, non-partisan group whose founding members included leaders in fields of science, religion, law, ethics and medicine. Its board consist of an elected representative from each of the 50 states and several at-large board members.
It might surprise you to know, there are Democrats, and there are liberals, who are not pro choice. There are Republicans who are pro choice. It is not a political issue. It is a deeply moral, deeply personal issue. In my case, it is tied to my belief in God (not my God, He is everyone's God). Perhaps not so in others. Those who do not have God in their lives, I do not expect them to understand where I am coming from, and I am not trying to force anything down anyone's throat. That is MY personal conviction. In others, perhaps it is tied to their own sense of morality and what to them is right and wrong. That is our right, just as your stand is yours.
I would counter what you say by saying how could you stand up with such strong conviction for the less fortunate, the sick, for all living things EXCEPT the unborn, the most innocent of all? And the helpless? Piglet...who in this world is MORE helpless, more utterly defenseless than an unborn child? Who?
If you have the benevolence to stand up for all the others you mention, why does that not extend to the unborn? Why are they excluded?
How is it different for a woman to deem an unborn child inconvenient and decide to kill it before it is born or partially born, and that is fine, yet let that child be born and she smother it the next day and you would be outraged, or at least I hope you would. How is that right in even a most twisted sense? The plain and simple fact is it is still a dead baby who was murdered. I realize that terms like "Murder" and "Chopped up like salad in a blender" are terms that make people uncomfortable. And well they should. Because that is the stark reality of abortion, choice or not.
In this day and time, in all but the most extreme circumstances (rape, incest, possible death of mother), there are ways to prevent an inconvenient pregnancy. If we stopped performing abortions except in those extreme cases, that would stop 90%, of not more, of all abortions.
REASONS FOR ABORTIONS: COMPILED ESTIMATES
rape 0.3 % (0.1-0.6 %)
incest 0.03 % (<0.1 %)
physical life of mother 0.2 % (0.1-0.3 %)
physical health of mother 1.0 % (0.1-3 %)
fetal health 0.5 % (0.1-1.0 %)
mental health of mother depends on definition
"personal choice"
--too young/immature/not ready for responsibility
--economic
--to avoid adjusting life
--mother single or in poor relationship
--enough children already 98% (78-99 %)
Not sure where you are going with the deciding how we die thing...unless you are talking about assisted suicide/euthanasia? That slippery slope may lead somewhere you don't want to go...when that decision is taken away from you and given to someone else, to whom you have become inconvenient and a bother and it would be in their best interest that you be dead. Think about that very carefully. And before you say "Oh that would never happen" I am sure that people who made the same comment about abortion never thought it would be legal or commonplace either. The Terri Schiavo case...I just think it would behoove anyone to think very carefully about that particular snowball and do they really want to start it down the hill.
Looking out for your fellow Americans, how noble sm
Did you figure out how to spell McCain yet?
Wouldn't you want your fellow supporters to think for
;?/
LOL...Kind of like saying *my fellow prisoners*..
I read articles on this fellow......... sm
during the campaigns before the election. His predictions are not very promising and I believe we are in for a long, rocky ride. The government bailouts are just the beginning of government owning America, lock, stock and barrel.
I live in a rural, rather economically depressed area now and wonder how quickly my area will start seeing these changes. I wonder if it will be one of the first and hardest hit or if the more affluent areas of the country that enjoy a wider variety of jobs and better paying jobs will be more adversely affected first.
My 18-year-old son and I were discussing his future last night. Although he is a junior in high school, I told him that it is time that he started looking at the job markets in our area and deciding on a job that would pay well and would be in demand for a few years, at least. He won't be going to college, partly because of financial issues, but mainly because he is just not "college material" but I do want him to investigate trades-type schools and trades jobs in which he will be able to provide for himself as an adult in an economy where blue-collar workers struggle at best. 
Personally, I am not spending any more than is absolutely necessary to survive at this point. I guess I'm being "unAmerican" by not stimulating the economy, but right now I'm more concerned about what my future holds and whether I will be able to keep my home than whether I have a big-screen TV or an iphone. Times are indeed getting scary.
Are you calling your fellow pubs ignorant?:
x
I think Palin IS a scare tactic. She & her fellow
believe in FREEDOM.
Freedom of Speech.
Freedom of/from Religion.
Freedom of Association.
Pursuit of Happiness.
Marching in lock-step with America's religious Nazis somehow just doesn't fit with what our forefathers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution.
You're really worried about your fellow citizens?
because if that were the case, you would be asking him why he continues to let illegals and overseas workers with visas into this country to take those very jobs they report are gone.
You don't know any of this is going on because you don't pay attention to anything unless Obama has said it. If he doesn't tell you illegals are taking these jobs, then you'll just pretend they are not. Sorry you don't feel illegals taking our jobs to the tune of 1.5 million right now isn't MORE important than spending more of your money.
Ever stop to think if they didn't have the jobs, Americans would?
you stated this better than I could have.
I sickens me how the victims of this disaster are now being blamed and vilified by people on the conservative board!
