Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

The correct spelling is sycophant.

Posted By: see link on 2008-11-08
In Reply to: does this word exist, or is it made up?...nm - no

http://www.onelook.com/?w=sycophant&ls=a


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

Sorry, the correct spelling is Tuskegee, so you can Google it.
xx
And you need to read your dictionary for correct spelling......
NM
I am not one to be a spelling

police on this off-duty board but this post has made me so angry I can't help but notice it is frought with errors making me wonder if these posts are even posted by AMERICAN citizens?  I doubt it. 


Just one example, what the he11 is an attorney who "speecialises"???????  I doubt this is just an ordinary old typo.


maybe he became a spelling teacher
HA HA HA
Shelly, just because I tried to help you with spelling, there is
you are very sensitive and I'm sure it is because you are corrected a lot in your job
spelling error
It's actually ''redneck ignoramice.'' Plural.

(I'll spare you my usual speech about how class discrimination destroyed southern culture!)
thanks for the spelling update.....
I'm usually a real stickler for spelling........obviously, I screwed that one up.....such is life. mice instead of mouse.........interesting.
My grammar and spelling is better than yours.nm
nm
Why the spelling police have shown up! sm
I make typos all the time and so does everyone else. 
Correcting my spelling...should be subpoena (nm)
oops!
Aplogies to Jon for miss spelling his name
 . . . also love Stephen Colbert and Whoopi and Joy on the View (not so carzy about Elizabeth), and also now truly in love with Keith Olberman (sp?) on Countdown.
Aha! SPELLING POLICE starts again!
This is a sign that you feel in the weaker position. It was a TYPO, o.k.!

Everone who starts with grammar and spelling police, insults and bashing admits that he has been cornered and his weakness shows.

Playing grammar- and spelling-police is NOT tolerated on this Forum, read the rules of this forum!

Got it!


Ignore my spelling errors in the above post
Just read it and have a couple spelling errors, please ignore them.
touchas -- looked up proper spelling nm

xx


 


hope there are no spelling police today...
good thing I am not running for president, huh? But then, hmmm, maybe I could too. Seems like just anybody these days can do it.
Spelling police not allowed on this board.
.
Um, excuse me, NO spelling police here - read the
nm
Opps-absolutely (spelling error(nm)


The transcript and a bonus (the incorrect spelling is not mine)

































Email: 

If you can't see our menu, your pop-up blocker is enabled. Click here to see the site directory.
Saturday, Oct 01, 2005

















Quotes And Statements




Quotes Statement By Bill Bennett, Sep. 30, 2005
From the Desk of William J. Bennett September 30, 2005

On Wednesday, a caller to my radio show proposed the idea that one good argument for the pro-life position would be that if we didn't have abortions, Social Security would be solvent. I stated my doubts about such a thesis, as well as my opposition to such a form of argument (the audio of the call is available at my Website: bennettmornings.com).

I then stated that such extrapolations of this argument can cut both ways, and cited the current bestseller, Freakonomics, which discusses the authors' thesis that abortion reduces crime.

Then, putting my philosophy professor's hat on, I went on to reveal the limitations of such arguments by showing the absurdity in another such argument, along the same lines. I entertained what law school professors call 'the Socratic method' and what I would hope good social science professors still use in their seminars. In so doing, I suggested a hypothetical analogy while at the same time saying the proposition I was using about blacks and abortion was 'impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible,' just to ensure those who would have any doubt about what they were hearing, or for those who tuned in to the middle of the conversation.

The issues of crime and race have been on many people's minds, and tongues, for the past month or so--in light of the situation in New Orleans; and the issues of race, crime, and abortion are well aired and ventilated in articles, the academy, the think tank community, and public policy. Indeed the whole issue of crime and race is not new in social science, nor popular literature. One of the authors of Freakonomics, himself, had an extended exchange on the discussion of these issues on the Internet some years back--which was also much debated in the think tank community in Washington.

