Talk about a heap of constitutional amendments!
Posted By: nm on 2008-11-07
In Reply to: Here's what I would like to see by 2012 - Sherrie
x
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
Would these amendments be relevant for states that - for example - sm
have passed laws allowing medical marijuana use, but the Federal laws are still being used to prosecute patients?
Inside amendments from yesterday and how they voted
Adopted:
Sanders/Grassley Modified Amendment No. 306 (to Amendment No. 98), to require recipients of TARP funding to meet strict H-1B worker hiring standard to ensure non-displacement of U.S. workers. Pages S1775, S1803
By 73 yeas to 24 nays (Vote No. 51), Coburn Amendment No. 309 (to Amendment No. 98), to ensure that taxpayer money is not lost on wasteful and non-stimulative projects.
Pages S1775, S1803-04
Udall Amendment No. 359 (to Amendment No. 98), to expand the number of veterans eligible for the employment tax credit for unemployed veterans.
Pages S1775, S1804
By a unanimous vote of 97 yeas (Vote No. 52), Coburn Amendment No. 176 (to Amendment No. 98), to require the use of competitive procedures to award contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements funded under this Act.
Pages S1775, S1804-07
Baucus (for Dodd) Modified Amendment No. 145 (to Amendment No. 98), to improve the efforts of the Federal Government in mitigating home foreclosures and to require the Secretary of the Treasury to develop and implement a foreclosure prevention loan modification plan.
Pages S1775, S1850-51, S1852
Cantwell Further Modified Amendment No. 274 (to Amendment No. 98), to improve provisions relating to energy tax incentives and provisions relating manufacturing tax incentives for energy property.
Pages S1819-26, S1853-54
Wyden Amendment no. 468 (to Amendment No. 98), to require financial institutions receiving TARP assistance to redeem from the United States preferred stock in an amount equal to excess bonuses from 2008 or to pay a 35 percent tax on such amount.
Pages S1834-38, S1855
Enzi Further Modified Amendment No. 293 (to Amendment No. 98), to provide for a manager's amendment.
Pages S1831-34, S1856-59
Rejected:
By 39 yeas to 57 nays (Vote No. 53), Graham/Conrad Modified Amendment No. 501 (to Amendment No. 98), to limit wasteful spending, to fund a systematic program of foreclosure prevention, to be administered by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Pages S1808-17, S1831, S1851-52
By 47 yeas to 49 nays (Vote No. 54), Grassley Amendment No. 297 (to Amendment No. 98), to provide the same temporary increase in the FMAP for all States and to permit States to choose the period through June 2011 for receiving the increase.
Pages S1817-19, S1852-53
By 45 yeas to 51 nays (Vote No. 56), Vitter Amendment No. 107 (to Amendment No. 98), prohibiting direct or indirect use of funds to fund the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN).
Pages S1808, S1854
By 41 yeas to 55 nays (Vote No. 57), Bunning Amendment No. 531 (to Amendment No. 98), to temporarily increase the limitations on offsetting ordinary income with capital losses and to strike the 5-year carryback of general business credits.
Pages S1826-27, S1855
American's don't mind "porky" amendments!
I just love this guy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEfICUoWKBw
Inside are bill amendments that came to vote as of yesterday.
I wanted to put them in some sort of order, but gave up and just put them in the numerical order. You will see lots of numbers not there because they haven't been voted on yet, not agreed to, were tabled, ruled out of order, or withdrawn.
450. S.AMDT.50 to H.R.2 To restore fiscal discipline by making the Medicaid and SCHIP programs more accountable and efficient.
Sponsor: Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] (introduced 1/27/2009) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 1/29/2009 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 50 agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote.
95. S.AMDT.95 to H.R.2 To make technical corrections to the State option to provide dental-only supplemental coverage.
Sponsor: Sen Baucus, Max [MT] (introduced 1/29/2009) Cosponsors (1)
Latest Major Action: 1/29/2009 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 95 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
96. S.AMDT.96 to H.R.2 To clarify that no eligible entity that receives an outreach and enrollment grant is required to provide matching funds.
