Sure you don't break the rules
Posted By: Reality check on 2005-09-15
In Reply to: get on back, neocon, get on back - gt
Sure you don't. Your fingerprints are all over the conservative board, but that's neither here or there but I could really care less.
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
You are right. I will obey the rules from now on. sm
Have a nice holiday.
Some of Pelosi's new rules sm
This is from an article before the elections. This sure would be a good start in the right direction.
The act is a tough document, authored by Nancy Pelosi, the San Francisco-area congresswomen who has been the Democratic House leader since 2002. She will likely be the House Speaker if the Democrats win next Tuesday.
Here are some of the new rules Pelosi wants:
No House member may accept any gift of any value from lobbyists, or any firm or association that hires lobbyists.
No free travel, which means an end to the corporate jet line every Friday at Reagan National Airport.
No free tickets to Redskins games; or no meals of any value, even at a McDonalds; no front-row seats at entertainment venues. No, no and no.
Temptations resisted
To reduce temptations to cheat, Pelosi's bill attacks the usefulness of members to richly endowed lobbyists.
House members will no longer be able to slip in special-interest projects on unrelated legislation. Such measures will no longer be allowed on a bill once negotiations between the Senate and House are complete.
Further, all bills will be made available to the public a full 24 hours before a final vote; presumably this gives watchdog groups a chance to flag any skullduggery.
Under the Pelosi rules, lobbyists will no longer be able to use the House gym (you'd be surprised how much gets negotiated in a sauna). Lobbyists will no longer be allowed onto the House floor or to use the cloakrooms just off the floor, preventing last-minute arm-twisting.
What's more, no member or staffer will be able to negotiate for employment in the public sector without disclosing such contacts to the House Ethics Committee, and within three days of such contact being made.
Finally, all of this will be audited and investigated by a new Office of Public Integrity, and that office reports, directly and only, to the U.S. Attorneys Office.
At this point, you'd be entitled to ask, heard this before, what makes you think it will be accepted by Congress?
Can it work?
No doubt there will be attempts to water down some of these new regulations. In fact, many of these proposals have been in other bills that have been defeated in the recent past.
But several key congressional experts tell CBC News that Pelosi means business and might just be able to push this through. They put it this way.
Pelosi and the congressional Democratic leadership are not likely to get much credit simply for gaining control of the House.
Conventional wisdom already sees such a victory, should it happen, first and foremost as a repudiation of the Bush administration and the Republicans.
This Honest Leadership and Open Government Act is a way of hitting the bricks running. Plus, it could be enormously popular with voters of all persuasions.
They point out Pelosi herself has little national profile and wants quickly to paint some bold strokes. She promises the act will be the first legislation tackled if she leads a new Congress.
Also, Pelosi can and will extract promises of support from those getting leadership positions and plush committee chairmanships and the like.
These new rules will apply in the House as soon as they are passed by simple majority.
The Senate has different rules, but for Republicans and Democrats there, the pressure to comply with the Pelosi standards will be huge.
rules, forum
dd
Where does one find the rules? There have been...
many posts that were quite lengthy. Is there a limit on length or just cut and paste?
I understand that is against the rules, but
the only way I can see that actually making a difference is if somebody went in completely undecided, but had prayed for God to show them a sign. 
I sure hope everybody has a clear picture in their mind of who they want to vote for and why before they drive to their polling place and punch that card.
they have not changed the rules yet
Hedge funds are still doing sneak attacks on companies, driving them into the dirt.
Citigroup got hit today, down 23%. It is worth 6 bucks and one year ago was 40. They need to change the rules on these hedge funds. They can pick on any company and kill it in a day.
Okay. Thanks. I understand now. Different rules for different boards.
nm
Majority rules not the minority
as long as someone is given the option not to participate then no one is getting hurt. If they are the only one in the class that does not want to say it then that's life. We can't cower majority traditions and beliefs to make every individual feel included. We'd truly have chaos then, because every one's feelings are different.
Just playing by liberal rules
It doesn't matter if something is supposed to be funny or not. In the liberal world every statement is taken literally. According to GT even thinking something stereotypical or racial should be grounds for dismissal from your job or worse yet a trip to the gallows, but in the next breath she posts a blatantly stereotypical article about our nations regions.
