I read last night regarding voters and pocketbook issues. In this survey 2/3 polled want universal health care. Those graphs are great! The health insurance companies are largely the culprit. The Teflon Don would be less greedy than BCBS, Aetna, etc.!!!
Poll: Pocketbook Issues Rising
By JIM KUHNHENN and TREVOR TOMPSON – 1 day ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — Kitchen table worries pushed ahead of the war in Iraq over the past month, a shift toward pocketbook issues that has gained currency as the election year dawns.
More than half the voters in an ongoing survey for The Associated Press and Yahoo News say the economy and health care are extremely important to them personally. They fear they will face unexpected medical expenses, their homes will lose value or mortgage and credit card payments will overwhelm them.
Events, however, can quickly change public opinion. Thursday's assassination of Pakistan opposition leader Benazir Bhutto could draw more attention to terrorism and national security, an issue that still ranked highly with the public and which 45 percent of those polled considered extremely important.
This latest AP-Yahoo News survey of more than 1,800 people by Knowledge Networks offers a unique opportunity to track changes in public attitudes as the presidential campaign unfolds. The first poll was last month and set a base line to measure national sentiment.
In the new results, men and women approaching retirement were especially attentive to the economy and health care, with six out of 10 ranking both issues extremely important. Politically, the attention to such domestic issues hangs darkly over Republicans. Voters say they are far more likely to trust Democrats to handle the economy and health care.
Consider Linda Zimmerman, a 50-year-old sheep farmer from Thurmont, Md. Her daughter and son-in-law are having trouble keeping up with two mortgages on a town house, she said. One street in her neighborhood has five homes for sale, and one has been on the market for two years.
Registered as a Republican, she's ready to reconsider.
"We're Republicans and I'm very unhappy with them, and I've been watching the Democrats," she said. "We did better when (Bill) Clinton was in than we did with Bush. It's just terrible."
The Democratic edge on such issues illustrates the predicament Republicans face going into a presidential election. Iraq doesn't dominate the news as it used to, replaced by headlines about slumping home sales, high gasoline prices and a credit crunch.
The impact of Bhutto's assassination on public opinion depends on whether Americans perceive her death as an added threat to the United States. Terrorism was the only issue polled that Republicans were more trusted than Democrats to handle well.
Republican Rudy Giuliani had benefited most from people's fears of terrorism. But over the past month his level of support dropped, even among voters who said terrorism was an important issue. Giuliani is now trying to get some of those voters back, releasing an ad Thursday that uses images of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack on New York.
All in all, though, voters appear to be weighing other issues at least as heavily as the country heads into the first voting of the presidential election.
Financial worries have risen in prominence. Forty-eight percent of those polled said Social Security is extremely important to them, up from 42 percent in November. That's virtually the same as the 46 percent who considered Iraq extremely important.
These new public concerns are reflected on the campaign trail, where candidates are hitting domestic topics hard. There too, Democrats have an edge over Republicans when it comes to connecting with their core voters.
Overall, 42 percent of Democrats are very or extremely satisfied with the amount of attention their favored candidates are giving to the issues that matter most to them. Only 32 percent of Republicans feel that way about their candidates. Of all the candidates, Democrat Barack Obama gets the best rating among his supporters.
Bill Hine, a 65-year-old Vietnam veteran from Warrenton, Va., considers himself a "soft Republican" who is partial to John McCain. But the nation's health system needs fixing, he said, and he's not happy with what he's hearing.
"A lot of Republicans are just anti-anything, anti-changing anything, and that's one of the things I'll be looking at," he said.
Six out of 10 people polled said they believe it is at least somewhat likely that the U.S. economy will enter a recession next year. Slightly more — 64 percent — said they worried about a major unexpected medical expense, and 55 percent worried that the value of their stocks and retirement investments would drop.
Forty-four percent said they were concerned that the value of their homes would decrease during the next six months. That sentiment was especially strong in the mountain states.
"Middle-class America is being chipped away at," said Edward Lemieux, a 57-year-old pattern maker from North Smithfield, R.I., who plans to support Obama for president.
His view is influenced by the flight of manufacturing jobs from his state, by the "For Sale" signs that outnumber the "Sold" signs on neighborhood lawns and by his mother's health care needs.
"We're all of a sudden becoming a country of rich and poor," he said. "The middle class is eroding."
