And we have to worry about our own economy. Afraid to find out what is next.
Most of his votes are not voting votes....
nm
O's votes support his claims. JM's votes support Bush.
Believe what you like. Voting records tell the tale. Could use a few more details on that budget. Just what programs will he slash and and how many tax dollars will be directed away from middle class and in the direction of the rich? How much longer can the infrastructure afford to crumble?
JM adopted O's withdrawal plan when he saw how well it went over with the public in an election year. He flipped on the war once. What's to stop him from flipping again once elected? The nation is war weary. Some prefer a surge in diplomacy, not military answers to diplomatic failures. Ask the Iraqis who have lost more than 100,000 among them how sucessful the war has been. Obama has always understood that the OBL/Taliban live in Afganistan, not Iraq. JM, a little slow on the draw there.
I see nothing in JMs platform that backs his claims about transparency. I see specific plan on the O side under technology initiatives, continued initiatives which originated under Clinton and were reversed during the undercover Bush administration. Pork barrel spending for pubs means something different than it does to dems. Slash the poor to give to the rich? Hard seel in the current economic frefall. Also find nothing in JM's plan to address runaway contract corruption in Iraq. Having Halliburton and companies there props up those struggling American corporations. Show me the plan.
Antiglobal/antidiplomacy. No surprise there. This is about the futureworld, not American imperial delusions of grandeur. So much data on the drilling scam being an immediate relief for gas problems out there it is not worth addressing. Can you say T-Bone Pickens, i.e., we can't drill our way out of this one. He should know. Been an oil man all his life.
Since these are just a few, what else do you have up your sleeve?
And that statement is ridiculous, Iran and Iraq enemies, remember the Iran-Iraq war? Iraq would jus
nm
LEGAL
SPOKEN LIKE A TRUE DEMMIE!And yet it is still legal....
@@
abortion will always be, whether legal or not
What these anti pro choice people dont seem to realize is, termination of pregnancy will continue whether it is legal or not. The only difference is it will go underground, performed by people who are not licensed and the rich women, they will just make an appointment in a progressive not backward country like America and have their abortion. Essentially women will be baby makers for the government, their bodies controlled by the government. What it comes down to is..the neocons need to mind their own business.
Legal or not, there will always be abortions.
Abortions will always be performed whether they are legal or not. When I was in college, abortion was illegal. Several students became pregnant and had illegal abortions by back-alley butchers, and they almost died from hemorrhage and infection. Others tried to abort their pregnancies with wire hangers, knitting needles, and other drastic measures. I would much rather have legal abortions performed by licensed physicians than force young women to resort to barbaric procedures to terminate their pregnancies.
Legal yes, moral no. n/m
x
Its not a legal issue
its a mental issue. Supreme Court does not rule in that arena.
it's not stealing - it's legal!
They are not married so they qualify for the earned income credit on their taxes even though they pay nothing in. It is based on how many children you have and your income.
It's been there forever! My sister gets upwards of $6000 a year every year and has for as long as I can remember; of course, when the children hit 17 or 18, that is gone, but for now it is like an extra $500 or $600 a month in income if you spread it out.
I don't know if the law changed, but the mother is also in Mexico. Don't know if she went voluntarily or if she was deported, too. If she went voluntarily, then I feel she really didn't put her children first.
Like I said in my earlier post, I think the children should have gone with them even though they are American citizens. Why let the eldest take care of the younger ones, I think ages 15 and 11.
Now here again, I believe in God, but I also respect the fact that there are other Americans who do not. Isn't that one of the primary reasons we fought so hard for indepence? The freedom to choose our religion or not to choose any religion?
Separation of church and state. It boggles my mind that this basic, simple premise somehow is so complicated.
The Pledge did not even contain the words, under God until some time in the 1950s. The Pledge was ammended to include them. The founding fathers did not write those words.
Believing in God should not be a qualification for being an American. Including the words, under God, if one does not believe in God, prohibits them from reciting The Pledge. They don't want to have to leave the room or be silent. They want to pledge their allegiance to their country, but for those words.
It has nothing to do with Americans excluding God. It's just the right of all Americans to practice their religion of choice or no religion.
Proclaiming one's belief in God can be exhibited in so many more meaningful ways than insisting that 2 words be included in The Pledge.
I agree. Women will have them - legal or not
Although I don't think I would ever consider abortion personally and am also sickened by people who have them over and over again (get your tubes tied darn it!!!), I believe women will have them regardless of if they are legal or not, so I think it is much safer if they remain legal.
