Not deep, issue-based political discourse, is it?
Posted By: Just Sayin' on 2008-02-23
In Reply to: Why bother? - -Outta Here
It can be entertaining if you don't take it seriously though.
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
It's called open and transparent political discourse.
It is the process by which intelligent leadership hears all points of view, thoroughly considers its options and arrives at sound policy. This will not look so strange to you the furhter we get ourselves beyond W's man behind the curtain puppeteer approach to policy.
Another deep political thinker
Obviously, one of those mindless lemmings the Democrats count on so very much, who will follow the Big BO right over the edge of the cliff, chirping merrily away all the way down to the bottom.
So your political acumen is based on
Tarot cards, crystal balls, mystic revelations, fortune telling, dye casting and Voo-doo-doo?
It is not, in my view, a political issue....
it is a moral issue. Unfortunately, politics is the only way to get anything done in this country. Last time I looked, I have exactly the same rights you do in this country...to freely express my views. And no matter how much you would like to stomp on it (and here I thought liberals were ALL FOR freedom of speech...yeah, ONLY when it supports THEIR view of things, self-serving left wing political strategists that they are...YOUR words, not mine).
Face it, this is a political issue.....NM
.
It is a valid political issue.
"We people" do not consider it a bunch of tissue. We believe, as does YOUR VP candidate, that life begins at conception.
Abortion is a political issue....
it has been since activist judges took the "choice" away from one part of the country by overturning a state law. The Constitution states only the legislative branch can enact law. That is when it became a political issue.
The only reason it ever became a political issue
Did it ever dawn on you that if women can lose their right to have a say in what happens with their own bodies, that down the road there will be OTHER rights lost, as well? Rights that just might include something that involves you or someone else you care about? Use your imagination. The possibilities are pretty frightening.
This also made this issue a political
.
Has Adam become a political issue?...nm
nm
The attack on this lady is an obvious political issue....
XX
Fact Based or Faith Based Policies...sm
Click watch video in the link.
Most impressive statement is how the Bush administration has gotten away from fact based policy making.
We are in deep doo doo!
This country is crying out for help. Government spending is WAY out of control. This is one major reason that I am not voting for Obama. In his charismatic talk of change, he is wanting to spend more money on these so called programs to help the poor and the middle class. Raising taxes will not bail our country out of the situation we have found ourselves in. All I hear about nowadays is how Bush has dragged this country down and now all republicans are bad. Congress is controlled by democrats. They are just as guilty in all this government spending crap. All politicians are to blame for this. Stop the outrageous spending!!!!! Stop padding your pockets full of money while the rest of the country struggles to live! All politicians care about is getting in office and making money for themselves. Do they really stop to think about our country and the long-term effects?
I don't know that McCain has all the answers to help pull us out, but at least I have more faith in him. At least he isn't wanting to create government programs that will up the spending and will ultimately fail to achieve anything. Universal healthcare is not the answer. Doesn't work for other countries....why would it work for this one? Everyone keeps saying how Obama will cut taxes....all of these government programs will not cut taxes. They will increase them.....simple as that.
The true evil here is government spending. STOP THE GOVERNMENT SPENDING!!!! They can tax us until we have absolutely no money left whatsoever and the government would just spend it all and that is the problem.
Now there you go, off the deep end
as a person for a change, not a Republican, not a Democrat, just another person trying to make this a better place to live, trying to follow her heart.
Off the deep end a bit, are we?
we should not hand over the keys to the kingdom over to those who would turn us all into Disneyland denizens.
You need to take several deep breaths
you have let your perceptions get the best of you. I was not aware, until this thread that Carla had lost someone in Iraq this year. Some of us have not been here as long as others and don't read the hundreds of threads to pick these little nuances up. I'm sorry you have such a huge chip on your shoulder, and if I offended Carla and you I'm sorry, but it still does not change my opinion on the larger issues at hand.
You really have blown some issues out of proportion, most definitely this one.
Someone here fell off the deep end
But that's OK, the moderator knows individual people are making these posts. And one always has the option of emailing a poster privately and getting a response if they were truly concerned about someone's identity. I suppose its easier on the ego to think one person is making these observations, instead of realizing several people are agreeing, lending more validity to the point. I've had muliple posters disagree with me before, and never once jumped to the conclusion they were all the same person. It caused me instead to ponder perhaps I was in the wrong...but I guess we all handle these things diferently, huh?
No issue is no issue. Denying that
nm
Going off the deep end, gt, getting even more bizarre as time goes by. nm
The deep south was on target ;-) nm
Fact remains...your guy is in just as deep...
and dirty, and McCain at least tried to head it off, while your guy became their #2 recipient. Now THAT is an INCONVIENIENT truth. lol.