Despite those worries, respondents have grown slightly more optimistic about the direction of the nation during the past month. Nearly three out of 10 say the country is on the right path, compared with 24 percent last month. This uptick in the national mood is evident in both parties, though it's much stronger among Republicans. Still, more than seven out of 10 said they believe the U.S. is headed down the wrong track.
Interest in immigration — a major issue in the Republican presidential contest — remained the same as last month, with 37 percent saying it was an extremely important issue. But for all the candidates' efforts to distinguish themselves on that issue, the poll found that none of the leading contenders holds an advantage among Republicans who feel most strongly about immigration.
Sentiments on health care and the economy could make a difference in the Democratic contest.
Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Edwards supporters have much stronger feelings about the economy and Social Security than Obama voters. Edwards has staked his campaign on a message of economic populism, while Clinton draws 40 percent of her support from people with household incomes of less than $25,000, far more than her rivals.
Clinton, Obama and Edwards have been feuding over who would provide the most comprehensive health care plan.
Nearly two-thirds of voters polled said the United States should adopt a universal health insurance program "in which everyone is covered under a program like Medicare that is run by the government and financed by taxpayers." Fewer, but still a majority at 54 percent, said they supported a single-payer system whereby all Americans would get their health insurance through a taxpayer-financed government plan.
Lynn Haynes, 42, of Huntington, W.Va., works in the state government's welfare department where she sees clients who can't afford health care. What's more, she has a 35-year-old sister who is developmentally delayed and "falls into the cracks" of government assistance programs. She's a registered Republican, likes Giuliani but supports universal health care and is giving Democrats a hard look.
"I see too many people at work especially who just don't get any health care," Haynes said. "I look at what they get for retirement and Social Security, and I don't see how they live on that and afford their prescriptions."
The survey of 1,821 adults was conducted from Dec. 14-20, and had an overall margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.3 percentage points. Included were interviews with 847 Democrats, for whom the margin of sampling error was plus or minus 3.4 points, and 655 Republicans, with a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.8 points.
The poll was conducted over the Internet by Knowledge Networks, which initially contacted people using traditional telephone polling methods and followed with online interviews. People chosen for the study who had no Internet access were given it for free.
AP News Survey Specialist Dennis Junius and Associated Press writer Christine Simmons contributed to this report.
Now, now, piglet....did I EVER say you or any other...
liberal was evil? I just have a differing opinion on some issues. Why some cannot handle that, why it is such a thorn in some sides...why there is such intolerance on this board for a differing opinion...one does wonder.
Ahh, the paradox of what is God's will. "Thou shalt not kill" being one of the commandments, I find it really strange how many bloody battles are chronicled in the Bible and of course, God's team always wins. So what's that message - don't kill unless God tells you its cool? How do you know GOD is the one telling you to kill - maybe its a demon impersonating god and trying to get you sin by killing without God's express permission?
Certainly our president must have a direct line to God and has direct permission to go kill - it can't possibly be God's will for those people to stay alive (yet strangely he created them in the first place, hmmmm).
And what about bugs and vermin? Its OK to kill them - right? Its OK to kill animals for sport and food, right? Don't need God's permission to kill them - even though it is presumably God's will for them to be alive or they wouldn't be here?
Let pro-war anti-abortionists clarify that one, please!
They call it worst security glitch to date in state's voting machines and a 'big deal'
By Stephanie Desmon Sun reporter
May 12, 2006
Computer security experts say they have found the worst security flaw yet in the oft-criticized touch-screen machines that Maryland voters will use in this year's elections, leaving one computer scientist to warn that the state should have stacks of paper ballots on hand in case of a complete Election Day breakdown.
The machines, made by Diebold Elections Systems, are much, much easier to attack than anything we've previously said, said Avi Rubin, a Johns Hopkins University computer science professor who first cast doubt on the reliability of the technology in a 2003 report.
On a scale of one to 10, if the problems we found before were a six, this is a 10. It's a totally different ballgame, he said.
The new problem is being described as an intentional hole left in the system to allow elections workers to update voting software easily. Instead of using pass codes or other security protocols, anyone with access to a voting machine could install new software that could easily disable a precinct full of machines, Rubin said.
Diebold officials say they are aware of the situation and, although they say any problem can be avoided by keeping a close watch on voting machines, they are developing a permanent fix.