Sponsor: Sen Baucus, Max [MT] (introduced 1/29/2009) Cosponsors (1)
Latest Major Action: 1/29/2009 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 96 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
102. S.AMDT.102 to H.R.1 To ensure that assistance for the redevelopment of foreclosed and abandoned homes to States or units of local government impacted by catastrophic natural disasters may be used to support the redevelopment of homes damaged or destroyed as a result of the 2005 hurricanes, the severe flooding in the Midwest in 2008, and other natural disasters.
Sponsor: Sen Landrieu, Mary L. [LA] (introduced 2/2/2009) Cosponsors (6)
Latest Major Action: 2/4/2009 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 102 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
104. S.AMDT.104 to H.R.1 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow an above-the-line deduction against individual income tax for interest on indebtedness and for State sales and excise taxes with respect to the purchase of certain motor vehicles.
Sponsor: Sen Mikulski, Barbara A. [MD] (introduced 2/2/2009) Cosponsors (7)
Latest Major Action: 2/3/2009 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 104 agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote.
106. S.AMDT.106 to H.R.1 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a Federal income tax credit for certain home purchases.
Sponsor: Sen Isakson, Johnny [GA] (introduced 2/3/2009) Cosponsors (3)
Latest Major Action: 2/4/2009 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 106 as modified agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote.
125. S.AMDT.125 to H.R.1 To limit compensation to officers and directors of entities receiving emergency economic assistance from the Government.
Sponsor: Sen McCaskill, Claire [MO] (introduced 2/3/2009) Cosponsors (8)
Latest Major Action: 2/5/2009 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 125 agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote.
138. S.AMDT.138 to H.R.1 To provide for reports on the use of funds made available under this Act and the economic impact made by the expenditure or obligation of such funds, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Dorgan, Byron L. [ND] (introduced 2/3/2009) Cosponsors (1)
Latest Major Action: 2/5/2009 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 138 as modified agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
176. S.AMDT.176 to H.R.1 To require the use of competitive procedures to award contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements funded under this Act.
Sponsor: Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] (introduced 2/3/2009) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 2/6/2009 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 176 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 97 - 0. Record Vote Number: 52.
178. S.AMDT.178 to H.R.1 To provide an additional $6,500,000,000 to the National Institutes of Health for biomedical research.
Sponsor: Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] (introduced 2/3/2009) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 2/3/2009 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 178 as modified agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote.
236. S.AMDT.236 to H.R.1 To establish funding levels for various offices of inspectors general and to set a date until which such funds shall remain available.
Sponsor: Sen McCaskill, Claire [MO] (introduced 2/4/2009) Cosponsors (1)
Latest Major Action: 2/5/2009 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 236 as modified agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote.
237. S.AMDT.237 to H.R.1 To amend certain provisions of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, related to the surety bond guarantee program.
Sponsor: Sen Cardin, Benjamin L. [MD] (introduced 2/4/2009) Cosponsors (2)
Latest Major Action: 2/4/2009 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 237 agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote.
274. S.AMDT.274 to H.R.1 To improve provisions relating to energy tax incentives and provisions relating manufacturing tax incentives for energy property.
Sponsor: Sen Cantwell, Maria [WA] (introduced 2/4/2009) Cosponsors (11)
Latest Major Action: 2/6/2009 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 274 as modified agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote.
300. S.AMDT.300 to H.R.1 To clarify that the Buy American provisions shall be applied in a manner consistent with United States obligations under international agreements.
Sponsor: Sen Dorgan, Byron L. [ND] (introduced 2/4/2009) Cosponsors (4)
Latest Major Action: 2/4/2009 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 300 agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote.