You know better deep inside, which is why you're
xx
It's not hate, is deep concern
I don't hate Obama. I think he's a fine person. Great with giving speeches and beautiful family. Personally I will enjoy hearing his voice give a speech over McCains voice and was really getting sick of hearing "my friends" in every other sentance of a speech McCain gave. So it's not that I or others hate Obama. Unlike the hate we have seen from the other side.
What it is is very deep concerns that everything we have worked for and everything we aspire for and live for and save for and teach our kids is going to change for the worse. I do not think Obama is qualified to be president. I don't and that is my opinion. Evidently other people do feel otherwise and therefore he became president (which I still have doubts that a president is really elected by the people - I think he was already picked a long time ago). But my gut feeling is the same exact feeling I had for Clinton. He promised us so much while he was campaigning and once he got in he screwed the country royally. This is the same feeling.
I hope I am wrong and honestly if I am wrong and if he does do good things I WILL be on this board and admit that I am wrong. But at the same time when I hear and read that he is doing somthing wrong, not fullfilling (sp?) his campaign promises I will also be on this board posting too.
I will admit that I am not always right, but when I feel strongly and when I feel I am right I speak my mind.
My main concern is his redistribution of weath. I'll tell you if my taxes go up so that people like that girl (forget her name) who said it was a historic moment and never in her whole life did she ever think she would not have to work to pay her mortgate and would not have to work to buy gas - if my taxes go up so that way she can pay her rent and gas and bills because I had to put in an extra 10 hours of work to pay the extra taxes for HER!!!!! You can bet your you know what I'm going to be on this board screaming and shouting.
But DH and I were talking and we said maybe it is someone like Obama who will finally be able to do something right and fight for Americans. One never knows. So if he does I will come on and admit I was wrong.
This is off the deep end and it serves no useful purpose
If that is what you want to believe, so be it. I agree with absolutely nothing you have said and I also feel confident that I understand exactly what he meant and who he is.
How about something original...your wonder boy is in deep crap...
and he knows it...just 2 weeks in and already can't remember what he promised. The coming 4 years are going to be great to watch; the Messiah implodes, millions who have been hoodwinked will have their eyes opened and they will STILL blame Bush.
You know you'll drown in the deep end
/
Lurker, Raven, you really went off the deep end this time. sm
This is from Dean's World, which is a liberal website, by the way. Even this liberal doesn't agree with you. Your Bush Derangement Syndrome has taken an even darker and deeper turn. You might want to spend more time watching the animals and contemplating where all this hatred comes from.
November 29, 2003
Obnoxious
One of the more shallow memes of the current war goes like this:
Isn't it shameful that President Bush hasn't attended the funerals of very many of the service men who have fallen in this war?
Anyone who thinks very hard about this knows this is an incredibly shallow criticism. Otherwise, the great Generals and Presidents of history, such as Roosevelt, Eisenhower, MacAurther, Patton, Lincoln, and Grant would have never done anything with their time except attend funerals.
Still, if you need to know what history shows, then ask a veteran. As Gulf War veteran John Cole notes, no President has ever regularly attended military funerals.
That's right. Franklin Roosevelt didn't. Harry Truman didn't. Dwight Eisenhower didn't. John F. Kennedy didn't. Lyndon Johnson didn't. Richard Nixon didn't. Ford and Carter didn't. Reagan attended more than most Presidents ever did, but still usually didn't. Bush the Elder usually didn't. Clinton did a couple of times, but mostly didn't.
What if we go all the way back to Presidents like Abraham Lincoln, or George Washington? Turns out that they didn't either.
Why? Because if they did, they would do almost nothing else.
The President of the United States is the leader of hundreds of millions of people. Part of his job is to command hundreds of thousands of people in the military. The next time you vote for a President, I hope you think very hard about that, because that's one of the most important things any President ever does.
But one thing he generally doesn't do is attend the funeral of every fallen service man. Mind you, a good one wishes he could attend every such funeral. A good one feels it like a knife in his gut every time a soldier falls. But he can't be there every time a soldier falls. He just can't.
If you don't understand that, then, to be blunt, you lack maturity
Yep, the above-mentioned was just put on MSNBC. Hardly digging deep for
exist, as you said, and I was hoping to alert someone to that with my post. Thanks for the support.
It's called your brain. It's somewhere in that deep skull (nm)
x
And you are so deep in denial a forklift couldn't....
drag you out. Repeat after me: ohhhhbaaaamaaaa.
