Now you get your info from wikipedia?
Posted By: Holy Moly is right! NM on 2008-10-24
In Reply to: Christian Terrorists - Holy Moly
??
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
Wikipedia says...
"Deviance describes actions or behaviors that violate cultural norms..." It seems to me that gay people are sexual deviants. Cultural norms for sexual behavior dictate woman + man.
according to wikipedia, it looks like it's always Jan 20
recently anyway
Definition of NWO from wikipedia
The term new world order has been used to refer to a new period of history evidencing a dramatic change in world political thought and the balance of power. The first usages of the term surrounded Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points and call for a League of Nations following the devastation of World War I. The phrase was used sparingly at the end of the Second World War when describing the plans for the United Nations and Bretton Woods system, in part because of the negative association the phrase would bring to the failed League of Nations. In retrospect however, many commentators have applied the term retroactively to the order put in place by the WWII victors as a new world order. The most recent, and most widely discussed, application of the phrase came at the end of the Cold War. Presidents Mikhail Gorbachev and George H.W. Bush used the term to try and define the nature of the post Cold War era, and the spirit of great power cooperation that they hoped might materialize. Gorbachev's initial formulation was wide ranging and idealistic, but his ability to press for it was severely limited by the internal crisis of the Soviet system. Bush's vision was, in comparison, much more circumscribed and pragmatic, perhaps even instrumental at times, and closely linked to the First Gulf War. Perhaps not surprisingly, the perception of what the new world order entailed in the press and in the public imagination far outstripped what either Gorbachev or Bush had outlined, and was characterized by nearly comprehensive optimism.
wikipedia is not end all be all....edited by US
and not wikipedia which is edited by the public, like you and I.... there's tons of other places to read about Odinga and Cousin Barack!!
You do know that Wikipedia is not always accurate, don't you?
I would hope you don't believe everything on the internet. Too bad people don't read or think for themselves anymore and have to trust websites (which can be compromised) for all of their information. It's so easy to cut and paste and not do any real research. Just look at some of the reports we type up; Google is used for everything and can be wrong.
and if Wikipedia does not suit you...
Webster says "deviating especially from an accepted norm." Not a whole lot different, but I guess less "violent"? I actually just went with the first relatively reliable site for a definition of deviant when I googled it, but if you want, I can gather a whole bunch.
wikipedia question
I often see people use Wikipedia as a source for their information, but even Wikipedia says it can be edited by anyone and it also says it is a resource for people whose primary language is not English. So how reliable is it really and what kind of editing can people do to it? Anybody know?
The problem with wikipedia is that
anyone can change and edit the information on that site. That is what makes its information potentially problematic.
wikipedia is a wonderful thing...
From Wikipedia:
In October 1996, she asked the Wasilla police chief, librarian, public works director, and finance director to resign, and she instituted a policy requiring department heads to get her approval before talking to reporters.[21] In January 1997, Palin notified the police chief, Irl Stambaugh, and the town librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons that they were being fired.[22] Palin said in a letter that she wanted a change because she believed the two did not fully support her administration. She rescinded the firing of the librarian, but not the police chief.[23] The chief filed a lawsuit; but a court dismissed it, finding that the mayor had the right to fire city employees for nearly any reason.[24] According to Ann Kilkenny, a Democrat who observed City Council, Palin also brought up the idea of banning some books at one meeting, but did not follow through with the idea.[20]
As mayor of Wasilla, Palin was in charge of the city Police Department, consisting of 25 officers, and Public Works.[25] She was praised for cutting property taxes by 40%[26] while improving roads and sewers and strengthening the Police Department.[20] She also reduced the mayoral salary, reduced spending on the town museum, and opposed a bigger library.[26] She increased the city sales tax to pay for the new Wasilla Multi-Use Sports Complex,[25] which eventually went over budget due to an eminent domain lawsuit.[27]
Palin ran for re-election against Stein in 1999[6][28] and was returned to office by a margin of 909 to 292 votes.[29] Palin was also elected president of the Alaska Conference of Mayors.[30]
During her second term as mayor, Palin hired the Anchorage-based lobbying firm of Robertson, Monagle & Eastaugh to lobby for earmarks for Wasilla. The effort was led by Steven Silver, a former chief of staff for Senator Ted Stevens,[31] and it secured nearly $27 million in earmarked funds. The earmarks included $500,000 for a youth shelter, $1.9 million for a transportation hub, $900,000 for sewer repairs, and $15 million for a rail project linking Wasilla and the ski resort community of Girdwood.[32] Some of the earmarks were criticized by Senator McCain.[33]
and on ethics:
In 1988, she worked as a sports reporter for KTUU-TV in Anchorage, Alaska.[15] She also helped in her husband’s family commercial fishing business.[16] Palin also had a 20% ownership in an Anchorage car wash business, according to state corporation records filed in 2004. Palin failed to report her stake in the company when running for governor in 2006; in April 2007, the state issued a "certificate of involuntary dissolution" because of the company's failure to file its biennial report and pay state licensing fees.[17
I found this information on Wikipedia....sm
A provisional ballot is used to record a vote when there is some question in regards to a given voter's eligibility. A provisional ballot would be cast when:
* The voter refuses to show a photo ID (in regions that require one)
* The voter's name does not appear on the electoral roll for the given precinct.