A thought experiment about public policy, on national radio, should not have received the condemnations it has. Anyone paying attention to this debate should be offended by those who have selectively quoted me, distorted my meaning, and taken out of context the dialogue I engaged in this week. Such distortions from 'leaders' of organizations and parties is a disgrace not only to the organizations and institutions they serve, but to the First Amendment.

In sum, let me reiterate what I had hoped my long career had already established: that I renounce all forms of bigotry--and that my record in trying to provide opportunities for, as well as save the lives of, minorities in this country stands up just fine.



Quotes Bill Bennett Interview on Fox News' Hannity & Colmes Regarding Race, Crime, Etc.
Courtesy of Fox News Channel/9-29-2005

First, our top story tonight is the controversy surrounding radio talk show host Bill Bennett. Yesterday on his radio show, Mr. Bennett -- Dr. Bennett was quoted as saying. I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could, if that were your sole purpose, you cold abort every black baby in this country and your crime rate would go down...that would be an impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.

The comments have drawn criticism today from Senate minority leader Harry Reid who said he was appalled. Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy who called them racist and from House minority leader Nancy Pelosi who said they were shameful. Bill Bennett joins us now in an exclusive interview to talk about these comments.

Dr. Bennett, we appreciate you coming on tonight.

DR. BILL BENNETT, MORNING IN AMERICA HOST: Thank you.

COLMES: Might give you an opportune to put them in context and explain.

BENNETT: Sure. Well, the context was a radio show that I was doing yesterday, and the topic was abortion and we were talking about bad arguments in regard to abortion. A caller suggested he was opposed to abortion because he said if there were more babies there would be, eventually, more tax payers and a larger GNP, a smaller deficit. I said you want to be careful with that kind of argument because someone could postulate a situation where child's not likely to be a productive taxpayer. I said, arguments in which you take something that's far out, like the GNP and try to connect it up with abortion are tricky. I said make the case of abortion on the basis of life and protecting life. I said abortion is invoked in another way; you could make an argument that if you wanted to lower the crime rate, you saw the quote; you could practice abortion in very large numbers. You could do it in the black community; you could do it in other places. This is, by the way, the subject of a book for economics by a professor at Yale.

I said, however, if you were to practice that, widespread abortion in the black community or any other community, it would be ridiculous, impossible, and I appreciate you putting it on the screen, morally reprehensible. So I think morally reprehensible, when that is included in the quote makes it perfectly clear what my position is. A number of the people whom you have cited as condemning me have not made the inclusion of that remark, and so they make it seem, Alan, as if I am supporting such a monstrous idea, which of course I don't.

COLMES: Here's my concern. The root cause of crime, one would debate, it seems to be poverty. And from your remarks, I wonder if people might interpret it as saying the root cause of crime is race. And that debate about is it race is it poverty? What really is the root cause? And race affects people of all races and creeds and I think that's why...

BENNETT: Poverty. Poverty affects people of all races. Let me tell you what bothers me first, because I'm always candid with you. What bothers me is that last night on your radio show, you were all over me, Alan. And, you know, I was really surprised. You know me, you've known me for a long time and the fact that you would give credence to the notion that I would believe such a thing is very disturbing. I've had 1,000 opportunities when people have said to me what about that Alan Colmes, isn't he a jerk or a liberal this -- I've always said he's always a gentleman, he's nice to me. I run a radio show in which we don't yell at people, we don't make fun of them. We have liberals and conservatives and we deal with sensitive and important public policies issues and we do it in a responsible way. But people need to follow the argument and the argument I was making here is entirely plausible. The causes of crime are very complicated. But there is a very big literature, as you know, about single parenthood in crime, about race in crime, and about poverty in crime. And we've been talking about all these things lately in the context of New Orleans and other things.

COMES: Let me talk to you...

BENNETT: There are real things in the real world, and there are people who believe we should take such monstrous steps.

COLMES: Let me talk about what I said on my radio show.

BENNETT: I do not.