I also think the woman should have the choice of what to do with something that is actually inside of her body. She is the one ultimately 100% responsible for the medical bills due to the pregnancy, the emotional toll and physical risks of the pregnancy, and the child's well being afterwards. The man can get off scott free if he wants and skip from job to job to avoid paying child support, so it should definitely be up to the woman.
I also find it odd that many pro-life Republicans are so adamant that each baby have a chance to be born, but yet if that baby is born to a lower-class mother many (not all) don't want a dime of their money to go to help that baby with healthcare costs or any other costs that could help the child after it's actually born. Where is the deep concern for the children that are actually living?
Though the thought of abortion is definitely disturbing to me, I do not believe at less than 3 months old a baby's nerves are developed enough to feel pain as they are aborted, but I know for a fact many children in the USA are being abused and neglected on a daily basis because they were unwanted, and my heart breaks for them. There are over 100,000 foster kids in the USA right now that need good homes and more resources, and I think our focus should be on helping these children first. My sister has 2 amazing foster kids, and I really wish the anti-abortion activists would focus on fostering or helping the kids that are here now instead of focusing so much on fetuses that are inside of other women's bodies, and therefore really none of their business in my personal opinion. (I know some do foster and volunteer, but I have a sneaking suspicion that not all of them do!)
I don't understand your question, sorry....if I don't want him controlling my health care why would I want him deciding if an abortion should be legal? I don't want him controlling my health care, and the Supreme Court already decided (unconstitutionally I might add) that abortion is legal. THIS was about INFANTICIDE. Killing a living breathing infant outside and separate from the mother by denying it medical care. Abortion is horrific enough, but that is out and out negligent homicide, and he voted FOR it. That tells me all I need to know about Barack Obama and how he cares about people.
I read your "document". Very legal-looking and all,
How exactly do you know that's legitimate? Did you see the official hard-copy? Likely not. I could have typed something like that myself, and so could you, or any other person who owns a PC. Even a photo of a 'hard copy' posted on the internet can't be automatically assumed to be valid. You do know, don't you, that most of what you read and hear on the internet is suspect in its validity, and nearly impossible to prove? The internet has more urban myths, fantasies and lies floating around on it than Carter's has little pills. So you have to be very careful about making decisions and judgements based on what you find here, and even more careful about what you say.
Anyway, it's a nice-looking document, but again, I could produce something exactly like that with ANYone's name on it, and post it on an internet in a matter of minutes.
Real 'truth' is something that's actually very, very difficult to find under the best of circumstances, and your chances of finding any during an election year?
Pretty much zip.
If Obama is not legal, he is not doing our country
nm
You can go to school as a legal resident
& don't have to become a citizen. Being adopted by someone doesn't imply that you automatically have that person's citizenship.
I lived in a country that doesn't recognize dual citizenship. I could have gotten a residence visa (work visa would have been possible, but more difficult), but I worked legally and went to school without either of these things. I married a Dutch national and did not give up my U.S. citizenship, but if I had (I was 19 at the time) I could have requested that my U.S. citizenship be reinstated when I turned 21.
The concentration camps were legal, too.
Your argument doesn't hold any water. Just because someone's allowed to murder one type of human being and not another does not make either right or just.
And, FYI, killing an adult with cancer is NOT illegal, so you need to check your facts.
If Joe Legal is married and has 2 children
and 2 parents, whom he probably supports, why else did you mention this, anyways, Joe Legal does NOT pay 30% taxes.
After I read this statement, I did NOT continue to read your rant.
Also, this inquiry was started before she was running for the VP slot - so it was not something they cooked up to get her after she got picked by McCain.
how about legal!!/common sense test...
x
I didn't say it was correct, legal, or moral.
And the WMDs didn't have anything to do with it, although you'll never convince me that Sadaam didn't have the capability for such - he'd used them in the past to kill hundreds of thousands of his own people.
Correct, legal, moral or whatever, if you're in line with a terrorist group, like many sent to these places were, then you have no rights. Plain and simple.
I just feel that we've gotten too far from 9/11 and remembering what that day was like and all those people killed. It seems like now we care more about the "rights" of those involved in terrorist activites than those innocent people who died that day. Maybe that's why we're such an easy target.
He has no legal recourse to "recall" bonuses.
Unfortunately, because these are private companies, they have contracts with the CEOs and they are absolutely within their rights to honor those contracts. However, if Obama can find a loophole to keep them from getting paid, then we'll see what happens then.
This is why the government shoulder NEVER get involved in private businesses. Once they start handing on money, they think they own private businesses and dictate everything to them, so now we are caught in a catch 22 so to speak; government has no business in private businesses but yet they have given private businesses OUR money with NO stipulations beforehand and are now "surprised" the bonsues will continue?! Pleeeze!!!