* The voter's registration contains inaccurate or out-dated information such as the wrong address or a misspelled name.
* The voter's ballot has already been recorded
Whether a provisional ballot is counted is contingent upon the verification of that voter's eligibility.
A guarantee that a voter could cast a provisional ballot if he or she believes that they are entitled to vote was one of the guarantees of the Help America Vote Act of 2002.
Here is the link if you want more information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_ballot
It looks like the count of provisional ballots in the event of a tie is determined by the state's voting laws. Again, something that I believe should be standardized, especially in national elections. Seems to be quite a bit wrong with our democratic election process.
Wikipedia and Glen Beck bio
Well, we all know Wikipedia is not the best place to go for information. It's also one-sided. The below sentence really popped out at me at Beck's leaving:
"Though, as some have noted, this will leave a gaping hole in CNN's "department of embarrassing conservatives we keep around to help us appear unbiased," insiders expect that other irritable commentators will continue to step up in this area. "
Tell me, now, that CNN is not biased. Glenn Beck can be irritating at times, but he does have some good points.
Take the man whose stepdaughter disappeared 2 years ago in Mexico. He promised the father he and the network (CNN) would follow up on the story until they found out what happened to her. CNN refused to follow up, so that is one reason Beck left. Now he is on Fox and has talked to the father again and this time, he promised again that he and Fox will follow up on his story. He stated he now works for a network that cares for people.
As in every network story on any channel, you either believe everything you hear, or you watch, listen, learn, then take it for what it's worth. I chose, and it's still my right, to listen to all sides and make decisions based on all sides.
My point of the above post was to irony of cigarette taxes paying for children's healthcare. That was it. Federal studies show that taxing cigarettes does not fill the coffers. It has the opposite effect. As cigarette taxes go up, people quit smoking. So there is a deficit in taxes to pay for programs from the get go.
Wikipedia & Snopes: kissin' cousins
And part of the Chicago/Obama machine. See for yourself, as you probably wouldn't believe me.
Here's a little info for you.
You brandish the name of your saviour like it was a badge of honor.
Did it ever occur to you that some people don't believe in your religion/saviour? Perhaps it never occurred to you that there are OTHER RELIGIONS out there in this world that other people believe in. Your salvation might be another person's idea of mythology.
It's kind of sad that your religious philosophy is to shove your crap down everyone else's throat.
Bush is a nutcase. This country is going down the tubes. And, after reading the blurb above about how he said God told him to clean up the mess in Iraq and God told him to declare war on the mideast, I fear that this country is really in deep doo-doo. I shudder to think what the next three years will be like under this administration. A president has to please ALL THE PEOPLE, not just one segment of the population.
As far as the supreme court and the abortion issue, well let's put it like this. If abortion becomes a crime AGAIN - women will be like third world citizens - AGAIN. Abortion will not stop, it will go back to the alleys, backrooms and other dirty places where it used to be done and women will DIE. And to use a worn-out phase - If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one.