COLMES: Dr. Bennett -- Bill, because you know, I do consider you someone -- we've been good to each other. I like you. I think you respect me.

BENNETT: Yes sir.

COLMES: I was really shocked.

BENNETT: Have been.

COLMES: And I plaid what you said and the whole context of what you said. Frankly, I was just shocked by it. I don't believe you're a racist. I don't think that you believe those things. I was just shocked by what I heard and I -- basically there was a lot of callers calling up and commenting on it after I played your comments. And a lot of other people were shocked that you would have -- in the context you said it, say the things you said.

BENNETT: Well, you know, to put forward a hypothesis, a morally impossible hypothesis to show why it is morally impossible and reprehensible seems to me is a standard way of talking about public policy and a standard way of teaching. You know, I've taught philosophy for years and one argues in the hypothetical all the time. People have said such outrageous things, Alan, about race and this is not unknown to our history. It's certainly not unknown to our history -- to the history of Europe, recently. It's not unknown to the history of Islam. And what we have -- you've got to be able to make an argument and say look, you may be thinking you're going to achieve some good end, but you can't use a monstrous means to do it. You know, this is like a Swift's modest proposal for people who remember their literature. You put things up in order to examine them. I put it up, examined it, and said that is ridiculous and impossible no matter who advances that idea.

COLMES: All right, we got -- Sean will be with you in the next segment. There are some statistics, you know, that talk about how African- Americans are treated disparagingly in the criminal justice and, you know, we could debate whether or not there really is a greater prejudice against African-Americans and whether they are incarcerated disproportionately.

BENNETT: Yeah.

COLMES: But look we got to take a break and we'll continue with you...

BENNETT: Those are big complicated questions...

COLMES: And later, there more political fallout on Capitol Hill today over the indictment of Congressman Tom Delay. We'll take you behind closed doors to one of the most powerful members in the House.

And then Nation of Islam leader, Louis Farrakhan, says the suffering of hurricane Katrina has actually brought black Americans together. Is he using the crisis for his own political gain? You don't want to miss this.

And FEMA made a hasty deal in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and it's costing taxpayers $236 million. We'll get to the bottom of this shocking story coming up on HANNITY COLMES, tonight.

(NEWSBREAK) (COMMERCIAL BREAK) SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: And this is a FOX News Alert. You are looking live at the hills of southern California where wildfires are blazing out of control and are threatening to destroy private residences. We have 3,000 firefighters working at this hour to control the blaze, but as you can see from these live pictures, they're still burning pretty hot. We're gong to keep you updated throughout the hour. We'll bring you new pictures as we get them and let you know as this developes. We hope they can put that out. I was out in southern California in Hope Ranch when this happened. It is devastating.

Also coming up tonight, now that Tom Delay is out House majority leader, at least temporarily, will issue like immigration reforms, spending on the federal level will suffer. We're going to ask one of the men who is stepping into part of his leadership position.

And there is some late-breaking information tonight about the man who is prosecuting come to Tom Delay. Is it a publicity stunt for a movie being made about him? We'll tell you about this tonight.

First, we continue with the host of Morning in America. Bill Bennett is back with us.

Bill, first of all, I have known for you many, many years. I know your faith, I know your character, I know who you are. You're a former secretary of education, former drug czar. This notion that Bill Bennett as is being alleged by prominent democrats has any racist bone in his body is appalling to me.

BENNETT: Yeah.

HANNITY: And I'm glad to hear you say what you said here. I want you to respond to those democrats that are grandstanding, the same ones that had Robert Bird, the former Klansman as their leader. The ones that didn't speak out about Congressman Wrangle's Bull Connor remark.

BENNETT: Yeah. Yeah. Well, let's see, you got Kennedy. I will -- I'll not take instruction from Teddy Kennedy. A young woman likely drowned because of his negligence. I'll take no moral instruction with him. That's much worse than legal gambling what Teddy Kennedy did. He should make no judgments at all about people. He shouldn't be in the Senate. As far as racist and all this other stuff, I'll put my record up with Howard Dean, with Harry Reid.