Oh did I take what GT said out of context? Did other people take what GT said out of context? Gee, gosh, sorry...but cccording to the LIBERAL rules nothing is ever taken out of context. If you utter the words like *black* or *abortion* in the same sentence. Then you're a racist...case closed.
Don't blame us for enforcing your rules. We didn't make them, but you have to play by them too, or we'll call you out...
Have a nice night....
Actually I agree about the rules. But don't use the first when you really don't respect it.
x
And the monitor obviously has one-sided rules.
All you have done since you showed up here a few days ago is attack me personally. You don't even know me, and it wouldn't matter what I posted, you have already made your mind up that you hate me, and all you want to do is call names and insult.
It started when I posted a response to Democrat's post above. Since then, you've done nothing but attack me.
At least Carla was asking intelligent questions and trying to have a meaningful and informative dialogue on the CON board. Yet, she was reprimanded by the moderator.
All YOU have done is insult and be just generally nasty and rude. In none of your posts have you made an effort to have an intelligent dialogue. All you're about is attacking. Yet, YOUR actions go unreprimanded.
Says a lot about fairness on this board.
And now, knowing how much the truth is appreciated here, I suppose I will be banned, while you will be free to continue on with your rudeness and hateful attacks.
Will you leave? Sure. *RME* As soon as pigs fly or as soon as AG stops *accidentally* posting on this board. Choose one.
To Monitor: A CON says your rules are *stupid*
and refuses to quit coming here (along with a troll named Nina). They both do nothing but insult and cause trouble and make this board an unpleasant place to visit.
Nobody is bothering them on the Conservative Board (as of 11:15 a.m. MT, anyway, though they might quick post some insults to themselves after they read this and then whine about it).
Please ask them to leave.
Posted By: huh? on 2006-03-10,
In Reply to: Oh, she revealed it on the Conservative Board - ??
The stupid rules have made these boards a place where only crickets chirp. Its sad that people are so childish and cannot discuss things like mature adults. This is why these boards will remain a snoozeville, because some people are not capable of mature conversation and get insulted by anyone who does not believe exactly like they do, but if you like it dead here...by all means enjoy the silence.
I already posted the one that said your rules are stupid
in my post to you above. Another example is the post below.
Never mind. Maybe the poster is *right.* I have a feeling if a liberal poster was trolling the conservative board and said your rules were *stupid* you would be telling them to stay on their own board.
There are other sites where the rules are enforced equally, even for liberals.
See ya.
He can't make rules by himself....obviously the rest of the...
legislature must have agreed with him. Again I ask you...if it happened in YOUR family, would you not use every means at your disposal to help your family member get the help they needed?
Seems he likes to make up the rules as he goes along (sm)
You know, like a child playing a board game changes the rules all the way through to make sure he or she will win? If he was going to improve his aquaintances he should have done that a loooong time ago. Not right now before the election, looks kinda....fishy.
Does Palin once again think the rules don't apply to her?
thought this article was interesting.
Does Palin once again think the rules don't apply to her?
Posted on 02 January 2009
By Dan Fagan
How is it possible that the Governor’s soon to be son-in-law is working as an apprentice on the North Slope?
The Governor, in trying to dispel rumors the father of her grandchild is a high school drop out, released this statement this week, “Levi is continuing his online high school work in addition to working as an electrical apprentice on the North Slope."
But federal regulations require any members of apprentice programs, union or otherwise, first obtain a high school diploma, something the Governor’s soon to be son-in-law, Levi Johnston does not have. Some apprentice programs even require the completion of high school level Algebra or the post secondary equivalent.
So how is it that the Governor’s soon to be son-in-law is working in an apprentice program? Is this another case of the Governor believing the law doesn’t apply to her?
Bo Underwood, who heads up ASRC’s electrical apprentice program, confirmed Johnston is indeed enrolled as an apprentice. Underwood claimed not to know whether a high school diploma is needed to be an ASRC apprentice and said he would check on it. But federal regulations clearly state a high school diploma is needed before entering an apprentice program. How is it the man who runs the program does not know that?
Underwood also claimed not to know whether there is a waiting list for the ASRC apprentice program he runs. Imagine that.