Gag me is right!!
and I live in the deep south so do not know any autoworkers - nm
x
Very sincere here, I know the country is in deep trouble with the ......sm
constantly-growing unemployment lines, the banking crisis, stock market debacle, fall-out of our gross national product, growing mortgage crises, etc., but as much as I support our President and feels that he has the initiative, the drive, the intelligence, altruism, the humanitarianism, etc., to get this country turned around (and boy do we need a total 180 degree here), I really feel it is being pushed way too aggressively and hastily,.....haste makes more waste, and boy we do not need more of THAT. I see many good ideas in the O plan, and we certainly need a change in the banking laws, corporate tax structure, etc., but I have been reading as much as I can, and I have to agree with the moderate Republicans (is the sky falling yet?), there is a lot of JUNK in the Obama Solution that is really just contributing more to our national debt, and will not do anything substantial for the common folk, which is supposedly what this whole Bill is about. There is suffering and people are desperate, but if we pass the wrong plan, we will be living with even more misery and debt that our great-grandchildren will not even be able to pay off. Good solid social programs, yes, educational programs, yes, work programs, yes, help with our medical system, yes, but man, there are so many pet projects in their it looks like a lobbyist's dream. Slow down a bit, think a lot more, and perhaps we can really trim that "baby" into a truly successful plan!! Okay, off the  , call me SCARED and confused, yes democrats have open minds and limits to spending!
Unclench butt cheeks, take a deep breath, and
nm
Your deep-seated denial is purely pathlogic and
is very telling about how hard you work to keep yourself insulated from the truth. There is no reason for Palestinians to exaggerate the atrocious fatality figures. Besides that, a survey of multiple new sources both inside and outside the US reveal these figures are amazingly consistent. They are compiled by hospital and (nonpartisan) humanitarian workers and the Red Crescent (the Middle East's equivalent to the Red Cross) which services the entire region, including Israel. The figures are notoriously CONSERVATIVE estimates, reflecting reported deaths and nearly always are later replaced with high numbers once the dust settles on the carnage.
"Their word against ours?" How childish can you get? This statement strongly implies a person who is interested in covering up the truth rather than getting to it. Why would you do that? Who is "ours?" WE are eyewitness to nothing, except a sanitized version of US mainstream media war reporting.
Actually see the bodies? Ever since Viet Nam, we have not had access to those images because the government learned that if you show the carnage, it turns the tide of public opinion against the war.
Be careful what you ask for. I can hook you up with some links.
http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2008/12/29/updated-gaza-massacre-photo-gallery/
http://palestinethinktank.com/2008/12/27/haitham-sabbah-photos-of-the-day/
http://www.ccun.org/Opinion%20Editorials/2009/January/2%20o/Gaza%20Massacre%20in%20Pictures,%20January%202,%202009.htm
About that hiding behind women and children crack/statement which you are parroting from the lying media mouthpieces. Gaza is the 6th most densely populated area in the world. There are 10,792 people per square mile in Gaza. Gaza is an occupied territory which has been blockaded for the past 18 months by Israel. There is no escape. There is no way out. And there is no possible way that Hamas (who live in Gaza and are citizens themselves) can NOT be among the civilian population. Weapons in mosques? Maybe. Maybe not. Where's the proof? This is the claim of the occupier. Sorry, I need convincing.
You're right. Bad guys don't always wear uniforms. Some of them wear suits and hide behind big impressive titles like prime minister, president, chairman and the like.
I fear this is just the proverbial tip of that immensely deep iceberg.
Is there no end to the felonius character of that man we used to call President of the United States? Talk about Big Brother!!! And to think those commenting on you earlier posting were paranoid about "Government" being involved in everything! Kind of ironic!
Based on what?
Your wishful thinking? I find it hard to believe you're a moderate conservative. 2008 is still a long way off. The liberals better find an agenda other than hating Bush before they'll have any chance in hades of electing more of them to congress much less to the White House.
BASED ON...???
You want to back up that comment?
Or are you just talking out of your backside?
Based on what? (nm)
x
Federal Grand Jury Digging Deep into Bush Crimes
PRESIDENT INDICTEDFEDERAL GRAND JURY DIGGING DEEP INTO BUSH CRIMES
By Greg SzymanskiA federal whistleblower close to the Chicago federal grand jury probe into perjury and obstruction charges against President Bush and others said indictments of top officials were handed down this week. A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the Northern District of Illinois, however, refused to confirm or deny the source’s account.
“We are not talking about any aspect of this case, and our office is not commenting on anything regarding the investigation at this time,” said Randall Sanborn from the office of U.S. federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, the attorney conducting the grand jury probe into whether Bush and others in his administration violated federal law in a number of sensitive areas, including leaking the name of a CIA operative to the media.
In December 2003, Fitzgerald was named special counsel to investigate the alleged disclosure of Valerie Plame’s name to several mainstream columnists, but the present grand jury probe has expanded to include widereaching allegations of criminal activity as new information has surfaced.
Although the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Chicago is staying silent, it is well known that Fitzgerald is digging deep into an assortment of serious improprieties among many Bush administration figures, based, in part, on subpoenaed testimony provided by former Secretary of State Colin Powell.