When I was drug czar, you bet, we were working on the issue of black crime, Alan and Sean, because there was a lot of crime in the black community. And you know who most of the victims are? Their black people. Yeah, black violence -- black-on-black violence is very serious. I went to about 120 inner city communities. That's where the senate wanted me to go, that's where the Senate wanted me to go, that's where I wanted to go. We went after public housing and we went after the bad guys. And you know what? We got the bad guys. And drug use went down. And we raised the price and lowered the purity of cocaine. And we arrested four of the most powerful drug dealers in the world. And got a lot of these guys off the street. And I am very proud of that. Because when we went into the inner city black community, the people said to me, Mr. Czar, or Czar, or Mr. Benet, you get those people off the street and protect us. And we did our best to do it.

Before that, when I was secretary of education, I took on what I think is one of the great civil rights issues of our time, which is educational opportunity and educational choice. The stupid ghettoized curriculum we have, the fact that these black kids go to lousy schools and aren't allowed to choose the schools of their choice because they don't have the money and don't have the opportunity.

I've been at this for 25 years and I have been called everything in the book, but I will stay at what I do because I believe it.

Let me just tell you, when it comes to abortion, my wife's program, best friends, has kept more young women from having abortions because they don't get pregnant because they take her good counsel...

HANNITY: Let me...

BENNETT: Than the entire black caucus. She has done more for inner city black girls than the entire black caucus. So I will not bow my head to any of these people. I will not give up the ground of compassion and sympathy. But I'll tell you, we have real issues and we have got to talk about them candidly. And if you don't think there are people who are making draconian proposals about abortion and this and that and the other thing, you know, you don't know the nature...

HANNITY: Let me ask you this. I want to ask you about the nature of debate in this society.

BENNETT: Sure.

HANNITY: I go back to the Bill Maher issue. I don't like -- I don't even like Bill Maher. We disagree on just about everything. But Bill Maher said one statement and his entire history of support in the military was cast aside and people focused on one thing. I said wait a minute, that's wrong. Here's Bill Bennett, here's Trent Lott. One statement, there's no room to apologize, explain, put into context, revise or extend one's remarks because people want to hop on it. We now see the democrats trying to do right now with you and trying to put you in a position of characterizing you, or categorizing you as something you are not. What does that tell you about debate and free speech in the country today?

BENNETT: It's bad. You know, if you could do an analysis -- it would be interesting to do an analysis. All day I've been reading reports and statements by people about me, Sean, and it's interesting, some use the whole quote and are fair, some don't. And that tells you something. But the problem, I think, on the liberal side, the democratic side is they attitudinize, they condemn but they don't have a program.

You know, the president -- I hope the president pays for this program in New Orleans, but he's got a program, and it's some interesting ideas about enterprise zones and school choice, and giving people opportunities, you know, with the loans and the green lining and they ought to be tried. Because these are ideas that might actually help the poor as opposed to maintaining the welfare state, which does not help poor people at all. It's destroyed a lot of families and it has created circumstances in which more poor people and more black people have had to suffer. What's lifted, the economic life and reduced crime in the black community has been hope and opportunity and education and enterprise.

HANNITY: Let me ask you one last question.

BENNETT: And that I think is much more, I have to tell you on this side of the aisle, I want to politicize this because there are good people on both sides.

HANNITY: Explain. I want you to explain, though, for people that see that one quote, that read that one quote, what do you say to them?

BENNETT: What I say to them, Sean, is if they were given the impression that I, you know, am in favor of such a horrible idea as, you know, my critics are suggesting, they need to look at the whole quote. I don't believe that. And I'm sorry that people have misrepresented my views so much that that has given folks that impression. You're right about a person's life. I've got a life, you know, take me in the totality of my actions and I'll tell you, I will stand with my record.