Rebecca Logan, executive director of Associated Builders and Contractors, an organization that also has an electrical workers apprentice program, says waiting lists almost always accompany apprenticeship programs. Her organization’s apprentice program has a waiting list of at least 100 people.
Bo Underwood promised to get back with me on how the Governor’s soon to be son-in-law got into the apprentice program.
The Alaska Standard has a call into the Governor’s office as well. We’ll let you know when we hear back from them on this issue.
Does Palin once again think the rules don't apply to her?
thought this article was interesting.
Does Palin once again think the rules don't apply to her?
Posted on 02 January 2009
By Dan Fagan
How is it possible that the Governor’s soon to be son-in-law is working as an apprentice on the North Slope?
The Governor, in trying to dispel rumors the father of her grandchild is a high school drop out, released this statement this week, “Levi is continuing his online high school work in addition to working as an electrical apprentice on the North Slope."
But federal regulations require any members of apprentice programs, union or otherwise, first obtain a high school diploma, something the Governor’s soon to be son-in-law, Levi Johnston does not have. Some apprentice programs even require the completion of high school level Algebra or the post secondary equivalent.
So how is it that the Governor’s soon to be son-in-law is working in an apprentice program? Is this another case of the Governor believing the law doesn’t apply to her?
Bo Underwood, who heads up ASRC’s electrical apprentice program, confirmed Johnston is indeed enrolled as an apprentice. Underwood claimed not to know whether a high school diploma is needed to be an ASRC apprentice and said he would check on it. But federal regulations clearly state a high school diploma is needed before entering an apprentice program. How is it the man who runs the program does not know that?
Underwood also claimed not to know whether there is a waiting list for the ASRC apprentice program he runs. Imagine that.
Rebecca Logan, executive director of Associated Builders and Contractors, an organization that also has an electrical workers apprentice program, says waiting lists almost always accompany apprenticeship programs. Her organization’s apprentice program has a waiting list of at least 100 people.
Bo Underwood promised to get back with me on how the Governor’s soon to be son-in-law got into the apprentice program.
The Alaska Standard has a call into the Governor’s office as well. We’ll let you know when we hear back from them on this issue.
Pardon me. Are you saying the rules are not enforced equally? sm
I asked for an example, i.e., a specific post. Which post is it specifically. I do not have time to read every post on this board. Also, you said insults. I asked for examples of that. Again, you did not provide any. I am not quite sure how I am to do something about anything when you are not cooperating. I have, in the past, posted equally on both boards regarding sticking to the boards you belong on. However, I can't assume that simply because someone disagrees with your point of view, that they are of a certain political persuasian. That would be, indeed, labeling and unfair on my part. I will post another reminder about which board to stay on, but I don't appreciate your insinuation that there is favoritism here. As the board owner has said before, if this board is not to your liking, you certainly have options.
Sounds like a petty, cruel god's rules
Actually this sounds like a human's idea of what a god would want. So obsessed with rules and regulations......
We haven't changed the rules at all. To what are you referring?
/
I follow the Old Testament and those rules aren't too
NM
Bush weakens EPA/ESA rules to pave way for
that would be mountain-top mining of the kind that has blown mountain tops off in the Appalchains. Ever seen a picture of this? Is this the kind of drill, baby drill you want?
Prop 8 --- majority rules problem...(sm)
Okay, I've seen several posts on here about how Prop 8 should be upheld because *the majority rules.* Almost every civil rights movement that was successful including the right for women to vote, the right for inter-racial marriage, etc would have never made it if we had gone by the idea that the majority rules. In fact, isn't that the point of civil rights? -- to protect minorities? Also, the constitution says *we the people,* not we the christians. ARRRRGGGGHHH!
My post is in accordance with forum rules.
Apparently, you have not read the moderator's post at the top of the Politics forum, which instructs you to keep religious posts where they belong on the Faith forum. The moderator has indicated that religious posts will be removed from the Politics forum and placed on the Faith forum, as they should be. If you have a problem with this, maybe you should discuss it with the moderator.
I don't make the rules, Sir Percy. The Administrator was. The fact is. sm
I agree with you. But this board has a history and as you can see, on both boards, the minute an opposing point of view comes on board, the moderators are summoned. It's a fact. This used to be a combined board but it was separated because of constant insults and failure to behave as mature adults.