Still, said company spokesman David K. Bear, it's one more what-if scenario. ... It's becoming somewhat ridiculous.
Maryland elections officials said they have known about the latest concerns for two weeks and will have an independent security consultant look into them next week to ensure that the state's Diebold machines are safe.
We are taking steps, said state elections administrator Linda H. Lamone. She said she is confident that the problem will have little effect in Maryland because of strict rules about who is permitted to handle voting machines in the state. Everyone that has access to them has to undergo a criminal background check, she said.
Before the Diebold machines were distributed statewide about two years ago, questions arose about whether hackers might be able to get into the automated-teller-like computers and alter their software, allowing multiple votes, vote-switching and other problems.
Computer experts, including Rubin, said security measures were insufficient and poorly designed. Activists pushed to add a paper ballot component to the machines in case a recount was needed.
Still, the state moved forward and nearly every voter in Maryland used a touch-screen machine in the 2004 presidential election. There were few complaints or problems.
Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. called on the state this year to abandon its touch-screen machines, saying he had no confidence in the technology, in part because lawmakers adopted other voting changes such as early voting.
He put money into his budget to pay for optical scan machines, which were used in the state for years before 2004. The General Assembly did not approve a voting machine switch during this year's session, which ended last month.
Rubin said he fears that the latest security problem could be serious enough to cause an Election Day meltdown that could put precincts of machines out of action. He recommends that counties have a pen-and-paper alternative on hand as insurance.
Joseph M. Getty, the governor's legislative and policy director, called the newly disclosed security flaw not really a new problem.
It's the same problem of vulnerability to outsiders, he said.
Getty said the latest Diebold problem bolsters the administration's case against early voting, which was approved by the legislature last year. He said any security risk can be minimized in one day of voting but is multiplied when machines are in public use for six days.
Michael Shamos, a computer science professor at Carnegie Mellon University and a Pennsylvania voting machine examiner, pushed his state, which will have a primary election next week, to lay out strict new rules for installing software and sealing machines for safety.
It's a big deal. It's a very big deal, Shamos said. The good part is it's very easy to fix. You have to repair it. You can't just do nothing. ... It's not just like leaving the key to your door under the mat. It's like leaving the key dangling from a string from the door.
The temporary fix, Shamos said, involves reinstalling the proper software just before the election, preferably in a public setting, then locking the machines to keep them from being tampered with before voting begins.
In 2004, Shamos testified on behalf of the state of Maryland in a suit filed by a citizens group asking a court to compel the state to address possible security problems and give voters the option of using paper ballots instead of the new machines. The state won.
If I had known about this problem then, I wouldn't have had good things to say, he said.
The latest security hole was discovered by Finnish computer scientist Harri Hursti, who was doing work in Utah for Black Box Voting Inc., a nonprofit group that has focused on computerized voting.
Most computer scientists don't want to disclose too many details about the problem because they fear that would provide hackers with the tools needed to cause havoc during an election. They waited many weeks before making their findings public.
We were worried the threat was so serious that if the details were to get out, someone could actually do it, Rubin said.
Yeah Piglet!!
You make my point so much more eloquently than I can!
Protection, piglet.....
if we remove the US military presence and full blown insurgency left to take over, the people we are protecting with patrols in Baghdad will no longer have that protection. If they are killing as many of them as they are with us there, you really expect that to just stop when we leave? What bubble are YOU living in?
My way of thinking is not to abandon them now that we are there, regardless of how we got there. You can't turn back time. It's done. And yes, I think we owe it to the Iraqis who welcomed us (and they did in the beginning) and trusted us (and they did in the beginning and some still do...I see it because I don't just watch liberal media)...yes, I think we owe it to those people not to abandon them. If that means a continued military presence for awhile, then I think we should do that. You don't agree. Fine. I think the pain the Iraqi people will feel will be multipled many times over if we pull out now. You don't. Fine. Not sure how you arrive at that conclusion, but I don't need to. We will just agree to disagree.
And..as a side note...I don't really think you are in a position to call ME arrogant.
I suppose I didn't get through all your post, to coin your words, too much recycled "wind."
