Thanks. Was going to mention there's a special "monitor" board for reports.

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

I posted a lot of links a while back about the economy and terrorism prior to O becoming president.

Clinton knew the terrorists were getting ready for an attack, but just didn't know how and when it would happen. He could have stopped it, had he had GOOD information from the CIA, FBI. Those two groups were part of the reason we were attacked. They didn't work together or share information. There were plenty of warnings. He also knew there were WMDs in Iraq. It's in the report, but he didn't do anything about it and, in the meantime, Saddam tested his WMDs on his own people, killing thousands.

Clinton also did not leave such a large surplus. He and the accounting office cooked the books to make it look good. There was a surplus but not near as much as Clinton stated.

Global warming...I don't believe it. This is a natural happening every so many decades. It will turn around on its own in its own time. Part of the so-called global warming is the people. There are too many people in the world. People breathe in oxygen and give off carbon dioxide. Without trees, we're in trouble. Sounds dumb, but if you want to point fingers, point to the Amazon and destroying the rain forests. Prior to the Amazon forests being destroyed at the rate they are today, there was no problem.

Making peace instead of war doesn't work with terrorists. You have to "walk softly and carry a big stick." O is trying to charm them into peace and we all know that won't work. You have to be ruthless with them or else they will think the US is a pushover. If O wants to keep our country safe, he has to be a combination of FDR, JFK, Reagan, and both Bush's.

Instead of O going on talk shows and joking around, he should have his finger on the pulse of Washington and bring his congress and senate in line. They are so out of control, it's ridiculous. He has to stay in the WH or, before he knows it, those power mongers will be in power, not him (of course, that has already happened).

If O wants to turn this country around, he needs to let the people do it on their own. Government can't solve everybody's problems. People need to solve their own problems. Money doesn't solve any problems, it just creates more. More social programs that we can't pay for doesn't solve problems. It creates a society that depends on the government for all its needs. That's not the American way. If businesses fail, so be it. If banks fail, so be it. You can't prop up those failures by throwing money at them...as you well know, most of those failures are caused by inept CEOs. Remember Dodge, Cadillac, Studebaker, Rambler, etc.? Those businesses failed. GM and Chrylster absorbed some, but not all. The rest died. Did the world come to an end because of it? No.

As for the rest, small banks are gobbled up by large banks. Should they? No. It causes a monopoly and when that happens, that's a problem. Comcast is the largest cable company in the country. How did it get that way? By gobbling up the smaller ones. If I wanted to leave Comcast, I couldn't because there is no other cable company in this area. I am FORCED to have Comcast if I want internet service. There is no free enterprise when companies become conglomerates.

Oh shucks, some will understand what I'm saying, others will still keep their rose-colored glasses on and believe government will solve all our problems. NOT.

Gee, I'd been wondering why we were paying the big bucks to these Fed officials and now I know. So they can tell us things we could have told them (for a lot less money, too).

Perhaps we should call the Fed "MOOSE" (the Ministry For Obvious Official Statements on the Economy)? You can see now why we needed Palin, who knows how to field dress a moose.

...and then there was Obama the other day telling Congress not to spend too much money. In case you didn't catch what I just said, this was Mr. Super-Deficit Obama, telling Congress they should watch the spending.

I think that the White House has been listening to the national backlash on Daddy MoreBucks' drunken spending spree, and wants to have something they can float during Obama's next campaign to show how fiscally responsible he is. Certainly, there's no connection between what he says and what he does.

But wait - we're already seeing Obama's next campaign, aren't we? The man never stops campaigning.

Hannity's America, FNC. It's on now, but will be repeated at 11PM (CST, I think).

I saw (but didn't read) a post in passing about Alaska and its meth labs. Shoot, I grew up in Nebraska, and back in the 70s it was totally out of control. Rural areas seem to be magnets for them, regardless of who's in office, so in my opinion neither party who is in control at this time or another can't and won't stop it. It's sad, but true.

The author stated Lincoln suspended the right of habeus corpus and the constitution to justify his causes....so maybe this is why O is following along those lines.

The Texas state supreme court ruled unanimously on Friday that a town which had altered its zoning to ban two church-sponsored halfway houses in a residential neighborhood was in violation of the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

That act, which was passed in 1999 and endorsed by then-Governor George W. Bush, affords greater legal protection to religious operations than to equivalent secular operations.