306. S.AMDT.306 to H.R.1 To require recipients of TARP funding to meet strict H-1B worker hiring standard to ensure non-displacement of U.S. workers.
Sponsor: Sen Sanders, Bernard [VT] (introduced 2/4/2009) Cosponsors (1)
Latest Major Action: 2/6/2009 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 306 as modified agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote.
309. S.AMDT.309 to H.R.1 To ensure that taxpayer money is not lost on wasteful and non-stimulative projects.
Sponsor: Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] (introduced 2/4/2009) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 2/6/2009 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 309 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 73 - 24. Record Vote Number: 51.
354. S.AMDT.354 to H.R.1 To impose executive compensation limitations with respect to entities assisted under the Troubled Asset Relief Program.
Sponsor: Sen Dodd, Christopher J. [CT] (introduced 2/4/2009) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 2/5/2009 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 354 agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote.
359. S.AMDT.359 to H.R.1 To expand the number of veterans eligible for the employment tax credit for unemployed veterans.
Sponsor: Sen Udall, Tom [NM] (introduced 2/4/2009) Cosponsors (2)
Latest Major Action: 2/6/2009 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 359 agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote.
468. S.AMDT.468 to H.R.1 To require financial institutions receiving TARP assistance to redeem from the United States preferred stock in an amount equal to excess bonuses for 2008 or to pay a 35 percent tax on such amount.
Sponsor: Sen Wyden, Ron [OR] (introduced 2/5/2009) Cosponsors (3)
Latest Major Action: 2/6/2009 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 468 agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote.
Constitutional law I believe. nm
.
Those agreements are Constitutional law
Bush ignored Constitutional law to invade Iraq. (That's the very definition of corruption, by the way). You seem to think that's just hunky dory.
Why do you hate America?
Is he a constitutional lawyer?
Just because he is a lawyer does not make him an expert. Please cite statutes, case law, etc.
There IS no constitutional crisis.
Recession teetering on the brink of depression. WAKE UP, will ya?
He's a brilliant constitutional attorney....
No he's not, yes he is, no he's not, yes he is arguments will not win any elections.
Turley on Bush's Constitutional Skin
Well, first of all this President's theory of his power I think is now so extreme that it's unprecedented. He believes that he has the inherent authority to violate federal law. He has said that. Not just the signing statements and the infamous torture memo-that Alberto Gonzales signed. It was stated that he could in some circumstances order federal officials to violate federal law and this is consistent across the board with this President. Frankly, I'm not too sure what he thought he was swearing to when he took the oath of office to uphold the Constitution and our laws. I've never seen a President who is so uncomfortable in his constitutional skin.
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/news_Countdown_Turley_051006.wmv
America is a Constitutional Republic, NOT democracy
This is a very good read.
I like the quote by Tom Tancredo "When I took the oath of the office, it wasn't to my party or President, it was to the Constitution".
http://www.stopthenorthamericanunion.com/NotDemocracy.html
Reasons there would be a constitutional crisis according to one expert...
The Consequences of “Forgetting”
There are factual economic, social, Constitutional, military and financial consequences of forgetting what damage an ineligible POTUS will do to our Country and the Constitution. These consequences are so serious that our government will not exist if we forget the rule of law, and what our Constitution demands. These are succinctly addressed in an article by Edwin J. Viera, Jr. entitled “Obama must step up or stand down now”.
Of the nine (9) reasons why Obama should step down if he has not proven his eligibility, the two that most notably concern me are:
No laws of Congress are valid
“Congress can pass no law while a usurper pretends to occupy “the Office of President.” The Constitution provides that “[e]very Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States” (Article I, Section 7, Clause 2). Not to a usurper posturing as “the President of the United States,” but to the true and rightful President. If no such true and rightful President occupies the White House, no “Bill” will or can, “before it become a Law, be presented to [him].” If no “Bill” is so presented, no “Bill” will or can become a “Law.” And any purported “Law” that the usurper “approve[s]” and “sign[s],” or that Congress passes over the usurper’s “Objections,” will be a nullity. Thus, if Obama deceitfully “enters office” as an usurper, Congress will be rendered effectively impotent for as long as it acquiesces in his pretenses as “President.”