According to whistleblower Tom Heneghen, who recently reported on truthradio.com, Powell testified before the citizen grand jury that Bush had taken the United States to war based on lies, which is a capital crime involving treason under the U.S. Code. “Regarding the Powell testimony, there is no comment,” said Sanborn.
However, sources close to the federal grade jury probe also allegedly told Heneghen a host of administration figures under Bush were indicted, including Vice President Richard Cheney, Chief of Staff Andrew Card, Cheney Chief of Staff I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, former Attorney General John Ashcroft, imprisoned New York Times reporter Judith Miller and former Cheney advisor Mary Matalin. Heneghen, unavailable for comment, also allegedly told sources White House advisor Karl Rove was indicted for perjury in a major document shredding operation cover-up.
In recent weeks, there has been much controversy over Fitzgerald’s wide-reaching probe, which is extending far beyond the Bush administration to include what some have called “a wholesale cleansing” of a crimeladen White House and Congress.
Fitzgerald’s investigation is said to be also centered on members of the 9-11 Commission, members on both sides of the aisle in the House and Senate and also select high-powered members of the media.
Needless to say, administration officials are “fighting mad” with Fitzgerald. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts is trying to derail Fitzgerald’s probe by calling him to testify before the Senate regarding his true motives behind the investigation.
Political observers are now wondering whether administration-friendly Republican legislators, some under investigation themselves, are conspiring like President Nixon did in Watergate with Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox in an attempt to shield the Bush administration from prosecution.
In late July, reports about the recent bomb scare in the subway under the congressional offices at the Dirksen Building—coincidently near where Fitzgerald was holding his grand jury hearings—raised questions as to whether government operatives were sending the zealous prosecutor a “warning message” that he was entering dangerous waters with his investigation.
The bomb scare was reported to local police late Monday afternoon, July 18, causing the subway to be evacuated for approximately 45 minutes while bomb sniffing dogs and SWAT team members searched for what was reported to be “a suspicious package” left on one of the subway cars.
Fitzgerald began serving as the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Illinois in September 2001. He was initially appointed on an interim basis by former Attorney General Ashcroft before being nominated by Bush.
The Senate confirmed his nomination by unanimous consent in October 2001. In December 2003, he was named special counsel to investigate the Plame case. Based on the testimony of ABC sources in late July, it appears that at least two close associates of Rove testified before the grand jury. One was Susan Ralston, a longtime associate of Rove and considered to be his right hand.
The other was “Izzy” Hernandez, regarded as Rove’s left hand and now a top official in the Commerce Department.(Issue #33, August 15, 2005)
Honey chile, I was bred, born and raised in the deep south. LOL
Based on Cat 3. When NWS warning came out,
nm
It is based on income . . .
not on grades. You have to keep your grades up to keep receiving it, BUT the primary requirement to receive it is low income. So do you thing those who have done well for themselves should be required to give money to those who are below them if they are trying to do better? Because that is what is sounds like. As long as it is benefiting you, it is okay because you are trying to do better?
No matter how you slice it, you are still taking from those who have and giving it to havenots. Just stay consistent with your argument. Who is to say who HONESTLY deserves aid?
Yup. The one's that's based in reality.
As in the real deal.
Based on your response...
Your moniker is a misnomer...it should be Christian with hate!
Whether or not this is religiously based or not
I just cannot condone late-term abortions. For that to be legal.....I just think that would be horrible. If a child can survive outside of the womb even though it hasn't been born yet and then it is aborted.....that is just plain and simple murder and if we allow that....what does that say about us? I think abortion should be legal with some guidelines.
Right, not something based on facts but on a fixation
Based on what is going on right now with Russia and georgia...
I would say looking in his eyes and seeing KGB is pretty much on the mark. McCain knows who and what Russian "management" are. You can see what they think about negotiations. Basically told the world up yours, if we want Georgia back we are going to take it. Why doesn't Obama go visit them like he did Germany and give a speech about how he is a citizen of the world and see how far it gets him. Sigh....Careful what YOU ask for.
Based on what? Genitalia over issues?
She is not exactly champion of feminist issues. Not to worry. We're better than that. She's no Hillary and most of her supporters will not hesitate to point that out.
also based on a combination of bias
nm
The math is based on Sam's claim
If Sam is talking 80% approval rating in Alaska, that would imply that she is talking about people who actually are familiar with her policies, programs, credibility, how she conducts herself and soforth...in other words, approval rating among those who actually know her/voted for her. That is what a governor's approval rating is.
The math shows us how much of an overall approval rating of these same factors she has nationwide. SP was only in the governor's office for 20 months. She is still an unknown quantity here and will remain so. The only people who can rate her job performance are the one from her state, since she is not known in the lower 48. The math merely points out exactly what that means within the context of a national approval rating of job performance, since the rest of the 49 cannot possibly be included in that figure. Thus on a national level, that 0.182% means next to nothing.
Do you vote strictly based on what your
nm
|