Bottom line...if they ever DO get past the posturing stage and impeach the man, and if he is proven guilty, he should be removed from office. I have said that time and time again. Because I do believe in innocent until proven guilty, no matter what political bent someone is. And if he is proven guilty, I sure won't be defending him and yelling hatchet job and vast leftwing conspiracy. You can't say that honestly, you know you can't. If he was found innocent you would be screaming those very things just like everyone else on the liberal blogs. There is no objective thinking anymore. There is no equal application of the law anymore. And that only bothers you on your own side. You could care less what happens to people who do not agree with you. And there is something very, very wrong with that picture.
You have an inability to think objectively anymore. Everything is colored by your political idealogical bent. If a Republican, or a "conservative" says it, it has to be a lie. Cheney is guilty in your mind no matter what an impeachment trial would bring out. Bush is guilty in your mind, it does not matter what evidencce to the contrary might be presented. At least have the guts to admit it. You don't believe if equal justice for all. You don't believe in the concept of justice unless it applies to your side of the fence.
And that, my friend, is why I, and a lot of other Americans, are sick to death of politics. And which is why I am hoping that if Paul does not get the nomination, or another person who shall remain nameless, I hope one of them will run on Independent ticket and send a real message. I hope someone has the guts to tap that resource. I would really like to see that happen. So I am taking your advice, piglet. I am looking to change things. And it is about darned time someone did...thank you SO much for the motivation. Perhaps what I can do here will help. Movements start somewhere, with someone.
The financial crisis is happening NOW and has to be handled NOW. Our country is collapsing. If we do not do some sort of bail out, we all will still suffer from this. The value of the dollar will go down. It will be much much harder and pretty much impossible for some to get loans from banks. This means people won't be buying anything big like vehicles, homes, etc. That will ruin sales even more than it is now. Car companies will have to cut back on production because people can't get loans to buy. The car dealers will start closing down because you can't make money if you can't sell vehicles. Think of the jobs lost right there and that is just with vehicles.
I don't feel that we should have to foot the bill. I'm totally disgusted that our government has allowed it to get this far out of wack but we have to do something to get money back into the market. If we do nothing, the consequence will be horrific. We have to do something and we have to do something fast and that is more important than a debate especially since we have until November for elections.
why, I don't know. It could be that the post office changed our street address 4 times yet lived here since ྈ. I wasn't on the list even though I've been registered since 1988 and voted every election. All of a sudden, I had to fill out a special form to vote. Last local primary, they wouldn't let me vote and I had to re-register. Stupid!
This year I called to make sure I was registered and they said yes. Got a new registration card with the old address on it, but no trouble this year. I was #235 at 7:30 a.m.
Can they see Russia from their house? I have always been worried about Russia
There was a great quote from 40 or 20 years ago, from a Russian professor, I'll have to search for it. But, basically it said something like, "We will bring them in with good will and kindness, and then we will crush them with our iron fist!"
However, the issue with Russia doesn't raise any concerns over Obama with me. Maybe he can use a little diplomacy instead of just trying to bomb everything off the map, lol!
Yes, I am worried about Russia.
I do not mean to sound churchy, but I have been brought up that it states in the Bible that Russia (known as another name in Bible, but shows it on a map where Russia is) to be very worried. When the country Russia comes into play, need to worry about Amargeddon, The End Times. Not the countries of Iran, North Korea, etc., but Russia. Yes, I am concerned about Russia.
We never believe a word they say unless it somehow coincides with our own opinions, huh?
I brought up Russia............sm
because it was an example of basically an exact opposite from what America is. You seem to want to live completely opposite than Americans have lived for the 150 (give or take) years before Madelyn Murray O'Hare started raising Cain (no pun intended) about prayer in schools, etc. While I realize atheists did exist prior to her time, for the most part, they pretty much "lived and let live" much as Christians did with respect to co-existing with them. That is more what I would call "tolerance" rather than getting all up in arms because God's name appears on the currency that puts a roof over your head, food on your table and clothes on your back.
As to the issue of Christian gays and lesbians, I really feel that is a subject more for the Faith forum and would happily discuss it with you there sometime as I have opinions on that as well. (are you surprised? LOL)
Marriage is a union between a man and a woman period. Unless you are married to a woman, then of course I feel your marriage is valid and certainly not worthless. You are really stretching the limits of common sense on this subject with your suppositions.