Court rules Bush violated Clean Air Act
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/17/AR2006031701127_pf.html
Looser Emission Rules Rejected
Court Says Changes By EPA Violated Clean Air Act
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, March 18, 2006; A01
A federal appeals court blocked the Bush administration's four-year effort to loosen emission rules for aging coal-fired power plants, unanimously ruling yesterday that the changes violated the Clean Air Act and that only Congress could authorize such revisions.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit sided with officials from 14 states, including New York, California and Maryland, who contended that the rule changes -- allowing older power plants, refineries and factories to upgrade their facilities without having to install the most advanced pollution controls -- were illegal and could increase the amount of health-threatening pollution in the atmosphere.
The Environmental Protection Agency's New Source Review policy was formally issued in 2003 but has never taken effect because of legal challenges by state officials and environmental groups. The administration has long argued that the existing standards are too stringent and have discouraged utility plants and other industries from upgrading and expanding their facilities. But opponents have characterized the rule changes as a favor to administration allies in the utility and coal-producing industries that would greatly add to public health problems.
New York Attorney General Eliot L. Spitzer, who led the court fight to block the administration's New Source Review policy, called yesterday's ruling a major victory for clean air and public health and a rejection of a flawed policy.
It will encourage industry to build new and cleaner facilities, instead of prolonging the life of old, dirty plants, Spitzer said.
In a statement, EPA spokesman John Millet said: We are disappointed that the Court did not find in favor of the United States. We are reviewing and analyzing the opinion and cannot comment further at this time.
Some studies have linked pollution from coal-fired power plants to as many as 20,000 premature deaths in the United States every year. Environmental activists have made curbing this type of pollution one of their most pressing legislative and legal priorities, and yesterday they celebrated the ruling.
Irish eyes are surely smiling -- and we all will be breathing easier -- with this green court ruling on St. Patrick's Day, said John Walke, director of the clean-air program at the Natural Resources Defense Council. This is about as thorough a rebuke a court can give.
President Bush took office in 2001 promising to ease regulations on coal-fired power plants as part of a larger energy production initiative. Three successive administrators of the EPA have tried without success to alter the rules and policies adopted during the Clinton administration that cracked down on aging power plants and refineries that were not equipped with modern air pollution equipment when they were upgraded and when their output was expanded.
Under the revised policy that was rejected by the court yesterday, power plants and other industrial polluters would not have to install new pollution technology if they modernized less than 20 percent of their operations.
The central question in the case focused on what constitutes an industrial facility modification, because that is what triggers the federal requirement to cut down on the smog or soot emitted by utilities, oil refineries, incinerators, chemical plants and manufacturing operations. Previous administrations, including Bill Clinton's, had interpreted that phrase to encompass any physical activity that increases pollution from a given facility, with the exception of routine maintenance.
EPA officials in the Bush administration sought to broaden this exemption by asserting that routine maintenance is any activity that amounts to less than 20 percent of a plant's value. But the ruling, written by Judge Judith W. Rogers, rejected that reasoning as illogical.
EPA's approach would ostensibly require that the definition of 'modification' include a phrase such as 'regardless of size, cost, frequency, effect,' or other distinguishing characteristic, Rogers wrote. Only in a Humpty Dumpty world would Congress be required to use superfluous words while an agency could ignore an expansive word that Congress did use. We decline to adopt such a world-view.
The other two judges on the panel were David S. Tatel and Janice Rogers Brown.
The EPA's statement did not indicate whether the administration intends to appeal the ruling. Both Walke and Scott Segal, a lobbyist for the utilities industry, said it would be difficult for the administration to forge ahead in light of the appeals court's strong ruling. Walke said the decision is tantamount to the court burying the rule six feet under, where before it was just in a casket.
Segal said the ruling will make it more costly for plants to operate. This is a missed opportunity for reform that would have made it easier to improve power plant efficiency and workplace safety, and that's bad news for consumers and the environment, he said. We believe it is a step backwards for the protection of air quality in the United States.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
U.S. military violated own rules on mentally ill troops...sm
Updated: 10:04 p.m. ET May 13, 2006
HARTFORD, Conn. - U.S. military troops with severe psychological problems have been sent to Iraq or kept in combat, even when superiors have been aware of signs of mental illness, a newspaper reported for Sunday editions.