Here is more info. sm
The term New World Order (NWO) has been used by numerous politicians through the ages, and is a generic term used to refer to a worldwide conspiracy being orchestrated by an extremely powerful and influential group of genetically-related individuals (at least at the highest echelons) which include many of the world's wealthiest people, top political leaders, and corporate elite, as well as members of the so-called Black Nobility of Europe (dominated by the British Crown) whose goal is to create a One World (fascist) Government, stripped of nationalistic and regional boundaries, that is obedient to their agenda.
Listen to the Zionist* banker, Paul Warburg:
We will have a world government whether you like it or not. The only question is whether that government will be achieved by conquest or consent. (February 17, 1950, as he testified before the US Senate).
Their intention is to effect complete and total control over every human being on the planet and to dramatically reduce the world's population by two thirds. While the name New World Order is the term most frequently used today to loosely refer to anyone involved in this conspiracy, the study of exactly who makes up this group is a complex and intricate one.
The corporate portion of the NWO is dominated by international bankers, oil barons and pharmaceutical cartels, as well as other major multinational corporations. The Royal Family of England, namely Queen Elizabeth II and the House of Windsor, (who are, in fact, descendants of the German arm of European Royalty - the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha family - changed the name to Windsor in 1914), are high level players in the oligarchy which controls the upper strata of the NWO. The decision making nerve centers of this effort are in London (especially the City of London), Basel Switzerland, and Brussels (NATO headquarters).
Would welcome info.
I would like to hear both your thoughts on stem cell research. I know little about it, really.
don't know where you get your info from
Probably some whack-job radio show who spew only one side (their side). The hatred those shows put out I still don't understand why people listen - or believe it! Guess they all feed off of "hate". And its on both sides! I've voted both. I voted for Clinton the first term. Two weeks later got a rude awakening on what he was about. Voted republican the next time. Then voted against Gore cos I didn't want a third term Clinton, but I wasn't voting for Bush, I was voting against and it has been like that ever since. You said McCain has more insight into the real world? Are you kidding? He is like Bush - exactly alike! He does not have insight into the real world and everytime he says something he has to be corrected by his closest peers. It reminds me of when I was watching Regan and Nancy Regan had to help him along. McCains wife is a billionairess. I have seen nothing to show that McCain will help the people. All he's interested in is keeping the war going for the next hundred years. Then somewhere along the line someone must have told him its popular among the people and they'll vote for you if you tell them you have a plan for bringing the troops home, so he started saying that. The truth is he has no intention of bringing troops home. And if the war ends in Iraq/Afganistan he'll send them somewhere else. He refuses to sit down and talk to leaders of other countries. Just "take-em-out". As for new world order. Take another look ....they are all for it. This is nothing new with leaders - Hillary especially. What she has in her sights is creating one world government and she wants to rule over it. But I've been listing to Obama talk and I hear nothing of that (I'm still not voting for him, but I haven't heard any of what you seem to be hearing). As for him changing the Seal of the US President - I sure don't know where your getting your info but that is just plain wrong. Sounds like something Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or some other nut case republican radio show host is saying. And as for his church. I have heard other people talk about the church and it is not all hate. So they take a sound bite from one sermon and blow it up. Let's talk about Hague (a supporter of McCain), or how about Fallwell when he was alive (another supporter of the republicans). They are the most hateful and biggotted people. They don't talk about love (unless you happen to be their religion). You can keep religion. I want to be closer to God so therefore I am staying away from all churches. So go ahead and vote republican, I myself will be thinking for myself and deciding for myself, not what someone else tells me I should do.
Info
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26496189/
Here is some info...
In the middle of this blog's home page is a section called "Seriously?" in which someone's comments are quoted incredulously. It currently features John McCain and his reply at Saturday's Saddleback Forum when asked to define "rich": "I think if you're just talking about income," McCain said, "how about $5 million?"
To be fair to McCain, his answer was more nuanced than that.
As soon as he said it, he gave the following qualification (note, too, his own use of the word "seriously"):
I don't think, seriously that—the point is that I'm trying to make here seriously—and I'm sure that comment will be distorted, but the point is...that we want to keep people's taxes low and increase revenues.
...So it doesn't matter really what my definition of "rich" is because I don't want to raise anybody's taxes. I really don't. In fact, I want to give working Americans a better shot at having a better life. And we all know the challenges, my friends.