Under its provisions, cities have to prove that zoning regulations � like the one passed by the town of Sinton to ban jails and rehabs within 1000 feet of a home, school, or church � further a �compelling� interest, such as protecting public safety, and do not place a �substantial burden� on the free exercise of religion.

Town officials asserted that the zoning regulations placed no restrictions on worship or the practice of religion and were merely intended to protect the safety of residents. This position was upheld at the local and appeals court levels.

However, the all-Republican and generally conservative state supreme court agreed with Pastor Richard Barr�s claim that because the town of Sinton is so small, the regulation had the effect of excluding him from operating his �ministry� for parolees anywhere.

Barr�s case was argued by the conservative Liberty Legal Institute (LLI) and was also supported by the American Center for Law and Justice � founded by Pat Robertson � and by the ACLU.

LLI was involved several years ago in a widely-noted case against a Texas school district which its litigation director, Hiram Sasser, claimed had demonstrated �pervasive religious hostility� by banning the distribution at Christmas time of candy canes with a religious message.

According to Sasser, today�s decision �means that in zoning cases you have to give churches special treatment. � You have to have very special reasons for telling a church you can�t locate here and locate there. That�s going to be a touch burden for cities.�

�This is a home run,� Sasser proclaimed. �I think it will be a model for other states.�

You publicly post on the other board that you *try not to visit the bog of eternal stench.*

Well, doesn't look like you are trying all that hard. Or is that another example of Conservative honesty, like your buddy on the other board lies 3 times before suddenly deciding to be *up front* (in her own words) about the whole bogus line of crap she was spouting.

You and your 2 friends don't respect anyone unless they're a member of your little club, think exactly as you think, belong to the same political party as you belong, and believe in the very same little narrow SUBsection of one particular religion.

That's what I interpret from YOUR WRITTEN WORDS. Your posts don't show respect. They only show twisted *facts*, ignorance, anger and hatred.

You can't be *respectful* on your own board but suddenly, when you come here - HERE - the place YOU call *the bog of eternal stench* you suddenly discover some respectability during your mouse click from there to here?

You're becoming quite a bore. You and your friends stated you don't want us on your board, but you're not happy unless you're picking a fight. You and your *gang* told us to leave and not to post on *your* board. Maybe that should work both ways.

Out of ALL the problems with radical Conservatives, maybe the most annoying thing is that you don't believe in equality at all. You believe in SUPERIORITY. Somewhere along the line, someone made you think you were special and above everyone else. Sheesh! You're not happy unless you're dictating to everyone else in the country what they're allowed to do in their own personal lives regarding life, death, science, etc. You even think YOUR GOD IS BETTER than everyone else's.

You want to make the rules, censor people and tell them which boards they can and cannot post on, but YOU want to invade them all and spew your ignorance and hatred.

In my heart, I believe there are sincere, honest, intelligent Conservatives out there who are capable of a sensible debate. I've seen them. (I hope you don't chase them away, too.) But and your crew don't fall in that category, and this will be the last of your inane posts I will subject myself to.

Can we get the political board back to the true purpose of this board � to share opinions of why we like our candidate. Not bash and cut down others because they don�t agree with you.

I stayed away from this board for the past couple days because anyone who had anything positive to say about Sarah Palin got slammed, bashed, kicked down, etc. After awhile I found it all too draining, and was not seeing any reason to come. Yes, I did see some of it towards people who favored Barack Obama, but if you read the posts again it is mostly towards anyone who favored Sarah Palin/John McCain.

I thought the political board was for posting information regarding politics and candidates. What I have seen for the past few days is that it has been an attack board. Especially if you have anything positive you want to share about Sarah Palin. You say something good about her and you get attacked, you answer back, and you get attacked more, and then when you get mad and pretty much say stop attacking me, they come back with this �Geez, I�m allowed to have an opinion�.

Another thing I am tired of seeing is the slanderous, hate filled, really off the wall comments about Sarah Palin. The latest was something about her daughter actually had her baby. Talk about just bizarre comments. I thought what�s next, she�s an alien from another planet? The more I kept reading the more the comments were getting just really weird and bizarre. Of course nobody ever having any proof of any of these allegations. I then came to realize that the posters were just trying to get a fight going.

I also saw posts that had nothing to do with politics but attacking a poster named Sam. Again, probably trying to get another fight going for no good reason and on things that have nothing to do whatsoever with politics. I�ve read �Sam is like an annoying nat that you sway away�, �Sam, please let me know where you work� or �she must have her quota� or �sam is to the politics board as oracle is to the� This childish rhetoric is getting old. I�m not defending sam she is a big girl and I can see by her posts she can take care of herself, but my point is that this has nothing to do with politics. If you want a fight maybe you could request that the administrator create a separate �fight and degrade� section.