Your next to last statement is absolutely correct. There is only one way for true Christianity and that is based solely on the teachings in the Bible. People who do not believe the Bible do see it as divisive and intolerant, but like Paul said "the preaching of the cross is foolishness to those who do not believe." Again, another fascinating subject for the Faith forum, but I would state that it is not Christians who seek to divide this nation but unbelievers who do because of their unbelief.
With all that said, JtBB, I will say this. I find you a very interesting person and really enjoy debating issues with you and hope you realize that just because our opinions clash some, okay most, of the time does not mean that I don't like you. :o)
My advice to your party if you want to win elections
start preparing for the future instead of living in the past.
Ah, the piglet post of disdain...
I can always count on you.
If you had read the post a little closer, you would have seen that I said that John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson did NOT run from war...the word "except" is the big one you missed. You might try reading the whole thing and understanding it before going off on me...but you are so eager to do the latter you won't take time to do the former. John Kennedy put all the players in Nam including helicopter support and Green Berets on his watch...Johnson picked up the ball after Kennedy was assassinated. So he actually started it.
That being said, other than that ill-conceived venture...I think John Kennedy was a good President and a decent man, and if liberals now were more like he was then...suffice it to say I would understand them much better.
You keep saying conservative party. There is no conservative party that I know of. I would agree that the Republican party right now is NOT conservative (at least the upper level politicos) and I have said that numerous times...and I am not a registered Republican except at primary times...as I have also said numerous times. Selective memory, piglet?
And I don't really CARE if you want to call emancipation a LIBERAL idea, and voting for African Americans and women LIBERAL ideas. You can say that until you are blue in the face. It was conservatives who put them into motion, made them work, and they are sustained today. Abraham Lincoln was as conservative by description as there is. He was a deeply religious man and a deeply moral man. His opposition to slavery was on the basis that it was a deeply moral wrong. Until the government got into the social programs business, the majority of programs geared toward the poor and disadvantaged were...GASP...religious programs, also prompted by a deep moral provocation from a place of humility, to serve the needs of the less fortunate, and they did a good job of it. And you can say those are LIBERAL ideas, but they were put into action by CONSERVATIVE people. Ideas are fine, but ACTIONS are what counts.
You have very little tolerance for anyone who does not share your beliefs. No wait..I take that back. Zero tolerance. lol.
Oh pulleeezzzzzz piglet....do you hear yourself??
I don't CARE if the liberal posters cross over. I have said that ad nauseam. You cannot help yourself. You have to twist and put yourself back on that lofty perch. I said nothing about them being ashamed of themselves. I have absolutely no issue with cross posting.
JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN DOESN'T MEAN YOU SHOULD...okay....protesting in the streets with antiwar signs...screaming at people who pass...having die-ins...when I protested that saying that sometimes just because you can do something doesn't mean you should...I was attacked. Now you are attacking me for the same thing.
It is so transparent it borders on the ridiculous. Bottom line...you do not want dissent. Period. Just like I would counter a sign carrier I did not agree with in person, or if I chose to carry a sign to protest something I did not agree with...I will do the same thing here.
And here I thought that is what liberals represented...and would argue emphatically for someone's right to stage a die-in with a dead soldier's name pinned to their chest...but let one lone conservative come to an anonymous board and it is get out, we don't want to hear it, exercise your rights if you want but NOT HERE.
posts that is important to understand the profound difference in liberals and conservatives...while I don't agree with the exact wording...it is in the right vein. She said "liberals view it as a human issue and conservatives view it as a business." That is not entirely true, because that suggests conservatives do not view it as a human issue at all. They do. The difference is, I believe, that while conservatives do have the same compassion, that is tempered with sober thinking. Thinking about what it will cost. Thinking about the long-term effects. Thinking about how it affects everyone. There has to be that balance. One part of the family needs to try to keep the other part of the family from giving away the farm, to put it simply. You make similar decisions in your personal lives. Your kids want a lot of things. You can't afford to give them everything they want, so you have to make choices. There just needs to be that balance. That is obvious from the postings. Any long-term effect or cost of an entitlement is not entertained, and if it is brought to light, it is greeted with, for lack of a better phrase, "Why do you want to rain on the parade?" And that really is not the intention. Conservatives are not against everyone having health care. Conservatives are not against helping those truly in need. Conservatives are against keeping people in poverty and beholden to the central government for their every need. That is a dangerous path.