McCain's answer was a good one. He refused to play the game of defining "rich," because the premise of that game is that "rich" people aren't taxed enough. The percentage of one's income forked over to the federal government is hardly the best indicator of one's contributions to the American economy—not least because it assumes lawmakers spend the money wisely. Allow individuals to retain their earnings and they invest in companies, buy new cars, or remodel their houses—all of which keeps the economy humming. As hard as it is to imagine, even nitwitted Paris Hilton has her benefits. Her spending sprees keep shops open, salespeople employed, and importers, manufacturers, marketers, and a whole host of others in business.
But what was Barack Obama's answer to what constitutes rich? A family earning $250,000. Given that he proposes raising the top marginal rate to 39.6 percent, that would mean the family is left with $151,000—and that's before local, state, property, and sales taxes.
So for Obama, leaving a family with $151,000 means they're rich? Er, "Seriously?"
Really...SERIOUSLY???
Some info for you on the ads
Said I wouldn't be back because of all the bickering and fighting going on, but I came here today to let you know about the following information. I think everyone will find it interesting.
WGAL-TV reporter Matt Belanger will be looking at the ads of both candidates in the coming weeks and break them down so we can be INFORMED voters. Here are his first investigations. He will be doing this every week until election day. It may help some people on this board make up their minds without going to the trash sites for garbage news. Enjoy and PLEASE STOP FIGHTING!!!!
If the links don’t work, go to www.wgal.com and in the search box at the top left, put in “Video 8: On Your Side.”
http://www.wgal.com/video/17508920/index.html
http://www.wgal.com/video/17491060/index.html
Thanks for this info. I would like to see it, too. nm
x
A little info on this......
http://www.waronfreedom.org/dox/BONoUsCitizen.htm
More info here....
http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/08/did_il_abortion.html
August 22, 2008
Did IL abortion law protect babies aborted alive?
Sean Hannity has done a fabulous job covering the Barack Obama/Born Alive scandal.
For the past 2 nights his liberal counterpart, Alan Colmes, has proposed rationale far and away from Obama's original reason for opposing the IL Born Alive Infants Protection Act, which he stated on the IL State Senate floor in 2001, at the genesis of this debate:
I just want to suggest ... that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny....
I mean, it - it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.
Colmes has maintained, quoting from last night's show, "there was already a law in place that said that in the unlikely case that an abortion would be - cause a live birth, a doctor should provide immediate medical care for any child born alive."
Here are Hannity and Colmes segments from August 20 and August 21, debating Obama's opposition to Born Alive:
Was there a law in place? As National Review Online's Ramesh Ponnuru explained in a column August 20...
IL law has rules - loophole-ridden rules, but rules - requiring treatment of babies who have "sustainable survivability." If an attempted abortion of a pre-viable fetus results in a live birth, the law did not protect the infant. Nurse Jill Stanek said that at her hospital "abortions" were repeatedly performed by inducing the live birth of a pre-viable fetus and then leaving it to die. When she made her report, the attorney general said that no law had been broken. That's why legislators proposed a bill to fill the gap.
National Right to Life adds:
Obama's defenders... fail to mention that the law covered only situations where an abortionist decided before the abortion that there was "a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb."...
Moreover, as [liberal columnist] Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune notes (August 20, 2008), "Prosecutors in IL entered into a consent decree in 1993 agreeing not to prosecute doctors for apparent or alleged violations of this law based on 'born alive' definitions or other definitions." To read or download the consent decree to which Mr. Zorn refers, click here.
Also see this letter we received from Republican pro-life IL Attorney General Jim Ryan in July 2000 stating he could find no law Christ Hospital was violating (click to enlarge):
![Jim](http://www.jillstanek.com/Jim%20Ryan%20letter%20page%201-thumb-500x822.jpg")
info about AP
They are now free to put opinions in their so-called news. Check it out if you don't believe me. It's not like it wasn't that way previously, but now it's out in the open.
Thanks for the info....(sm)
I hadn't really thought that much about how much manipulation Israel itself does with these groups. I've always looked more from the aspect of US intervention and backing. I'll have to read up on that. Thanks.
More info...........
This lady did give birth prematurely to the child (only 3 to 4 months pregnant) with several severe conditions and, of course, it still is in critical condition, and this was in January she gave birth.