One must be very careful one gets into these arguments and we try to do it. But, you know, we try on this show to do serious and controversial issues. And it's a big country and it's a free country. We don't put liberals down. We don't put people down with whom we disagree. We talk about serious things in a serious way. And if you're not allowed to talk about these subjects, then it's not the country it's supposed to be.

You've got to be able to condemn these horrible ideas as I did.

HANNITY: Bill Bennett, appreciate you being on the program.

BENNETT: Thank you. Thank you guys.

HANNITY: Thank you very much.

And come upping next, Tom Delay will be fighting charges in court. So, you will be fighting for the GOP (SIC) in Congress. We'll talk to one republican leader next.

And who was the man going after the House majority leader, Tom Delay? We have late-breaking information tonight that he is allowing film makers to make a movie about him. Is this all part of a script? We'll give you the details. Much more to come.


Preferred spelling is apropos. Nitpicking typos
Distraction politics won't either and it is a crushing bore.
See message about spelling and superiority feeling inside sm
I do feel superior now when it comes to spelling and grammatical skills Shelly/Kendra. I also feel superior that my candidate won, while all along you two were saying he wouldn't. I feel very smart, very smart indeed. Good night MTs.
ROFL...don't make me call the spelling bee police....nm

I forgot: Study some English grammar and spelling..nm
nm
oops - to the spelling police I meant family not famiy (nm)
x
Oh my. Spelled leery wrong. Forgive me O spelling police (nm)
.
whoops, typing too fast and made errors .. be 4 the spelling police get me
s
You are correct
the thing is we can find common ground with people who we don't always agree with 100%.  Blair tends to be more socialistic, but he is unified in the fact that terrorism is the worst threat to our world right now, and we have to stop it at all costs.  Social agendas come second to him.  Safety is 1st.  
You are correct
I'm sure there are some wonderful people in Iran!! You included. It's good that you can the government is scary though. Here are some words from Iranian president AhMADinejad from just yesterday...

Ahmadinejad warned the West that trying to force it to abandon uranium enrichment would cause an everlasting hatred in the hearts of Iranians.

From your comments it sounds as if this a false statement since you love America. You of all people I'm sure appreciates America!!


Yes, of course you are correct

However, my post topic was literally just a couple posts below yours and it seemed unlikely that you would have not noticed the duplication in monikers.  This board may indeed be available world-wide, however, there is a fairly small group of folks who routinely post.


My point was simply that your posting may have erroneously led folks to believe that I was posting both pro and anti-liberal messages within a few posts of each other.  That would be rather confusing to say the least and it would be thoughtless to confuse and/or mislead anyone who might be using this board, whether in the U.S. or outside of the U.S. 


You are correct about the $40K....
that is the SCHIP program as it has been over the past 10 years (although income levels have gone up some from the start of it). The expansion of the program was to include the $80K families. This bill was about expansion of the program. Letting the program continue as it was was not the issue. The expansion was the issue. Bush would not have vetoed it if they had not sought to expand it that much. They knew he would veto it if they left that in, and they wanted him to veto it to score political points. That I do not understand. Yes, some Republicans voted for it too, also for political reasons, so if the fallout was really bad they could come back and say "Oh i voted FOR it." Kinda like the Iraq war resolution...lots of Dems voted for it...yada yada.
I want to correct myself on the above...
I was wrong about the poverty level. The figure quoted for a family of four at 300% of the poverty line is $62,000 so he was close on that. However, the bill does not state those people over that level will not get on it. It says the matching rate from the feds might not be available. Then we have the EXCEPTION...the waiver. That opens the door for New York and every other state who wishes to, to expand the program as high as they want to go. That is what Bush was talking about. The waiver makes it possible, and not only possible, probable.

Just wanted to be sure my facts were correct.

Thanks.
Yes you are 100% correct!!!

By george you are right!!!  EVERY SINGLE POSTER ON THIS BOARD IS ME!!!!!!  Except for Observer, of course, and a few old American Girl postings!  I admit it, I am guilty, you have caught me.  I have authored every single post you read on here.  It keeps me very very busy but it's worth it!!!