And
He Could not be Removed Except by Force
If Obama does become an usurper posturing as “the President,” Congress cannot even impeach him because, not being the actual President, he cannot be “removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (see Article II, Section 4). In that case, some other public officials would have to arrest him—with physical force, if he would not go along quietly—in order to prevent him from continuing his imposture. Obviously, this could possibly lead to armed conflicts within the General Government itself, or among the States and the people.
Bear in mind that as an imposter Commander–in-Chief of the Armed Forces, “he will be entitled to no obedience whatsoever from anyone in those forces. Indeed, for officers or men to follow any of his purported “orders” will constitute a serious breach of military discipline—and in extreme circumstances perhaps even “war crimes.” In addition, no one in any civilian agency in the Executive Branch of the General Government will be required to put into effect any of Obama’s purported “proclamations,” “executive orders,” or “directives” (Viera, J.).
http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/12/05/stand-by-me/
We also have the constitutional right to the free expression thereof....
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Center on the words or prohibit the free exercise thereof. It is our constitutional right to freely express our religious views. You want to deny us that constitutional right do you?
Stop the Obama Constitutional Crisis...
http://www.rallycongress.com/constitutional-qualification/1244/
The show is known for its liberty/constitutional story lines. sm
I thought it was funny, but I also understood the message.
Anyone willing to talk about something serious...
instead of talk radio or Gore's electrice bill. I am referring to Libby's trial, the firing of 8 judges, Pete Domineci, the unnecessary and ever rising numbers of dead - everywhere, 40 towns in Vermont calling for impeachment (of course this won't go anywhere but the gesture is telling), a pardon for Libby (and does he have to admit guilt to be pardoned which he has not done), the fact that Libby was the attorney to the much maligned Marc Rich who was pardoned by Clinton, which was also much maligned. Was Scooter as evil as Clinton for having defended him in his dealings with Iran and his tax evasion as Clinton was for pardoning him ?? If all this was just about infighting between the FBI and the administration and George Tenet, then why did Libby lie at all; wouldn't be important enough to lie about, IMHO. Throwing it out there.
You need to talk to someone who has
more knowledge about this than your average Joe. It is $250,000 per individual. Not couple, not family. Trust me, JM is going to have to get the money somewhere to offset this astronomical deficit. CHINA owns all of our securities!!!!! JM is not going after the rich for this money..........so where is he going to get it? We are headed for an all-out depression. We need to stockpile cash, food, basic necessities. If you are breaking even on your ranch - I clearly do not see where Obama's tax proposal is going to affect you. I do see more of the same screwing the entire country.
I only want to talk about what you are going to do to fix it. nm
.
Pie in the sky talk
There is no way he can do that. We have a state representative who lives on our street. When he heard this, he said he nearly fell over and couldn't believe this guy was making that kind of promise to the AMerican people. He said there is NO WAY that will ever happen because he admitted the Senators have a very cushy healthcare plan we all pay dearly for but there will not be an affordable plan to get the same healthcare plan they get. He has misled or just downright lied about that one.
You darn right it won't be free and it WON'T be affordable. Obama knows the only ones who would be able to afford that are the ones that are very well off, the very rich he condemns. Well, news flash, they already have that kind of plan.
Just another tactic to get your vote because he knows healthcare is a big factor here.
What are you trying to talk about now?
x
Is no one going to talk about this?
I think it is a legitimate concern. This is a site I found that kind of analyzes the Obama's tax returns. For the amount of money they make, they didn't really give that much to charity.
Shouldn't they practice what they preach?