Again, the screw up here is letting the screwed up American legal system handle legal cases that are best served by military tribunals.
McCain's legal adviser has already voted for Obama.
Yet another high-profile Republican has endorsed Sen. Barack Obama — and this time, it’s one of Sen. John McCain’s own advisers.
Charles Fried, a conservative legal scholar, Harvard professor and former solicitor general under President Ronald Reagan, has asked to be removed from McCain’s list of advisers and thrown his support behind the Democratic presidential nominee.
I don't expect anyone to quit taking their legal deductions and I don't see how his taking those deductions can be construed as his not having to pay more taxes. The amount you owe comes off the adjusted amount and that will still be the same after he itemizes - just the percentage paid against that amount will change.
LOL. 3 more votes....obviously you ...
don't know who the heck she is....lol.
only two votes...
regardless of the weight of their votes, it was a "yes" to a bill that should be better. i still want to know what the crap this "tax exemption for wooden arrows made for use by children" is all about????
GOP Pays Legal Bills in Vote-Thwart Case
By JOHN SOLOMON, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - The Republican Party says it still has a zero-tolerance policy for tampering with voters even as it pays the legal bills for a former Bush campaign official charged with conspiring to thwart Democrats from voting in New Hampshire.
James Tobin, the president's 2004 campaign chairman for New England, is charged in New Hampshire federal court with four felonies accusing him of conspiring with a state GOP official and a GOP consultant in Virginia to jam Democratic and labor union get-out-the-vote phone banks in November 2002.
The Republican National Committee already has spent more than $722,000 to provide Tobin, who has pleaded innocent, a team of lawyers from the high-powered Washington law firm of Williams & Connolly. The firm's other clients have included former President Clinton and Sen. Hillary Clinton and former Housing Secretary Henry Cisneros.
Republican Party officials said they don't ordinarily discuss specifics of their legal work, but confirmed to The Associated Press they had agreed to underwrite Tobin's defense because he was a longtime supporter and that he assured them he had committed no crimes.
"Jim is a longtime friend who has served as both an employee and an independent contractor for the RNC," a spokeswoman for the RNC, Tracey Schmitt, said Wednesday. "This support is based on his assurance and our belief that Jim has not engaged in any wrongdoing."
A telephone firm was paid to make repeated hang-up phone calls to overwhelm the phone banks in New Hampshire and prevent them from getting Democratic voters to the polls on Election Day 2002, prosecutors allege. Republican John Sununu won a close race that day to be New Hampshire's newest senator.
At the time, Tobin was the RNC's New England regional director, before moving to President Bush's 2004 re-election campaign.
A top New Hampshire Party official and a GOP consultant already have pleaded guilty and cooperated with prosecutors. Tobin's indictment accuses him of specifically calling the GOP consultant to get a telephone firm to help in the scheme.
"The object of the conspiracy was to deprive inhabitants of New Hampshire and more particularly qualified voters ... of their federally secured right to vote," states the latest indictment issued by a federal grand jury on May 18.
The Republican Party has repeatedly and pointedly disavowed any tactics aimed at keeping citizens from voting since allegations of voter suppression surfaced during the Florida recount in 2000 that tipped the presidential race to Bush.
Earlier this week, RNC chairman Ken Mehlman, the former White House political director, reiterated a "zero-tolerance policy" for any GOP official caught trying to block legitimate votes.
"The position of the Republican National Committee is simple: We will not tolerate fraud; we will not tolerate intimidation; we will not tolerate suppression. No employee, associate or any person representing the Republican Party who engages in these kinds of acts will remain in that position," Mehlman wrote Monday to a group that studied voter suppression tactics.
Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean on Thursday questioned Mehlman's commitment to the policy. "This is just another example of his say one thing, do another strategy. Ken Mehlman tells crowds his party is against voter fraud and intimidation, while in the backrooms he supports Republican officials who engage in these dirty tricks," Dean said.
Dennis Black and Dane Butswinkas, two Williams & Connolly lawyers for Tobin, did not return calls seeking comment. Brian Tucker, a New Hampshire lawyer on the team, declined comment.
Tobin's lawyers have attacked the prosecution, suggesting evidence was improperly introduced to the grand jury, that their client originally had been promised he wouldn't be indicted and that he was improperly charged under one of the statutes.
Tobin stepped down from his Bush-Cheney post a couple of weeks before the November 2004 election after Democrats suggested he was involved in the phone bank scheme. He was charged a month after the election.
Paul Twomey, a volunteer lawyer for New Hampshire Democrats who are pursuing a separate lawsuit involving the phone scheme, said he was surprised the RNC was willing to pay Tobin's legal bills and that it suggested more people may be involved.
