This is the story of one American's dream...sm
Posted By: ms on 2008-10-16
In Reply to: Joe the plumber not licensed, makes $40,000 a year, - not buying a business, owes back taxes, and...sm
about to be shattered by Obama's spread the wealth plan, should he be elected.
That's all there is to this story.
This everyday guy, Joe American, has aspirations to better himself, much the same way most of us do.
I think most Americans completely understand his story. It strikes a chord with us, all aspects of it.
That even includes all the supposedly negative stuff that was dug up today about him, which does not detract one iota from what this story is really about.
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
So much for the American dream.
The more you work, the more they take away. It will be the middle class people to suffer from this. The rich will survive. The low-income and no income people will be the ones to benefit from this. This just encourages people to not work hard. The more money you make by working hard.....you will be penalized and that hard earned money of yours will be given to someone who doesn't work. This will be a huge snow ball that will eventually crush us entirely as more and more people work less and then the middle class and the rich will have even more people to support. Like I've said before.....it sickens me.
What ever happened to accountability and self-reliance? What ever happened to hard working Americans who were too proud to receive a hand out. Now it seems that is all I hear....people screaming about not getting handouts and playing the victim. Give me give me give me. Instead of encouraging them to get a good education and work hard.....we are enabling them to remain "victims" while we foot the bill.
Why should hard working Americans suffer? Shouldn't they be rewarded for their hard work instead of penalized? I guess that doesn't matter to Obamanation as he is rich and this won't hurt him....so why should he care. As long as he is taking care of his low-income homies...I guess it is all good, huh?
that's called the American Dream -
don't we all want that? Is that not what everybody is fussing about - that we should all have the right to make as much money as we want to and keep as much money as we want to?
His life has been interesting, his story has been bought, so of course he is making the money.
Do you fuss about Oprah, Dr. Phil, Ellen... the list goes on and on - they don't share their wealth and I do not see you complaining about them.
My American Dream went down the toilet
last year when my retirement account was cut in half, and there has not been much work lately for DH or I, so there's no way to offset the loss and no way to put money back into it.
I don't gripe about anyone making money, but...and this is a large but....I believe this was just another piece of campaign propaganda. After all, it came out while he was running for president. What better timing?
Do you think if he wrote the book before running for prez, it would have sold as well?
Did you hear how much he gave to charities? I haven't. If you have a source of that info, please enlighten me.
Hey, that's the American dream - I'm all for sitting on my butt and making $$$
Hurrah!!
I was brought up Buy American made products, keep American jobs.
Always bought American made cars and bought products from companies where my family was employed. Now look at America? We are definitely connected all around the world.
My feeling? Obama states he wants to start from the poor upward. Not the other way around like it has been for quite awhile. That to me does not necessarily mean just in America, but around the world by taking the poorest countries and working upward so America's pay wages and everything else will be so low and comparable to the poorest countries. After all, we are now connected together.
Cannot wait to see what will happen with the Swine flu this fall with the second wave and what it will do to the economy of all the countries combined at once.
Any child born to American parents is an American -
I am sorry, but I respectfully disagree with you - any child born to American parents is an American even if they are born overseas. The birth has to be registered with the United States, but they are still an American even if they are born in the foreign hospital.
I have 2 cousins who were born in Japan and they have no problems at all being "American".
oh, dream on...
Silly, maybe. Burned out on all of it, you bet!
I, too, Have a Dream......
We have just lived through a commander-in-chief presidency whose oppressive power and overwhelming hubris would undoubtedly have left our first early presidents in shock, if not armed revolt. They would have seen George Bush's world - in which strength was the byword of power and weakness an anathema - as the scion of European autocracy. These were, after all, men wary of armies and military power, who had sacrificed the very idea of executive strength to a tripartite form of government that would, they hoped, have the advantages of resiliency and responsibility. They understood - and embraced - certain limits that Americans may only be waking up to now.
Of course, given these last years of a government gone dark and ominous, it's not surprising that we generally don't. Facing the imperial, never-apologize, don't-listen-to-a-word-you-say, Caesarian, unitary-executive, commander-in-chief years of disarray, we Americans have - despite some online liveliness - largely suffered a failure of the imagination.
Have we ever had a president who told more countries what they "must" do? - I'd like to hear our next president speaking more like one of us and less like the ruler of the universe, more like the president of these imperiled United States and less like the autocrat of the planet.
Of course, Americans, especially younger ones, have long been alienated from their government - aka "the bureaucracy" - and a national capital that projects the oppressive look of a Green Zone. That's where an eloquent black president, an improbable crosser of all sorts of boundaries, standing before us next Tuesday to express his -- and our - dreams and fears, offers an immediate ray of hope. In his very words that first day, he can potentially begin airing out the most secretive (and inefficient) government in national memory. He can remind us of our better selves and let the sun shine in.