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/03/obama-releases.html
I mean if you can explain this, please do. I just want to understand why he expects us to "be our brother's keeper" yet he doesn't seem to do much at all charity-wise.
Hey, you can't talk about HIM like that...LOL
You think we can talk to those who would rather
nm
OMG....talk about
nit picking. You people have no problem nit picking pubs, but if we dare to nit pick dems....we are called racist. Well....how about this......I think that woman is obnoxious and not even worthy to watch. I personally think Michael Steele is great and I'm glad he is the head of the RNC. He obviously is a black man and I think it is perfectly fine for him to use the term "bling-bling." What...because he is a pub the usual racial outcries don't apply? If someone attacked Obama for saying bling bling and using hip-hop as a reference to how his party is going to be....you all would bow down and kiss his feet. They bring up Michael Steele's catering business and a federal investigation.......what about Obama's buying of his house in Illinios with Rezko? That was okay according to liberals...just hide that tid bit and down play it and federally investigate a pub who isn't even the president. Appoint a tax evader to the head of the IRS and that is okay but federally investigate a pub over his sister's catering company. Such double standards!
OKAY!! Let's see what happens! Then we can talk about it. NM
x
I don't think you can talk about....(sm)
socially acceptable behavior without looking at the influences that set those standards. Christianity is what determined homosexuality to be unacceptable. It is the dominant factor in this debate as far as the US goes. The US generally accepted christianity as the norm some time ago in this country. In doing so it automatically put people in the sinner and non-sinner brackets. Homosexuals were obviously put into the sinning bracket. That is why they have been put in the closet. Not because "it's just not natural," but because it's a sin.
And that's where I have a problem with the whole thing. Since we are not a theocracy, religious concepts have no place in determining something as personal as marriage. For that matter, I also think it's absolutely absurd that govt weighs in on this issue. I think it's a personal choice, not for the church and not for the govt.
Wow, talk about creepy. sm
First of all, the above poster failed (I am sure it was a honest mistake) to say why I left the board. Context certainly means something. You remind me of the creep who was stalking me and was keeping a running tab of all my posts (much of what is posted above are not my posts). That's just weird. As far as serving, I was a military brat for a whole lot of years and I believe it is service. But of course, anything to label someone a liar. You are sad little people. I won't bother you anymore because obviously, your brain has limited capacity for anything except hatred, bitterness, and all that goes with it. Have a nice evening accomplishing nothing but your little hate party and bitterness regalia.
Talk about fireworks! LOL
If we continue down the path we're headed, it may as well be the end (but I'm old, so I figure I'm probably gonna die soon, anyway) 
Well, okay then. Talk about overreacting. sm
anyways, might want to lay off the Christian bashing. We all know the libs want to get rid of Christianity but I think they are trying to keep it a secret. Shhhhhhhhhhhh.....
Why you talk strange?
I do not get.
Me need new insult, yes.
Talk about a disconnect.
What does he care? He earns $212,000. Let's not let the facts stand in the way of his salary.
http://clerk.house.gov/members/memFAQ.html#salary
Do you talk about anything on this board besides
Ann Coulter and conspiracy theories. I mean wake up people! North Korea is firing off missles, there's some important legislation coming up, the supreme court just made an astounding judgment on Gitmo, and you guys are posting Pink songs. Get with the program. Have some debate here! No wonder I can scan down the page and see the same people over and over. You'll never get new blood like this.
I didn't say you did talk that way.
It was simply an exaggerated example to make a point about the subjectiveness of deciding what constitutes an observation versus an insult. I think that was obvious to most people. Regarding your snide observation, no I do not talk like that. As I said it was an example.
Perhaps your other boards do not have such a marked slant. And shall I make an observation on the tedious repetition that is found in your milieu's absolutely ENDLESS recitation of the evils of liberals, just to mention a few? ONe doesn't even need to read the content of the posts, merely scan the subject lines and the repetition is obvious.
Talk about twisting....
You said:
There are things that the poster felt needed to be said, and you see, this is a liberal board.