The Hartford Courant, citing records obtained under the federal Freedom of Information Act and more than 100 interviews of families and military personnel, reported numerous cases in which the military failed to follow its own regulations in screening, treating and evacuating mentally unfit troops from Iraq.
In 1997, Congress ordered the military to assess the mental health of all deploying troops. The newspaper, citing Pentagon statistics, said fewer than 1 in 300 service members were referred to a mental health professional before shipping out for Iraq as of October 2005.
And: Study the comma rules and capitalize 'European'
You see, every day you learn something new, from me.
Hehehehe!
I guess they figure if Bush doesn't play by the rules,
they don't have to, either. No big surprise here. They want to take over everything, just as Bush does: With Bush, it's the world. With them, it's this message board. I agree with you, though. They should stay on their own board, as the moderator has requested. 
Pelosi Erases Gingrich's Long-Standing Fairness Rules....sm
Pelosi Erases Gingrich's Long-Standing Fairness Rules
by Connie Hair
01/05/2009
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi plans to re-write House rules today to ensure that the Republican minority is unable to have any influence on legislation. Pelosi’s proposals are so draconian, and will so polarize the Capitol, that any thought President-elect Obama has of bipartisan cooperation will be rendered impossible before he even takes office.
Pelosi’s rule changes -- which may be voted on today -- will reverse the fairness rules that were written around Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America.”
In reaction, the House Republican leadership is sending a letter today to Pelosi to object to changes to House Rules this week that would bar Republicans from offering alternative bills, amendments to Democrat bills or even the guarantee of open debate accessible by motions to recommit for any piece of legislation during the entire 111th Congress. These procedural abuses, as outlined in the below letter obtained by HUMAN EVENTS, would also include the repeal of six-year limit for committee chairmen and other House Rules reform measures enacted in 1995 as part of the Contract with America.
After decades of Democrat control of the House of Representatives, gross abuses to the legislative process and several high-profile scandals contributed to an overwhelming Republican House Congressional landslide victory in 1994. Reforms to the House Rules as part of the Contract with America were designed to open up to public scrutiny what had become under this decades-long Democrat majority a dangerously secretive House legislative process. The Republican reform of the way the House did business included opening committee meetings to the public and media, making Congress actually subject to federal law, term limits for committee chairmen ending decades-long committee fiefdoms, truth in budgeting, elimination of the committee proxy vote, authorization of a House audit, specific requirements for blanket rules waivers, and guarantees to the then-Democrat minority party to offer amendments to pieces of legislation.
Pelosi’s proposed repeal of decades-long House accountability reforms exposes a tyrannical Democrat leadership poised to assemble legislation in secret, then goose-step it through Congress by the elimination of debate and amendment procedures as part of America’s governing legislative process.
Below is the text of the letter on which the House Republican leadership has signed off.
January 5, 2009
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker of the House
H-232, U.S. Capitol
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Madame Speaker,
We hope you and your family had a joyful holiday season, and as we begin a new year and a new Congress, we look forward to working with you, our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and President-elect Obama in tackling the many challenges facing our nation.
President Obama has pledged to lead a government that is open and transparent. With that in mind, we are deeply troubled by media reports indicating that the Democratic leadership is poised to repeal reforms put in place in 1995 that were intended to help restore Americans’ trust and confidence in the People’s House. Specifically, these reports note that the Majority, as part of its rules package governing the new Congress, will end six-year term limits for Committee chairs and further restrict the opportunity for all members to offer alternative legislation. This does not represent change; it is reverting back to the undemocratic one-party rule and backroom deals that the American people rejected more than a decade ago. And it has grave implications for the American people and their freedom, coming at a time when an unprecedented expansion of federal power and spending is being hastily planned by a single party behind closed doors. Republicans will vigorously oppose repealing these reforms if they are brought to a vote on the House floor.
As you know, after Republicans gained the majority in the House in 1995, our chamber adopted rules to limit the terms of all committee chairs to three terms in order to reward new ideas, innovation, and merit rather than the strict longevity that determined chairmanships in the past. This reform was intended to help restore the faith and trust of the American people in their government – a theme central to President-elect Obama’s campaign last year. He promoted a message of “change,” but Madame Speaker, abolishing term limit reform is the opposite of “change.” Instead, it will entrench a handful of Members of the House in positions of permanent power, with little regard for its impact on the American people.