So if the child is living and in critical condition, the mother is now in custody and in jail and could face 20 years in prison, why is it our precious president thinks it's no big deal to allow late term abortions, allow a STILL living aborted baby to lie in a bucket until dies an agonizing death because Obama says it doesn't deserve medical care even though the child is still alive and abortion didn't kill it, and the doctors and nurses present aren't put in jail and the mother who chose to have this sick procedure isn't put in jail?
This country is going to he!! in a handbasket fast!!!
thanks for the info
Thanks for the nice reply - I was a little hesitant to post, thought I might get blasted as I realize this can be a sensitive topic.
I just posted because I believe there were misconceptions about what a universal sytem might entail. And obviously any attempt so have something similar in the United States would be a massive undertaking and probably would be a different model than what we have. Just want to mention a couple of things. Someone mentioned government interference, not specifically referring to Canada, but more to the US. There really isn't much here - everyone has a health card and wherever we go we use it. Within your own province and going to most other provinces (excluding Quebec, where they always like to be different) most of the time there is no government-related paperwork, no permission for tests/surgeries/etc., and everything is between the patient and doc.
I realize some doctors would no longer be involved in direct patient care, but some here are not as well, although I would think universal coverage would mean fewer doctors needed as legal consultants, people wouldn't need to sue to cover their medical bills?
Another bonus. I've been working as an MT for 29 years, for many different places, have never been employed at a place where our work is sent offshore (probably happens, but not to such a degree). Maybe combination of health care not being run by private interests and I believe we have stricter privacy laws covering all personal information, including health-related.
Thanks
Where did you get your info?
I saw nothing in the bill that included all you included in your statement. As I read it, it just allows for stiffer penalties for hate crimes.
I would definitely like to check this out more.
Actually, thanks for posting this....appreciate the info.
Not sure what all the rants are all about. You were simply echoing what Santorum said in a tongue-in-cheek kind of way. Thanks for sharing this article.
A little info PK, or should I say *Stephen*
Your...his post was deleted because they were accompanied by profanity. The usual left spin machine is in full swing here.
If you simply follow the rules and don't curse people you will find your posts have true staying power.
This is interesting info, but does not add anything to...sm
THIS debate. Not buying it...Clinton can not be used as a scapegoat here.
If you believe the allegations and conspiracy theories against Clinton, why turn a deaf ear to Bush? That is partison ignorance.
and I too had to pass on this info
http://share.triangle.com/node/13576
The questions remain :
What is Barack Husein Obama - a Senator from Illinois - doing when he is interacting with a violent rebel, muslim leader in Kenya who may have been responsible for the murder of dozens of innocent people burned to death simply because they took refuge in a church?
What is Barack Husein Obama doing when he interferes in the internal operations of a foreign nation like Kenya?
Are you going to let a well organized and well financed representative of a foreign government push his way any further into your national government?
How many more people have to die before Americans come to understand that Barack Husein Obama is not a product of the land of Lincoln?
Born in Hawaii he spent most of his life in the violent and backward nation of Indonesia – where not too long ago the Australians had to stop the Muslims from killing all the Christians in East Timor.
When will this blood soaked travesty of our national political system come to an end? When will the mocking smirk of our enemies be wiped from our television screens?
Change they want? With the gun? With the torch?
Would like to respond, but need more info....
I have been a bit out of touch the past week or so (looking for a job) and have not heard about Obama's latest remarks regarding sanctions, coalitions and the like. Could you please cite your sources for this information? It sounds like spin to me, but I like to keep open mind. You are right about much food for thought and I would like to enter this discussion once I know where this is coming from.
IMO, the sanctions against Iraq have very little to do with "punishing" Sadaam and more to do with serving US interests in destabilizing the region as a whole, thus facilitating US ambitions of securing and maintaining "oil"igarchy in the Middle East. We have been doing that ever since the late 1940s. Examples abound. Don't get me started.
The Iran sanctions discussion is a moot point. We have imposed sanctions against Iran ever since the Islamic revolution in 1979. Over the years, these have been extended and have become so harsh, there really is nothing left to sanction. This has succeeded in fueling the hatred Islamic extremists hold toward the West and emboldened their leaders, who have been quite resourcesful in bypassing US sanctions by forming alliances with other western and eastern countries.