Why can't we ask the government, instead of just adding yet aonther entitlement, to look at how much money comes in from income taxes as they now stand. Then look at how much is spent on entitlements. If it is the consensus of the nation that national health care is the most important to them, then that should be funded first. Without raising taxes. That would be reform; you say you want reform.
Why not reform the welfare system? Much money could be saved there. Tighten it up. Stop making assistance permanent if the person is able to work. Give them a check, and with that check mandatory participation in job training and placement program, and when they place you, the check stops. No more endless welfare checks for people who are able to work. If it is a low wage job, then other entitlements can help...food stamps, etc. Get people off the government tab who are able to work. I think we would all be amazed at how much money that would free up for other more important entitlements. That is what I am talking about. Let's not create yet another entitlement and raise taxes yet again. Let's tighten up the government belt.
All that being said, I still have great reservations about national health care from a socialism point of view. Reform health care, introduce more free market negotiation to get the cost of health care down....all those things I am not against. We don't know if it will work or not, but I would think we should try that first before starting down the slippery slope of socialist programs.
In closing, I would just like to say....we are all Americans, and we do have that in common. Our lives are probably very similar and we probably come from about the same economic group. We have differing views, but that doesn't mean we can't treat each other respectfully and not take postings personally, and yes, I am guilty like others of the "pouty postings." I would like to start away from that, and am going to make a concentrated effort to do so. I hope others will join me. We can have discussions, disagreements and lively debates...without disliking someone we don't really know because their opinions differ. AsI have said and others have said...we have friends or family members with opposing views, but we manage to get through that. My stepdaughters both are verryyy liberal gals, and we have lively discussions, I agree with them occasionally and they agree with me occasionally...and in the end...we all know where we would like to go, we just differ in how to get there.
The McCain/Palin GOP is already in the process of stealing the Ohio vote, as was done in 2004. Among those at the center of the GOP strategy is Bush Family computer operative Michael Connell, who programmed the key vote counting mechanisms that were used to give George W. Bush his second term.
Those 2 elections didn't leave a
shred of honesty in our election process. As I recall in 2000 GWB declared himself to be president before he was declared the winner wrongly. And people talk about Obama's b/c and want to know the "truth" about that. I'd like to know the truth about the 2000 and 2004 elections and then I might be willing to talk about the "truth" of O's b/c.
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.
It ain't Russia I'm immediately worried about...
xx
These remarks from Iran and Russia may not
RE: Response to Obama's election by Iran: What I see here is an opening for dialog in the recognition that there is a capacity for improvement of ties, not exactly the "Death to America" sentiments expressed in the past, this despite Obama's statement directed at those who would tear the world down (we will defeat you). I also see several implied preconditions. After all, preconditions are a two-way street:
1. I would be curious to have Aghamohammadi expand on what he means by Bush style "confrontation" in other countries. He is the spokesperson for the National Security Council in Iran, has been involved with the EU, Britian, France and Germany as a nuclear arms negotiator and would be directly involved in any dialog with the US on the subject of nuclear arms nonproliferation. We hardly have a leg to stand in this arena with our current "do as I say, not as I do and never mind the nuclear stockpiles in Israel we financed" approach. My guess would be he is condemning military invasion and occupation, hardly a radical position for any sovereign nation to take. In his own capacity, he should understand the US has unfinished business in Afghanistan and possibly Pakistan, so it is impossible to know in the absence of dialog what alternatives to military invasion may be possible. It might be worth a look-see.
2. His implied request for the US to "concentrate on state matters" might be seen by some as a little progress, especially since, at the moment, we do not even have an embassy in Iran. This also implies a possible opening to US business interests there (which were abundant under the Shah), a staging ground for diplomacy and establishing an avenue for articulating US foreign policy within their borders.
3. Concentrating on removing the American people's concerns would imply a desire on his part to repair and improve Iran's image abroad.
A well thought out response to these implied preconditions would be a logical place for Obama to start when speculating on his own preconditions.
RE: Russia's recent behavior and rhetoric is worrisome on many levels to more than a few countries in the region. Cold war with Russia is in NOBODY'S interest, including Russia's I fail to see how turning our backs, isolating ourselves or ratcheting up bellicose rhetoric toward them would do anything except give them a green light to proceed. It's an ugly world out there and Obama will inevitably be taking either a direct or an indirect diplomatic role in addressing this issue. Russia has expressed that same expectation.