The American people also stand to pay a price if the Majority further shuts down free and open debate on the House floor by refusing to allow all members the opportunity to offer substantive alternatives to important legislation -- the same opportunities that Republicans guaranteed to Democrats as motions to recommit during their 12 years in the Minority. The Majority’s record in the last Congress was the worst in history when it came to having a free and open debate on the issues.
This proposed change also would prevent Members from exposing and offering proposals to eliminate tax increases hidden by the Democratic Majority in larger pieces of legislation. This is not the kind of openness and transparency that President-elect Obama promised. This change would deprive tens of millions of Americans the opportunity to have a voice in the most important policy decisions facing our country.
Madame Speaker, we urge you to reconsider the decision to repeal these reforms, which could come up for a vote as early as tomorrow. Just as a new year brings fresh feelings of optimism and renewal for the American people, so too should a new Congress. Changing the House rules in the manner highlighted by recent media reports would have the opposite effect: further breaching the trust between our nation’s elected representatives and the men and women who send them to Washington to serve their interests and protect their freedom.
Sincerely,
Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio), Republican Leader
Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), Republican Whip
Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), Conference Chairman
Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.), Policy Committee Chairman
Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wyo.), Conference Vice-Chair
Rep. John Carter (R-Texas), Conference Secretary
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas), NRCC Chairman
Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), Chief Deputy Whip
Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.), Rules Committee Ranking Republican
(Click here for a pdf copy of the letter with signatures.)
let's break this up...
I would not hang out with hitler just because I so young at that time. Like is to like and water seeks its own level, etc. you are known by the company you keep.
I would like to point out there are people out there who would rip the hide off Thomas Jefferson for what many thought he did with a slave although since proven he did not and that was a lot longer ago.
I was doing pretty good until this year, but NAFTA was started by clinton, not bush. The war seems to be was started by all of us or at least the people we voted for, because saddam himself started the rumors he had weapons of mass destruction, apparently to keep iran out of his hair. This was actually reported on 60 minutes, not known for conservatist reporting. We were told this would be a long haul before it even was started. Honestly, I don't know anymore, and neither do most of us.
I am no longer pro choice. I find pregnancy almost totally inexcusable except for obvious cases of rape and incest, and a few other criteria. The practice seems barbaric to me and the PETA people would all over us if we did the same to animals.
SS: Some people were already pulling out of SS into other plans back in the 80's and as I remember, some of them failed and the money disappeared leaving them with not enough SS points to quality. Scary. There was nothing wrong with SS until Washington got greedy and stole from it to bail out Medicare or Medicaid.
Don't get the last one about decades-old news, celebrity. I don't pay attention to celebrities and old news should be looked at as history, hopefully so we don't repeat past errors.
No, we are not basically okay, but a lot of this on personal levels we have done to ourselves. We are now in the habit of pointing blame at anybody else rather than own up to what we do.
Don't know how to break this to you, but
I read the letter in its entirety. I read it for a second time because I was so stunned that anybody anywhere was trying to make political hay out of a communist analyzing the DNC, comparing its presentation to his father's "methods," remembering his father fondly (most human beings do this once their parents have passed) praising the DNC success and THEN making the leap from this to Obama is a communist and is into mind control. I posted and went about my business. All day long, I kept thinking about the absurdity of the original contention and continued to chuckle each time. I came back this afternoon and lo and behold, someone is still trying to make something of this. I am still LMAO. It is on the pathetic side that the promoters of this conspiracy theory cannot see the folly in this most preposterous notion.
Don't know how to break this to you, but
Fairly tame in comparison to the real liberal press, none of which is broadcast on cable or networks. MSNBC is simply a democratic viewpoint, not liberal enough for the libs. If you think these sources do not represent democrats, why not ask them, instead of assuming that you know something about something that you know nothing about. But hey, you already have no credibilty outside the choir.
Let me break this down for you.
Obama and McCain are the candidates. The economy is in meltdown mode:
1. People are losing their jobs. In Georgia, for example, their unempolyments claims jumped a whopping 76% last month. Nationally, initial unemployment claims jumped to 498,000, the highest they have been since October 2001. Over the last year, the number of unemployed has risen from 2.2 million to 9.5 million.