As it has been said ad nauseam, anyone can post on this board. Liberals post on the conservative board as well. I must have been absent the day you were named moderator.
You said:
You have a habit of mis-representing the facts, of twisting them to fit your agenda and your conscience.
On the basis of what, three posts, you say I have a habit of misrepresenting the facts and twisting them to fit my agenda and m conscience. Pot calling the kettle black, I would say. You posted erroneous information, represented it as fact, and I called you on it. If anyone's conscience should be bothering them, that would be you.
You say most of the people of the U.S. were against slavery. At different points in history that may or may not have been true, there weren't a lot of nationwide polls back then. Could you share your facts? Just the facts, ma'am.
I again refer you to history. History is full of the people who opposed slavery. We are at war right now as a country but as it is perfectly clear, is it not, that the whole country is not behind the war.
The fact is though that slavery was perfectly legal for 100 years in this country. Try twisting that one. That's what I mean when I say this country condoned slavery. But I think that was obvious to most folks.
Because it is legal does not mean all the people in the country condone it. Abortion is legal in this country but I sure as heck do not condone it. That doesn't mean I bomb abortion clinics or stand outside them and ridicule the people using them. But I do not condone it, nor do many others. I follow the laws of the land but I do make sure with my vote and in other ways to work to see that law gone. And I think that is obvious to most folks as well.
Secondly, you say this was Congress's war just as much as Bush's. Well, we know that is not true either. It was Bush and his cronies that planned this war, probably even before 9/11. There was erroneous evidence presented to Congress that led them to okay military action.
I really am incredulous that there are still people who buy that nonsense. Erroneous evidence presented to Congress? The Senate Intelligence Committee had the very same information the Bush administration had. And if all those congresspeople are so ignorant they could be *fooled* into buying into lies (if there were any, which there is no proof there were) that led the country into war, then I would think, for the love of pete, that you would be equally as incensed at them. What proof do you have that Bush and his cronies planned anything? None, because there is none. As you said, just the FACTS, ma'am.
If your daughter came home from school and stated that the neighbor girl beat her up you would might believe the evidence. However, do you not change your course of action if it turns out the neighbor girl didn't do the actual damage? I am sorry, I do not grasp your analogy. If you are saying now that maybe Congress screwed up, and now they realized they screwed up, how many years into it, so now the thing to do is, after we committed ourselves to the Iraqis to just up and go, leave them dangling, just like we did in Viet Nam? Nothing noble about that. And make no mistake...if the war suddenly became popular they would fall all over themselves backpedaling again ahd saying *I did vote for it and I voted against it but now I am for it again...* yada yada. They are politicians.
I believe you twist and arrange the evidence so you don't feel guilty about this utter madness and endless slaughter we know as Iraq as you similarly defend the US government role in the slaughter of indigenous peoples.
There you go again. First, my friend, I do not feel guilty. I have nothing to feel guilty about. I support the American military and I certainly support the war on terrorism. I do not readily forget 3000 people dying. I will never forget watching those people jump out of that building to avoid being incinerated and for what? Simply because they were Americans. How easily you seem to blow that off.
And I did not defend the US government role in the slaughter of indigenous peoples. I did not defend slavery. Both were wrong. Abortion is wrong, but they happen every day, and they happen NOW. There is no longer slavery and there is no longer the slaugher of indigenous peoples. Why does it not bother you that it is legal to slaughter upwards or over a million babies unborn babies every year? Why don't you get involved to stop that?
My whole point is that the US is indeed a great and often noble and generous country. I really want it to stay that way though and powerful people have a way of corrupting the moral values that have sustained this country for so long.
Excuse me yet again...but that is exactly what I said. The moral values that the country was founded upon and have sustained and how far we have gotten from that. But I guess we are talking about two different sets of moral values. What set are you talking about?