With regard to "international coalitions" against Iran, I would be more worried about the Bush Administration covert operations as described recently by Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/04/17/060417fa_fact) than anything Obama may come up with.
Still, I would be interested in learning more about these remarks you find so troubling.
THanks for the info. I think others here could benefit from it also.
Thank you for sharing. I really didn't know that.
Got this info on Kilkenny...
According to Ann Kilkenny, a Democrat who observed City Council, Palin also brought up the idea of banning some books at one meeting, but did not follow through with the idea.[18]
This is the Kilkenny who wrote the email. Obviously the story has changed.
I cannot find anything to verify the size of the deficit other than heresay. I guess the only way you would know is fly up there and look at the city records. Out of curiousity I did Google average city budget deficits, and when I saw all the cities here and all the deficits...
And I would also need to know if that "surplus" was an actual surplus or another one of those phantom "projected" surplusses. I cannot find anything concrete on that either.
I'm sure reliable info is out there somewhere...... sm
but it would be hard to find. Any national coverage for the UAW would be the same, I would think, as the national coverage that Obama wants to put in place for all Americans.
one of many places for this info
And plenty more will be posted here. I hadn't even heard of Democratic Underground. Classy!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,419964,00.html
Your info is wrong
Show me the link that shows McCain is blaming Obama. I keep searching and am not finding it. Everything I am finding says "McCain is blaming Obama allies" (not Obama himself as you stated).
I did find an article that says "McCain all but blames Obama for the crisis". The article then goes on to state that two years ago McCain called for reform of the curruption at FM/FM and congress did nothing (I believe we have a democratic congress). Senator Obama did nothing and actually profited from this system of abuse and scandel.
The fact of the matter is that Obama was taking the money and he received more than anyone in congress except for the democratic chairman of the committee that overseas them. If you want to talk about corrupt you should start first with Obama and find out why he kept accepting money and why he isn't paying any of it back.
Here's the article in full so you can read it for yourself. Another lame try from the liberals at trying to take the focus off of what Obama has done (or not done).
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/McCain_pitchfork_in_hand_blames_Obama_allies_for_crisis.html
More info on Obama
OBAMA/AYERS PUSHED RADICALISM ON SCHOOLS
Turns out their relationship runs much deeper than Obama's campaign lets on. |
Permalink | ShareShare | E-Mail
visiting www.spectator.org has sent you a link to the following story:
You can read this story in its entirety on the web at:
http://www.Spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13459
Freedom and the View From Obamaland
By Jeffrey Lord
From talk radio to oil and guns, the left’s chilling vision of the future emerges.
FYI: Many Dems do NOT want passage of The Fairness Doctrine, knowing full well that it'll come right around to bite them. That's not even considering the obvious fact about silencing freedom of speech. Also, think how irate 60 Minutes, etc. would be when the conservative view would have to be instilled into their shows. It's the goose/gander thing.
|
So many assumptions......so little info
Here ya go again. If there is info that doesn't look great about Obama, then one must be a McCain supporter. Look, I can't help it if the person you want in office is disliked by his own VP and his own VP choice has already said Obama is NOT the man for the job. He has no experience. It's fact....deal with it. It just goes to show ya what strange bed fellas get together. All Biden wants is to get his foot in the door 4 years from now. He has no faith in Obama and probably also took the job to keep an eye on his disasters while in office.
Biden actually is a McCain lover, sorry to pop your bubble on that. He sings nothing but praises for John McCain BUT he can't do that for Obama. Even Biden can't stoop to lying about a man he doesn't care for, even if he is of his own party.
Where did you find all this info?
I know he didn't put his hand over his heart during the national anthem, but I haven't heard about him not saying the pledge, saluting the flag, or not shaking the hands of soldiers.
I do feel that Obama is someone that we need to question. I think his followers are in for a big surprise if Obama gets elected. But putting aside all of his associations, etc.......Obama will not help this economy. He puts Bush down for the deficit going up and if you add up all of Obama's government plans and spending.....he will actually add more to the deficit. To raise taxes on anyone during this kind of crisis isn't good for the economy. There aren't enough "rich" people to tax to pay for all Obama wants to do. It isn't feasible.