2. Jobs are being lost in record numbers. 760,000 jobs have been lost this past year....the highest rise since October 2003....and the 9th consecutive month for job loss.
3. They are losing their homes. The foreclosure rate rose 12% last month, 27% from one year ago nationwide. However, Nevada,for example, has seen an 89% jump from last year, California 75%, just to give you the idea.
4. They are losing their life savings. Stock market crash shows net loss of 38% this past year. That means that a $100,000 investment a year ago is now worth $62,000. 401K statements are due out momentarily. If you think right-wingers are angry about the "socialist takeover,", just wait for that news to hit home. You haven't seen angry just yet.
Candidates are expected to have positions and plans on such issues as the economy. Recent polls indicate that Obama holds a double-digit lead in voter confidence when it comes to handling the economic crisis. Obama talks openly about his economic plan. McCain runs and hides from the issue. That is why we are all waiting for HIS supporters and for HIM to step up to the plate and enlighten us as to how his economic policies would be different from W's and what his plans are for fixing the problems. The answer does not include any mention of his opponent's name. It requires a direct, open, thorough, honest response. Can you handle that?
OK. Let me break this down for you.
catch my drift. Here's a clue. It's a word that would be barred from the forum. Nevertheless, for me it is an appropriate moniker. My news sources are hardly confined to TV broadcasts. I read newspapers, news magazines and listen to radio broadcasts, but am not keen on radio talk shows. Heavy on information, void of editorial and lending easily to my own interpretation....that's how I like my news. Focks does not rise to that standard.
Your being a Focks promoter, explains the narrow scope of your posts. There is nothing fair and balanced about them and there is a reason that CNN and MSNBC do not broadcast most of the garbage Focks tries to pass off as legitimate reporting. Sean Hannity is a major player in the fomenting hatred that grips the pub party and will eventually tank McCain's campaign. CNN and MNBC are only marginally better. I am more drawn to information that is a bit more academic and certainly more intelligent.
I am not susceptible to spells or propagnda. I am 60 years old, have been a political junkie since age 14, have been issues active, yet not particularly party active, since the early 1960s. I am no follower, but am well acquainted with myself and my core beliefs. My life experiences, economic class, gender and race have all been contributing factors in my passions for civil/human rights and socioeconomic issues, minority rights in particular.
I fear ignorance, not truth and there is nothing you, Focks or right-wingers can say to make me drink the Kook-Aid you are selling. I know raw ignorance when I see it and that is precisely what people of intelligence see when they witness the target audience at the McCain/Palin rallies. They are losing the election and cannot come up with a coherent campaign strategy that engages anyone outside their fringe elements.
I will pray for you, too, because you are in for a rude shock in T-minus-24. I look forward to a Bushless world, a step into the future and a closed chapter on the politics of fear. Bye-Bye.
Come on, cut her a break
They did outlaw the action figure. Give her some credit!
Let's break this down for you, MT.
The idea is to debunk the ignorance behind the stereotype that all Moslems, moderates included, are terrorists....an assumption you have clearly made. This can be done by not referring to them as terrorists or implying that the US is "at war" with Islam. In other words, Islam/Moslems and terrorists are not synonymous.
Winning over moderates starts with mitigating anti-American sentiment that has been flamed over the past 7 years under the shrub among moderate Moslems. The weaker that sentiment becomes, the less attraction and "draw" the extremist groups will have. The Moslems will end up marginalizing their OWN extremists and become part of the war on terror, not just idle bystanders.
Don't even try to imply that this is not possible. I have had Moslem friends for over 40 years now and not once have I even encountered a terrorist among them. On the contrary. They are quite open to the West and pretty much DETEST the rise of the Islamic political parties in their region.
The tax break is for everyone, not the top 10%
Everyone gets a tax break. The whole point is to get things moving again. I think his package would have done it.
Well, let me break out my violin
if this was a true account of this interview I don't know what this reporter expected....did she expect that he would let an Irish anti-war reporter rip him to shreds? Considering all the hatred he's been subjected to I would say he held his peace quite well.