I agree with you and find humor in the remarks from Sudan. Anyway, wait and watch is all we can do at this point. It certainly beats the heck out of prognostications of failure or defeat. That is the modus operandi of Russia....
and probably one of the early tests Biden was talking about. I don't think it came as a surprise to him. I am not concerned about Russia's response...I am concerned about Obama's response to them, but we will have to wait awhile to find that out, I am assuming, since he has not formally taken the job yet.
I do think, however, that Russia's response to a McCain win would have been different. They don't need to test him...they already know where he stands (I looked in his eyes and saw KGB).
The commend from Russia was directed at the new...
administration, not the current one. So it is not Bush's problem. Bush admin reacted the way they should have to the aggression in Georgia...and yes, I think Georgia was aimed at the election. Do you not remember Joe Biden going over there because he "friends" with the Georgian President? Came back denouncing the invasion. How long after that was he pegged for VP? Yeah, I would say the Russians were doing a little water testing.
I wish I shared your optimism about Obama. In sincerely wish I did. I sincerely wish he would take a look at Russia and realize that Marxist socialism does not work. But every torchbearer of Marxism that has come down the pike really believes that he will be the one to make it work. Sigh. Those who do not learn from mistakes are doomed to repeat them.
All that being said...again. I wish I shared your optimism. But history should tell you, Russians are not interested in diplomacy. They are interested in world domination and they want to see if Obama will allow them to swallow it up, one little piece at a time. We shall see.
Venezuela and Russia are going to hold
Because of our economy, United States will be split: The Pacific area, The South, Atlantic area, etc. As for Alaska? Could be Russia's for the taking.
What is amazing to me about Alaska is Palin. Palin was not to be our next VP, but it sure shows Russia who she is and how she tries to fight for Alaska. Of all states, Alaska came out of no where during the election and shows what Alaska has to offer including Palin who will fight for her state against Russia.
You might find Russia more to your liking......... sm
I'm sure they don't have a church on every corner, "in Gdo we trust" isn't on their money, and if you are lucky enough to even have a TV then I doubt there is a preacher on it. Can't say for sure if their leader knows his anatomy from that of Mother Earth's or not, though.
As for what the right is sacrificing, how about our children being taught in school that homosexuality is just an alternative lifestyle, that it is just as acceptable as a heterosexual lifestyle and not an amoral, sinful lifestyle. Or how about having to tell you daughter 'no' when she wants to buy a 'toy' out of those vending machines so thoughtfully placed in every gas station restroom across the country and then have to explain to her why she can't have one. We have to explain to our children what they are seeing when the news runs a story about 2 men or 2 women getting "married" and why it is not acceptable to us.
If gay people want some kind of legally binding union, fine. Let them have it. I'm not the one who has to answer for it, but please don't parade it around on television for the rest of us to have to look at and please don't call it a "marriage." Call it a civil union or domestic partnership or whatever other PC term you want to call it.
Russia's laughing at us, too. Thanks, Obama!
So much for those hopes of Obama 'repairing our image' in the world.
China's laughing at us.
France and England are scolding us.
And Russia's already written our obituary.
"It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breathtaking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people."
"The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe."
Here's a link to the article in Pravda:
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/107459-0/
anyone who calls upon the name of sm
the Lord shall be saved. His sins are forgiven, under the blood of Jesus never to be remembered again. That is the beauty of salvation, it is a free gift for all who repent and believe.
You are placing salvation in good works. You can "believe" what you like but it WILL NOT get you to heaven. There are many sincere people out there but they are sincerely wrong and mistaken. Only REPENTENCE and belief in the blood of Jesus Christ, HIS son for the remission of our sins will get you into heaven. There IS ONLY ONE WAY. I hate to believe that you would "think" you have a "chance" at heaven when you can KNOW where you are going without a shadow of a doubt by placing your faith and trust in the shed blood of Jesus Christ.
Fantastic post Piglet. From Whorn s/m
Thanks for your post piglet. It seems a number of us share concerns regarding the current system. I currently have health insurance, but due to my age of over 55 and a few minor preexisting conditions I am unable to secure health insurance for below $13.000,00 a year. I am able to deduct 100% of my premiun on my taxes. I pay no federal tax as a result, but the lessened dollar amout off of off my taxes is about $150.00 a year, and does really make a dent in my $!3,000 annual health premium.
you mean the same way Hillary stole the elections in certain states
with those machines manufactured by people who supported her. I know New York was one of the states and I would have to research the other states.