My son (age 20) told me that he met some people last night who were speaking the same way - in essence, that it was the fault pf the citizens of New Orleans for not getting out in time, etc, that they deserved to not be rescued sooner, and that the government was not to blame at all.
And I'm sure those conservative posters on the other board probably consider themselves good Christians and not racist at all.
Meanwhile, it is apparent that our president could do (or not do) anything at all and they will blindly defend him...
I'm going to focus on the positive and not visit that board at all.
We have sent money to the Red Cross and all my children donated clothes to the Salvation Army. This morning our priest said that some evacuees may be relocating to our area, and our parish will welcome them! These are our brothers and sisters in Christ...
good night and peace to ya'll
As I stated above.......... sm
if this situation were to occur, and it does seem that it is with the advent of ASR, then our line rates would be lowered to those paid to Indian MTS, just as the UAW was offered what is paid to foreign auto workers. I could not survive on 0.05 cpl or less in our economy. I doubt anyone else could either.
I'm really sorry to hear about your hubby's situation. I know anyone in the housing industry is facing much the same situation. There is really not a lot of new house construction going on and there is no much call for a trim carpenter in most commercial building.
My opinion is to bring MT back inhouse and pay us a decent HOURLY salary. We deserve it as much as the next person.
he also stated that he
respects other people's beliefs that are different from his own and supports separation of church and state. I guess all we can learn from this issue is that Joe Biden will never personally have an abortion. Good job, Joe.
As stated above . . .
according to her a heterosexual relationship can be equated to a plastic cup and a turkey baster.
You stated
"My point is proven by your post. You stated that when Obama gets into office, for me to look around and see how many names I can pronounce.. "
This happened under Clinton before Bush. Can't pronounce half the names now. Guess I fell down on my research a bit as I didn't see anything about the "Muslim for Stowe, OH" appointed by Bush.
VERY well stated!! :-) thank you
this is just too awesome on SO many planes!!!
Very Very well Stated
Yes, the moral compasses do seem to change from day to day on here, you are right.
Thank you for this post. It is very well put.
Excuse me? JM has clearly stated his will be
nm
What would be a lie about verses stated
xx
Where is that stated, and what does nawnaw mean??
nm
Yes, that is what he stated, but it was not true....
hospitals were allowing babies to die. And that was his SECOND excuse when the first one about Roe v. wade didn't fly. Do you take EVERYthing he says at face value?
You mean 120,000, not 250,000 as stated on Fox news.nm
x
I do believe that to as I stated in my message
But we have been told over and over that we have been lying about Obama, and these are not the two issues that keep coming up. We ask what lies are we being accused of telling so we can provide credible sources but nobody comes back with anything. Most likely because what we expressed as our fears and the sources we provided were truths.
But they are "credible" as you stated above. sm
yeah, right.
More accurately stated, this is
the disaffected, sour grapes poor-me's, hand-wringing over-wrought imaginary concept of O's plan, courtesty of the eve-of-destruction clan who does not have the courage to depict it accurately or conduct an informed pros-and-cons discussion since they are trying to promote their recently out-voted world view.
What is racist about what the OP stated?
//
Bristol also stated that she would...
have preferred getting pregnant 10 years later, having finished her college education and having landed a job.
Sounds to me that she was prevented to make her choice.
He stated they have already identified....
numerous projects and programs that are outdated or do not work, which he will be eliminating, that will save us 2 trillion dollars........I believe he will cut our deficit. That savings right there more than pays for the current stimulus bill. 
Oh come on! She stated she was nervous.
at that age and up in front of an audience and national TV. Oh please!
Very well stated. LOL. I have always like Ollie North. nm
nm
MSNBC just stated that the FEC is is going to audit (sm)
Barack Obama. Supposedly, he accepted donations from foreign nationals. Most of these donations were made over the internet and they are going to check into this.
FEC ordered O's compaign to provide more information about large sums of money coming into his campaign recently. Someone donated $11,000 to his campaign under the name of Good Will, and that he worked for YOU. Plus gave the address of Good Will Industries. When contacted, GWI stated they did not donate this money.
Another donation was supposedly by a liquor store in NY, but when contacted, they knew nothing about it.
Although they do not have to disclose small donations ($100-$250), Good Will donated the $11,000 in small increments thinking they would not be found out.
Could it be that the sh## is going to hit the fan soon...hopefully?
Biden stated 150K.
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/10/31/obamas-tax-threshold-slips-again/
I am sure they will figure it out if O wins. I also heard it could go to 41,600K.
The last presidental speech with O and M, Obama stated 200K and not 250K. It came right out of his mouth.
That's okay, too. You just stated you wanted our reasons
why, so I stated mine. Won't let that happen again, though. From now on, I think I'll just read and not post. I didn't think my reasons would be dissected. I thought this was only a poll. Have a blessed day! 
Oh--as I've stated many times...
I back the war 150%. I think that taking down Hussein will be something that Bush will be commended for in times to come. We just happen to have a society that is so against fighting for anything, that we forget that fighting for other people's rights is important. Hussein killed many many people and I think that Bush did a great thing in getting rid of him, no matter the reasoning. If only it had been done sooner...
|