I�ve read the administrators post a couple different times called Beware of Flaming. She/he said as long as we realize that not everyone is going to agree we shouldn�t wear our feelings on our sleeves and a little more oversight on here would be good. Let people express his or her opinion and move on. If you don�t like someone just ignore that person. �It�s not rocket science, you know� (I liked that statement)

I consider posting on this board a privilege and not a right. If you don�t agree with something and you post that you don�t agree and state the facts why (and are civilized about it) that�s one thing, but when you bash and degrade others without showing proof and just want to start fights and belittle others it just seems a bit juvenile to me.

I come to the politics board to hear ideas and stuff (facts) about the candidates. That is how I�m learning about each one, but I don�t want to read people attack other posters for no good reason. I'd like to hear about Obama/Biden & McCain/Palin, but I want to hear facts.

If you like to fight so much why don�t you pick on people that you can fight to face to face.

Not to mention the half mil or so those execs spent on a luxury vacation just hours after they got the bail-out money. This is INSANE. I think to a large degree things are playing out just as dubya and his side-kick Cheney had planned. Those two, in my humble opinion, are a couple of EVIL men.

I say no bail out for anyone. What's done is done. The idiots in Washington need to SHUT UP and in particular, the sensation-seeking talk shows need to also SHUT UP. They all need to start talking about bringing jobs back to AMERICA and if there was no demand for credit from consumers, there would be no credit crunch. Live without your means. If you bought a $100,000 house you couldn't afford and it's now worth $50,000, tough toenails! People who bought into the "home equity line of credit" BS deserve what they got. I don't believe I would care to subsidize their stupidity. Now it's about the seniors, TV ads for reverse mortgages for them. Seniors who buy into that garbage, I'd like to sell them the Garden of Eden!!!!!

I don't know the answer to immediately get rid of all these bums in the government. I wish we could have a general election and fire every single one of them....DEMOCRAT AND REPUBLICAN!!!!

of God being involved in this election. I do think that God will be involved in this election. However, our country has pushed Him out of our lives so much that it wouldn't surprise me if He let us fall flat on our faces. I hate to say that, but you can't pray in schools. People don't want to say the pledge to the flag because of His name being mentioned. The 10 commandments are being removed from court houses. Seriously....what have we become? I understand the concept of keeping church and state separate but it seems more to me like we are removing Him totally and that upsets me. The mere mention of him by a candidate, particularly a repubican one, gets people in an uproar about religious fanatics and Bible thumpers, etc. It is just sad.

I hope that we pick the candidate who will get us out of this crisis, but maybe that just isn't in His plans. Whatever may happen, I just pray that God gives us the strength to take on any challenge that may face us....because let's face it people....we are going to have major challenges if either candidate is president.

WASHINGTON -- A Republican congressman from Georgia said Monday he fears that President-elect Obama will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist or fascist dictatorship.

"It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he's the one who proposed this national security force," Rep. Paul Broun said of Obama in an interview Monday with The Associated Press. "I'm just trying to bring attention to the fact that we may -- may not, I hope not -- but we may have a problem with that type of philosophy of radical socialism or Marxism."

Broun cited a July speech by Obama that has circulated on the Internet in which the then-Democratic presidential candidate called for a civilian force to take some of the national security burden off the military.

"That's exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it's exactly what the Soviet Union did," Broun said. "When he's proposing to have a national security force that's answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he's showing me signs of being Marxist."

Obama's comments about a national security force came during a speech in Colorado about building a new civil service corps. Among other things, he called for expanding the nation's foreign service and doubling the size of the Peace Corps "to renew our diplomacy."

"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set," Obama said in July. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

Broun said he also believes Obama likely will move to ban gun ownership if he does build a national police force.

Obama has said he respects the Second Amendment right to bear arms and favors "common sense" gun laws. Gun rights advocates interpret that as meaning he'll at least enact curbs on ownership of assault weapons and concealed weapons. As an Illinois state lawmaker, Obama supported a ban on semiautomatic weapons and tighter restrictions on firearms generally.

"We can't be lulled into complacency," Broun said. "You have to remember that Adolf Hitler was elected in a democratic Germany. I'm not comparing him to Adolf Hitler. What I'm saying is there is the potential."

Obama's transition office did not respond immediately to Broun's remarks.