This is why there should be no machines involved. How about paper votes. How about a piece of paper with two name and a picture of each of them next to their name. This way if you cant read english you will recognize the person. Then you have a box next to it, put an X, a check, or even fill in the box and let people handcount the votes (no chads). I'd rather wait a day or two to find out who won and know it is a legitimate vote.
2 elections stolen? baloney. Meaningless war? Go
nm
Has the country decided not to hold any more elections
Was 2008 the very last election? I thought every four years there is an election. I also thought, according to past elections, that people should not just assume someone will win. They assumed Gore would win and he didn't, they assumed Kerry would win and he did not. Hence I would not assume Obama will win a second term. If he turns out to be a good president and we still have elections in 4 years, and nothing happens between now and then, then and only then will he most likely be re-elected. But since the guy has not even been sworn in yet and made any major decisions I would not be so bold as to just go on like he's going to be in for eight years. There is that slight possibility that he could very well be a crappy president like Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter (especially with all the people he is picking for his cabinet). I know the country is ready for a change and GW hasn't been the best, but until a man serves in the office we don't know what kind of a president he will be.
Unless of course you have heard something that none of us have heard and there will never be any more elections in the future. I have heard and read that Obama is a socialist, and maybe we are heading toward the same thing Cuba faces. The leader just appoints himself to the office every time. So maybe that is what you are referring to.
Hallelujah! Leftists in EU elections across Europe are
Don't think this will go unnoticed on this side of the pond as well. Obama's numbers shriveling, the Democratic-dominated Congress even worse numbers...and the Republican gubernatorial candidate in New Jersey, of all places, is leading the Democrat incumbent by double digits in the polls. Those who crowed prematurely about the demise of conservatism are going to find that the toe tag has been switched - and they're the ones who will end up wearing it. Why? Because they got above themselves and WENT TOO FAR. It's so true, isn't it - "pride goeth before a fall".
Conservatives Racing Ahead in EU Parliamentary Elections:
'Iran does not allow international election monitors. During the 2005 election, when Ahmadinejad won the presidency, there were some allegations of vote rigging from losers, but the claims were never investigated.'
_____
I heard this morning russia is buying up
iceland's debts, guess they are in real trouble. supposedly could be a change in the balance of power (not a good one if you know what I mean)...?
More Czars than Russia...or The King and his Court.
The disturbing thing about these "czars" is that they are not answerable to anyone other than Obama himself, and yet are positioned to usurp some of the powers of the Congress, who did not approve their appointments.
You're looking at a man who is concentrating power in his own hands and setting up a banana-republic type of dictatorship.
We already have a census czar. The logical next step is an "elections czar" - whose position will be justified on the basis of "problems" in past elections. He will "help" us "get it right" this time.
When you see that, folks, the end is near.
Ya calls 'em the same way I do. It's what the left calls
'having an agenda,' (except not when they do it.) Then I think they call it 'reporting.' Go figure.
The Bible calls
homosexual acts an "abomination." Look it up. It means "something to be hated." God tells us to hate that act. We obviously do not serve the same God. Mine teaches me to love all men and to hate sin such as homosexual acts. I believe you missed my point. Of course, it is possible to hate the sin and love the sinner but NOT if you are a member of the homosexual community. Once again, an opinion is not a judgement and it is a fact that homosexuality is abominable, ergo, disgusting if you worship the same God I do as I believe what He says. Of course, I have sinned. And I do not expect others to accept my sins as well and good. I don't even do that myself, so why should I accept that homosexuality is a good thing? My point is....We all sin, me included. You are not to accept my sin as good even though I may label myself as the sin I commit. You are not to hate me because of my sin but only hate my sin. People who commit homosexual acts and call themselves homosexuals would have us accept that sin because that is "who" they are not their sin. I don't think it's that difficult to understand.
um tara, she didn't write the article (piglet)...sm
what is up with you? Take your nasty pill today? As a newbie to this particular board (liberals) - I'm offended to read your waste-of-bandwidth attacks/reactions. Hope the rest of the year 2008 is better for you than the first couple of days appear to be.
marks the location of current message within thread