You follow follow a protocol with any dignitary or leader you'd meet anywhere in the world. Wonder if this chick has ever met the queen? Now, there's some strict protocol for you.
Give me a break.
The CON board has been demoralized by nonstop drive-by vitriol for months. Forgive me if I'm neither surprised nor particularly perturbed to see that the worm has turned here. My congratulations, though, extend to all those who post with the very obvious intent of ridiculing and harassing those with opposing views to the point of eliminating rational discussion on these boards. If their purpose is to eliminate rational discussion of important political issues, they seem to be succeeding.
He's trying to break a record you know.
Cutting his vacation short due to the Katrina disaster could have affected his record! Must be nice to have over a year of vacation time in only 7 years, and a war-time president at that. I'm not surprised though. I almost don't want to talk smack about him anymore because it is just too easy. It helps to vent though, I suppose.
oh give me a break!
as the person said above, ive never used his whole name, and i said it for impact, not because i care about him. Honestly, I don't know McCain's Middle name! or Joe Biden's or Sara Palin's. pathetic that you talk about me in third person. ask like the person above. again you know nothing about me, i have pics all up on my myspace of me shaking Obama's hand and me at his speech... you know the old saying if you assume you make an a$$ out of you and me!
Hate to break this to you, but it's a
nm
Hate to break it to you....
...Obama's been bouncing all over the place with in unreliable polls, too, for months....why is it that his rise in the pools was all "reliable" or does "unreliable" only count when the Republicans bounce ahead.
I like that lipstick platform line, too......not too derogatory, just a touch of sarcasm....works for me.....
Well, hate to break it to you....
but not everyone who disagrees with a Democrat is a Republican. I am a conservative. The Republican party left me, I didn't leave it. So now I am an Independent. Quack back at ya!
Hate to break it to you this way, but -
gay men can produce sperm, too. It doesn't just come from hetero males.
Is that what they were teaching in your school system - 'fuzzy biology'?
Oh, give me a break!!!!!!!
Nancy Pelosi wants to take on some of her "garbage" to the deal. There should be NOTHING added, nadda, let alone her screwed up way of thinking mess. There will be so much added garbage by the thieves on capital hill WE are paying for, the debt itself will never see the money.
Likely to die? Give me a break.
Are you suggesting he's NOT being diligent about his health? Do you think he hasn't had an MRI just because he didn't fax it to your house? Vote for whoever you want, but siding with that numbskull Obama because you have a preminition of death re. his opponent is laughable.
Story about to break....
whistle blower from Project Vote/Acorn...testifying in PA yesterday...supposedly has documents proving direct link between Obama campaign and Acorn/Project Vote...who this person says are virtually the same....saying Obama campaign gave the maxed-out donor list to Acorn/Project Vote so they could get donations from them for their voter registration program. So much for "I have no connection to Acorn or their voter registration programs." If I was that woman I would hire bodyguards.
Give me a break!
Hey, guess what? The war in Iraq IS pointless. It was predicated on a lie by power and money hungry idiots (Bush/Cheney, supported by McCain). The idea that our troops should stay and fight and die for a lie just so McCain can put a big W in the win box is sickening. McCain says he's all about veterans...yeah right. I guess that's why he voted against the new GI bill. You may want to take issue with him on that.
Give me a break. Okay...YOU TELL ME.
Follow me now....listen. Obama SAID he is going to give a tax cut to 95% of Americans. He has said it REPEATEDLY. FACT: 95% of Americans DO NOT PAY federal income taxes. Between 30% and 40% DO NOT. Okay...focus here now. HOW is the great and powerful OBama going to give a tax break to THOSE 30-40% who are a LARGE PART of that 95%?????? You said yourself: You cannot be given a tax CUT if you do not pay taxes. Look at his plan AGAIN re: refundable tax credits. THAT is where the 30-40% are going to get their "cut." IN the form of a check. Good grief, it is so simple, is THAT why you don't get it?
If I am so misguided, please help me understand...95% of all Americans are going to get a tax cut. He said it. Repeatedly. 30-40% OF that 95% DO NOT pay federal income tax. So WHERE, unless he is lying through his teeth, is THEIR TAX CUT going to come from, if not through refundable tax credits in the form of a check? Please enlighten me, or bright one who knows SOOOO much more than I do.
Thank you so much.
|