I don't make enough money and I will be one of the supposed 95% that benefits from Obama's plan. However, I still don't think him taxing only the rich is a feasible thing and I don't want a government handout. Not all of that 95% are working people and they will basically get a welfare check with money they didn't earn. Just let me have and keep the money I earn. I don't want money taken from others who earned it. That isn't right. I want the American dream. I want what I have because I earned it....not because it was given to me and taken from someone else.
I've always been told by my parents that you will feel good about yourself if you work hard and achieve something. Getting a monthly welfare check with money you didn't earn at the expense of hard working individuals isn't achieving anything. It is doing nothing but penalizing hard work. It is destroying the American dream. Why strive to achieve something when the government is going to take it away from you and give it to someone who didn't strive to achieve anything?
Latest info
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/17/obamas-lead-falls-two-points-in-new-cnn-poll-of-polls/
Info on Obama on FNC
Make up your own mind about Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers. It's on now, but check your own TV schedules. It also repeats. FYI.
Pretty scary.
Thanks for the inside info
I would also be worried about food safety if the chicken comes from outside of the country. I don't think China has that as a number one priority.
Yet another reason to buy organic meat.
Info about CF is deposited....(sm)
Thank you for sharing. I think your post showed a great deal of courage and resilience, something we should all aspire to achieve. Hang in there. I wish you the best.
Thanks for the info. I sure hope he does
today's economy. 12,000 for a pair of earrings? Some people need jobs just to put food on the table. Maybe a car that works?
Sorry, but that info is not new news
the 60 million bucks his city was given years before. No one has questioned him about the whereabouts of that money. Sorry,you can't blame Bush for everything because the money was given before Bush came in......
Have to change info on $13 tax cut.
Just heard they don't expect it to kick in until NEXT year, then the year after that will be the whopping $8.
An economist stated when Reagan put the tax cuts in, it took a whole 5 years for the plan to take effect; i.e., economy to pick up, so batten down the hatches. We're in for it if Iran doesn't get us first.
Keep looking for info. I just heard that
those who dutifully paid their mortgages may be able to get help if their interest rates are 7.5 or higher. They may be able to get it knocked down to 5-6%.
They are supposedly going to let FannieMae/FreddieMac handle it (of all groups!), but they hope to divert $75B of the money to refinancing mortgages.
I don't know how you'd even find that info
Wikipedia (yeah, I know, consider the source) lists the unemployment rate there as only 3.9%, which given ours is hovering in the 8-9 range, seems pretty good. The article seemed to indicate that rather than inspiring laziness, the system seems to cultivate a "we're all in this together" kind of work ethic.
Thanks for the post, here's some more info from today
Here's a snippet from a piece on CNN from today. It's an interview with John Dean. He points out that this Rove thing is not all that simple and there may be other things involved than just outing a CIA agent.
DOBBS: In a perhaps bizarre piece, it appears that Time magazine leaked some material to Newsweek magazine. I can't say that for certain, but it appears that way. The fact is: It's unclear whether what Karl Rove may or may not have done here is even illegal.
DEAN: That's right. It isn't clear.
DOBBS: What's your sense of that?
DEAN: We can't tell on the facts we have alone whether we have a law that's been violated or which laws have been violated. The attention is focused on the CIA Identities Protection Act and that hasn't really been my concern.
I think probably the lawyers involved in this case are looking at the other potential concerns. You take the prima facie facts we have and this could very well be a couple statutes that are involved with Mr. Rove.
He could be, well, converting government information to his own political uses and putting it out, and that is a violation of the law. It could be the statute that got a lot of those of us involved in Watergate, which is if he is conspiring with others to do what he's not being paid as a government employee to do, which it would be in this instance, to leak information for political purposes. That in turn, could be a violation as well.
DOBBS: Effectively, fraud and conspiracy.
DEAN: Yes.
More info on this, plus other items of interest
Check out this website:
factcheck.org
It's part of the Annenberg Foundation (don't know anything about that group). Anyway this seems to be a fairly nonpartisan website (even gives statistics backing that up). It provides great coverage of the claims made by both candidates and where the truth actually lay. Not surprisingly it appeared that overall Bush had a bigger problem with manipulating the truth than Kerry.
The site is not limited to just the candidates from the last election - I check it periodically out of general interest. As I said, I want the truth, even if it's painful sometimes.
|