There I have "fessed up and I feel sooooooooo much better.  Whew!  Thank you Observer for helping me to do the right thing.


You are correct - however, you were the one...
Yes, you are correct, a lot of people don't give middle names second thoughts, and certainly there is nothing to worry about when mentioning his name in full, but when you smear it like its a dirty word, I call that a dirty shame. I was simply stating why don't you say Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton or John Sydney McCain, no you don't, therefore it seems when people don't treat one candidate equal to the other they are up to something. I have no problem with his middle name. I think its a beautiful name. I also think Sydney is a beautiful name.. Second just because someone posts a long post does not mean they copy from other articles. I happened to write the post myself, however, if you would like a much longer one there are plenty that I can copy and paste from - just let me know....happy to oblige. :-)
Correct!
Strange how it's permissible to spread all kinds of rumors about McCain but off limits to mention the facts about Obama's past and present associates, such as the Reverend whose sermons he claimed he never heard.
Sam would be correct
nm
You are correct and I think you are going to see it...
more and more as this campaign goes on. I think it has finally happened. The slumbering lion is waking up. :)
I am sure you are correct, but please,
be specific as me was.
Well.....if you are correct in

assuming that she and her husband aren't working their butts off....at least she isn't living beyond her means regardless of how many hours she works.  At least she doesn't want a handout from the government and money given to her that she hasn't earned.  There are people making as much as she does a year and are well beyond their means with toys, cars, homes, etc.  Crying that they are victims and requesting a handout. 


The most disgusting thing that I have ever seen was during Christmas.  Every year my church does an angel tree.  Every year I would take names of children and their ages and their interest and go out and buy them gifts so they would have something for Christmas.  I wanted to help.  What kid doesn't deserve a nice Christmas....ya know.  So I went out and spent a lot of money on these kids.  Come to find out....these kids weren't poor.  Their parents drove newer and more expensive cars than I drove.  The parents were only out for a free handout....and that sickens me.  I felt used.  I so wanted to help people who really needed help.  Not people who were just looking for a free handout come Christmas time. 


Unfortunately you are correct. s/m

Unions don't have any clout anymore thanks to the Reagan years.  Without the ability to strike, what can they do?  While my husband, as a retiree, has excellent benefits, it is something that is not available to workers retiring now and in the future.  Fact is, we are worried that his benefits may be cut.  They have raised the retirement age and will have to pay more for their medical insurance.  Why?  Because they have lost members.  People who worked at CF with my husband and weren't of retirement age for the most part had to take non-union jobs which paid far less causing many of them to lose their homes and file bankruptcy.  Did anyone hear about them?  I guess not.  That was in 2001 and truckers are worse off today than they were then as are most American workers.


People have let the unions that people fought for go down the tubes.  American workers bought into the "unions have outlived their usefulness, aren't needed any more" from the Reagan years.  Unhuh and we see how much the employers care about their employees now.  Unions are no different than politics.  They are no better or worse than the people who support them.  Basically the clout of the unions came from people that had the fortitude to stand up for their rights and stand together.  Unfortunately we don't have that any more, it's more like, "I've got mine, sorry about you."


Unfortunately, since McCain says Reagan is his hero, I expect if he is elected the American workers can expect to be further shafted.  JMO of course.