The US has taken some pretty bad detours along the way but fortunately common sense and good character have generally won out in the long run. Complacency and acceptance of corrupt power is always a threat though and that's why we need to QUESTION always those that are in near-absolute power. I firmly believe that those who question are the MOST patriotic.
I never said questioning was unpatriotic. What is unpatriotic in my view and always will be is suggesting that any American soldier died in vain. What I think is unpatriotic is while we have men and women dying in combat, no matter who sent them there or for what reason, we owe them the respect to, if we cannot support their mission, to not go public with rampant criticism and for the love of everything Holy not to suggest publically that they are fighting and dying for nothing. Not only do I think that is unpatriotic, I think it is selfish and mean. Doesn't mean you or anyone else can't grouse about it friends in the privacy of a home, but to go public with it where friends, family and loved ones of soldiers who have died there, were injured there and continue to fight there can read it. I don't know why some people (not naming anyone in particular) cannot just hold all that in until the troops come home. Then if they want to dissect it, take it apart, malign it or whatever, our troops are home and no longer in harm's way.
It is rhetoric like you are repeating that Al Qaeda loves to hear, and their greatest propaganda tool. Playing right into their hands. And yes, giving that upper hand to the enemy is to me, yes, unpatriotic.
You talk about them like they are the enemy.
Tsk tsk tsk.
OMG! LOL --talk about desperation!
nm
There's also talk that she won't rule out - sm
going to war with Russia if they invade Georgia. Just what we need, to be fighting THREE wars simultaneously.
And of course, don't forget the possibilities in Pakistan or Korea.
Fun, fun, fun.
Maybe it's time to quit MT and start selling bomb shelters again.
your cult-like talk
proves my point. To believe that all media except Fox is biased and that they were forced to chose the LEAST biased is franky cult-talk He did not try to trick her. he asked her straight out "what do you thank about the Bush Doctrine?" This is the definine doctrine of the Bush years that will be remembered in history. She did not know it. If she where honest, she would have said "I am not familar with it." Instead, she squirmed in her seat, thrust out her chin and tried to bluff him into giving her a hint.
He had his glasses on the end of his nose because he is over 40 and wears reading glasses like most older men. You knew that. You are trying to distract from the point again.
You never have anything good to say about McCain. You are focused on your hatred for Obama and frankly, it is creepy.
Do....let us talk about some of these issues.
9/11/2001: We all talk about 9/11. How Pres. Bush should have known. We did lose a lot of lives that day. It was truly a sad day. However, what about the World Trade Center bombing back in ྙ when Clinton was the pres. That was by Islamic extremists. Or about the US Embassy bombings in ྞ....also while Bill was in office suspect to have been coordinated by Osama Bin Laden. Or the USS Cole incident in 2000 and once again Bill was in the White House and once again Osama was the suspect in the planning. All these terrorists acts but the one people shout out about the most in 9/11 and how Bush is to blame. Why? Because more lives were lost in this one than with the other ones. Weren't they all still terrorist attacks? If Clinton had stood up and done something during his term....maybe 9/11 would not have happened at all but yet the blame all falls upon Bush.
Katrina: Once again all Bush's faults and therefore all republicans faults. Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff was the "federal official with the power to mobilize a massive federal response to Hurricane Katrina, [and] could have ordered federal agencies into action without any request from state or local officials." "If you go back to August 27th," President Bush had already "declared a state of emergency in the state of Louisiana under Title V of the Stafford Act, ... Ergo, Katrina became an Incident of National Significance on August 27th -- two days before the storm. But Chertoff apparently didn't realize this and waited till a day after [on August 30th] to make the determination on his own, one that according to the flow chart had already been made." Honestly though, if you live in a place that is well below sea level and you hear a really bit storm is coming your way.....common sense.....you get the heck out of dodge.