The new development "really raises the questions of who are they protecting, how high does this go and who was in on this," Twomey said.
Federal prosecutors have secured testimony from the two convicted conspirators in the scheme directly implicating Tobin.
Charles McGee, the New Hampshire GOP official who pleaded guilty, told prosecutors he informed Tobin of the plan and asked for Tobin's help in finding a vendor who could make the calls that would flood the phone banks.
Allen Raymond, a former colleague of Tobin who operated a Virginia-based telephone services firm, told prosecutors Tobin called him in October 2002, explained the telephone plan and asked Raymond's company to help McGee implement it.
Raymond's lawyer told the court that Tobin made the request for help in his official capacity as the top RNC official for New England and his client believed the RNC had sanctioned the activity.
Fox news is barely legal and on its way out and RUSH is a lying druggie sm
and that is so obviously the source of your info. I am trying to feel sorry for you but it's all too ridiculous. And why would we thank him when it took 217 votes for this to pass?
nm
It does not matter who votes for it or against it....
it is morally wrong. Because it is legal does not make it right. While I will obey the law of the land, as my faith teaches me to do, I will continue to speak out against a procedure that is murder, no matter who chooses it. See link if you do not believe that life begins at conception. View that and tell me that abortion is not killing a living baby and then defend it as right because someone chooses it. That choice is choosing to kill a child. The one portion of this. If you feel that a woman needs a choice of whether or not to kill a baby, so be it, that is your right and I respect your right to say it. I do not and will continue to speak against it, and I hope that you believe it is my right to do that as well. Some of us must speak for the most innocent who cannot speak for themselves.
http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=76c82299-9a7a-4656-8ec4-0f6fc1fd6ae0&f=06/64&fg=copy
If it doesn't, whoever votes against it
will probably have a severe media backlash. They made these changes so that the two main arguments - that it covers illegal immigrants and rich people - are discredited. If it doesn't pass, I'm sure they're going to have to deal with the media.
90% yes, but most of the votes were unanimous, so
nm
Only 11 more votes and it would have passed. nm
.
They are reporting they have the 12 votes they need. sm
Just like the Senate, they are making it clear they do not care what their constituents think. The peasants need to start getting mad and show up with their torches and pitchforks.
The more votes they get, the more viable they become. sm
I would still rather vote my principles than hold my nose and vote for a Nazi and a Communist.
Well I wish they could get enough votes to become viable but (sm)
I doubt that they will. I understand your feelings though because I share in them. I just feel like I have to at least choose one as better than the other and make my vote count, because one or the other of them is going to win, and I feel like right now every vote is needed.
If we could just get their votes counted
sure would be a wonderful thing for them. How many of their votes already been disqualified in Virginia, I believe I heard 200,000?
soldiers votes
you know, on the news last evening, in a very mild manner, it was mentioned that maybe only 30% of the overseas military's votes will be counted this election, due to mail problems, time constraints, etc. OUTRAGEOUS!!! To boot, this also happened 4 yr ago, and still no one has fixed it (tho 1 senator is allegedly trying). Where are all the hanging chad type screaming complaints, the concern for the (hate this word now): disenfranchised???? IMO this would not be a hard problem to fix, so why is it still broke? A soldier's vote should be most definitely counted, WITHOUT FAIL. Grrrrrr. not to mention, that in Ohio, reported also last night, the homeless can now list their park benches as their addresses, and vote. Mind you, you cannot collect help in the form of welfare/food stamps etc without a solid normal address, but you can vote. nevermind that the homeless are likely uninformed. (don't feed or house them, just give them a ballot and tell them who to vote for...) all the while, our military's votes are casually tossed aside, with an "oh well..." i am still fuming the next day.
With over 200 electorial votes sm
Obama is most likely the winner. I,too, congratulate him and Mr. Biden on their apparent victory, although I may not be happy about it. I just pray our country can survive what is coming.
We could only hope votes would be
changed, but don't think very many states allow that.
When all is said and done, I bet the total of ALL votes in MN will be....
more than the total of registered voters in the entire state of MN. Come on, give us a break. Do you honestly expect us to believe there are that many "missing" ballots? This has been going on since November 5. Where could those pesky 1,000 votes have been hidden all this time, blast those nasty votes.
That said, I have a question....with all this back room hocus-pocus, will the Republicans be able to filibuster? There are not 60 Dems yet are there?
marks the location of current message within thread
![](http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/ya/yahoo_messenger/2005805_57541_1_300x250_lrec_freewwcalls_love.gif")