You are correct on that one.
Consider that the tax issue will have to pass Congress unless my memory fails me.  I would say middle-class is more like $80,000 to $150,000, depending on whether you fall at the lower or upper end.  As I understand it what Obama is seeking to do is do away with Bush's tax cuts, which WILL affect just about everyone.  The tax cuts, as many of Bush's policies, was a bad idea in the beginning.  Now because of his poor management of the economy EVERYONE is going to pay more taxes and many of those free loaders we talk about may get told to get to work as they should be.  Obama's plan appears to be to be nothing more than rolling back Bush's ill advised tax cuts in the first place.
You are correct..........sm
Arnold can run for Senate (provided he has his citizenship papers in order, and I believe he probably does. Not sure what the laws are in Kollyfawnya.) but he could never run for the POTUS or VPOTUS.
you are correct..it's still that way,
born and raised there, it doesn't change.
You are 100% correct. n/m
x
I would say you are correct
Is anyone really so ignorant that they think that if there was anything illegal about Obama's run for the presidency, that HILLARY first would not have exposed it?  Certainly if she didn't McCain would have.  Why do you suppose THEY let it go?  Because it wasn't going to bear any fruit for them, that's why.
M is correct below - no, they did not
Bush gave his acceptance speech (like everyone does) then had respect for Clinton to finish out his term. Even though Clinton was a disaster too, Bush had the decency to wait until he was sworn in. I do remember hearing about who he was picking for cabinet members but he never held the press conferences that OMessiah is. Also, Clinton did not either. He too had respect for Bush Sr. This is just something you don't do. It is very disrespectful no matter how much you don't like or disagree with the outgoing president. You DON'T do it. They are not president yet and as far as I know the electorates have not even voted yet. So it is still not "cinched" that he is going to get in there. I do believe however he is giving so many press conferences (as many as he can get his face on the camera for) because can you imagine the outcry if the electorates do not vote him in. He's already preparing people to riot if he does not get elected. My take is that the more he gets his face on the camera, the more the idi@ts will believe he is already president. Then it puts pressure on the electorates and others that still have not voted him in yet that if they do anything to disrupt this there will be he!! for them to pay. O'Messiah knows what he's doing alright, but it doesn't make it right.
That is correct, but....(sm)
the middle man (the stores) get a share of that.  As far as computers go, a lot of the components are made overseas, but there are some places here where they put them together.  Then you have companies like Intel, who make computer chips, who have decided to move their stuff back to the US.  Hopefully more will follow.
Correct
I do stand corrected. Thank you.
You are most definitely correct -
Many things our founding father said we should be listening to and following advice of, but they don't. They have an agenda to destroy all that is good in our country and they don't care anything about what the founding fathers went through to make this a great country. They understood very well what was happening and it's happening once again.
I should correct what I said about
straight people.  I think that SOME straight people don't get marriage.  Sorry if I offended anyone.....that wasn't my intention.
Yep....that's correct....(sm)

If the quotes above are from them, then I would say they either sucked at reading or weren't very good Muslims.  And I'm sure noone from YOUR church would have a lopsided view of anything.  But we wouldn't know anything about that, because all we know is what YOU say, and so far you're heading towards strike three on that count.


You may be correct that not all

However, I think most of Europe was happy we prevented them from all becoming German speakers - twice - how quickly they forget.  The victims of genocidal nutjobs in Bosnia and Kosovo were pretty glad to see us.  Kuwait was pretty grateful we kept Hussein from annexing their country. I believe the majority of Iraquis are delighted to be rid of him and his mistreatment and genocide of his own citizens. 


Like it or not, the US has been in the business of subduing bullies since the turn of the last century.  And when we don't step in, we're treated as though we're committing the atrocities ourselves.  Why didn't we get involved?  Because we don't like the victims? Because we have no economic or strategic interest in the region?  Damned if we do, damned if we don't. 


The citizens of North Korea might be very appreciative to be relieved of their own little megalomaniac, who starves his people in order to fund missile parades.   Obama feels we do not have the right to decide who has nuclear weapons and who does not, so we'll probably never find out how the North Korean people feel, until KJI lobs a missile right at us. 


And when there is a disease outbreak, a famine, hurricane, an earthquake or a tsunami anywhere in the world, who is the first to offer assistance?  Like Ghostbusters:  Who ya gonna call?  And we are expected to step up and take care of it.


I think other countries are starting to suspect that their calls will begin to go unanswered.  Certainly, voluntary charitable donations will be reduced in the US, and with a $7 trillion (that's a 7 with 12 zeros) US budget deficit, they might be getting the ideal they are on their own now.