Iraq war: The reason for the war was this: The military objectives of the invasion were; end the Hussein regime; eliminate weapons of mass destruction; eliminate Islamic terrorists; obtain intelligence on terrorist networks; distribute humanitarian aid; secure Iraq’s oil infrastructure; and assist in creating a representative government as a model for other Middle East nations
As for Wall Street: Firms such as Goldman Sachs and Lehman not only made billions of dollars packaging and selling these toxic loans, they also wagered with their own capital that the values of these investments would decline, further raising their profits. If any other industries engaged in such knowingly unscrupulous activities, there would be an immediate federal investigation.
At the same time, federal regulatory agencies such as the SEC stood idly by as Wall Street took advantage of the investment public during both the Internet and the housing bubbles. The SEC took almost no action against Wall Street after the dot-com implosion. And in the midst of the housing bubble, in 2006, only the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency pushed for any level of regulation to address subprime lending.
One has to wonder why Treasury secretaries under Presidents Clinton and Bush -- Robert Rubin and Hank Paulson, respectively -- took no action to curb these abuses. It certainly was not because they did not understand Wall Street's practices -- both are former chief executives of Goldman Sachs. And why has Congress been so silent? The Wall Street investment banking firms, their executives, their families and their political action committees contribute more to U.S. Senate and House campaigns than any other industry in America. By sprinkling some of its massive gains into the pockets of our elected officials, Wall Street bought itself protection from any tough government enforcement.
This is no doubt the same reason why so many members of Congress were consistently blocking attempts to reform and downsize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are essentially giant, undercapitalized hedge funds. These two entities have been huge money machines for Democrats in both the House and the Senate, many of whom recently had the gall to ask why these companies hadn't been reformed in the past. Nor should several Republican congressmen and Senators who likewise contributed to watering down legislation aimed at reforming these institutions be let off the hook.
faux talk.
nm
faux talk
don't read em
The talk is that there is not a lot of time
to reschedule between now and the election. And if you cancel 1 that only leaves 2 Presidential debates and I guess you can't have just 2 because there might be a "tie" as to who wins them. I don't remember the exact thing that was said. The speculation was that since you can't have just 2 then you would have to cancel the VP debate, and what I came across said that that is exactly what McCain wanted. This isn't me saying that, this is just what I saw (can't remember where though). Also, I read that if they cancel the place they were having it (U. Miss?) will be out like $5 million dollars and it is not so easy just to reschedule on a different date.
Have you ever heard him talk about what he
thinks of what McCain did for the country when he was a captive? He does hold him in high regard to that respect, I should have clarified that. I have heard him, outside of his show, say what a hero he thought he was and he was being "Dave Letterman late show host".
You are so busy defending McCain all of the time, you can't see when someone is trying to be genuine.
THis is a time to ACT, not talk. I know...
"O" can talk. I would like to see him DO something.
Wow - talk about coincidence
DH & I watched this and they could be talking bout whats happening today.
Good clip - thanks for posting. Gotta go run to my window now :-)
They said instead of all the talk about it being a bipartisan
effort, it turned out to be a partisan effort (dems against pubs again).
Speaker Pelosi struck the tone of partisanship in this. Failure of Speaker Pelosi .... failure to listen, failure to lead.
94 dems voted NO!
They're going back to the drawing table.
Well, since you want to talk nitpicking....
If McCain had forgotten how many states were in his country, you would have been all over that and you know it. O lovers would have been saying it's his age, not he's dog-tired....poor man.
Hypocrit!
Like Yoda you do talk.
*
Now see, is that kind of talk really necessary?
Seriously.
want to talk about unions?
the places i've seen around our area who have unions are pathetic. i've seen unions protect employees who come to work intoxicated, who don't come to work at all, who PLAY CARDS on work time, do what they want because their "union will protect" them. so if you are suggesting the union is American... that's pretty pathetic. if they were actually protect HARD WORKING AMERICANS, then i'd be fine with it.
you wanna talk about "jabs" at obama? i guess "a bunch of losers" would not be a jab?
don't talk politics with them.
|