If we want to have a government we care about, we had better start exercising those imaginative powers fast. After all, if you don't use it, you lose it. Voting isn't faintly enough. Supporting Barack Obama isn't faintly enough. Either we start acting like we, the people, can set a few agendas of our own, write a few speeches of our own, or we might as well forget it.
I think that would be a dream ticket
but I don't know if they could get along after all of the nasty things they said about each other. Or at least, what Bill has said about Obama
Dream on........zzzzzzzzzz nm.
Dream on, lady.
nm
Sorry, but that is just a dream. Obama is just
nm
One man's nightmare is another man's dream
.
question about a dream/obama
I heard something about Obama saying he had a dream of some sorts that lead him to believe he would be a leader or something along those lines? Or is this just some gossip?
As Clinton said, the Obama dream is a
nm
It's the anniversary of MLK's "I've got a dream" speech....
....as I would imagine the DNC and Sen. Obama planned it this way.
I thought it was a very simple, well stated, congratulations, give by McCain. He was very sincere to me and meant every word.
You're living in a dream world
You think the thugs are targeting the poor neighborhoods where they assume there's nothing there to steal. No, they target those they think have something they feel "entitled" to. My neighbor up the street last February drove into his garage, got out of his car, and had a gun pointed to his head forcing him back into his car, where he was made drive to a local ATM. When he got out to go the ATM, he just sad the h@ll with it and starting running next door to a pharmacy. Why guns? Protection from what? Are you looney? Guns in a purse that the robber isn't betting on could mean his head blown off instead of yours.
The lady sitting in her living room a few weeks ago watching TV, when a couple of jackasses broke through her plate glass window and came after her with a gun. You think if I were in another part of the house, heard this, and could get my hands on a gun or a baseball bat, I would choose a baseball bat? I'd blown their freaking brains out.
What you gonna tell them? Wait a minute, please get close enough where I can get a good aim with this here baseball bat.
Violence is out of control in places it did not used to be. I have known several in our neighborhood whose homes have been broken into around Christmas time. They were just lucky not to be at home. And believe me, they have guns and would have been judge and jury real quick. It's their life or the the thieves.
It just hasn't happened to you. This isn't the same world I grew up in where we left our doors unlocked more times than not. I do live in a neighborhood where I would hope might be safer but that's exactly where all the low lifes come to...like I said they're not going to the poor neighborhoods. To steal what?
NO dream world here, Bush is one step better than Al Qaeda
He and Cheney are crooks. AL Qaeda are the bad guys but guess what, they aren't in Iraq? We were tricked into supporting a bogus self centered war for bush and cheney to make MONEY.
Democrats See Dream of ག Victory Taking Form ...see link
see link
Here's the story. sm
Tuesday, Aug. 30, 2005 10:51 p.m. EDT
RFK Jr.: Bush, Barbour to Blame for Katrina
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is blaming Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, along with President Bush, for causing Hurricane Katrina.
As Hurricane Katrina dismantles Mississippi’s Gulf Coast, it’s worth recalling the central role that Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour played in derailing the Kyoto Protocol and kiboshing President Bush’s iron-clad campaign promise to regulate CO2, Kennedy blogged Tuesday on HuffingtonPost.com. The influential Democrat's enviro-conspiracy theory had the sinister Gov. Barbour engineering Bush's energy policy on behalf of the president’s major donors from the fossil fuel industry.
Kennedy charges that in March 2001, the former Republican National Committee chairman issued an urgent memo to the White House on CO2 emissions.
With that, the president dropped his pro-environment campaign promise like a hot potato.
Because of Bush and Barbour's CO2 folly, said Kennedy: Now we are all learning what it’s like to reap the whirlwind of fossil fuel dependence which Barbour and his cronies have encouraged.
RFK, Jr., even suggested that Katrina's last minute detour through Mississippi was a bit of Divine payback, declaring:
Perhaps it was Barbour’s memo that caused Katrina, at the last moment, to spare New Orleans and save its worst flailings for the Mississippi coast.
Another take on the story....
Republicans on the Record
What does the record say about Republicans and the battle for civil rights and specifically for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Public Law 88-352)?
Since Abraham Lincoln, Republicans have been there for blacks when it counted. Nevertheless, Democrats invariably take all the credit for the success of the civil rights movement and invariably fail to give any credit to Republicans.
In fact, the civil rights movement was not about politics. Nor was it about which politicians did what and which political party should take the most credit. When it came to civil rights, America's politicians merely saw the handwriting on the wall and wrote the legislation to make into federal law the historical changes that had already taken place. There was nothing else they could do.
The movement of blacks to the North, as well as their contributions as fighting men in the world wars, plus the hard work of millions of blacks and their families and churches, along with the efforts of many private groups and individuals made the civil rights movement succeed.
Civil rights for blacks found its historical moment after 1945. Bills introduced in Congress regarding employment policy brought the issue of civil rights to the attention of representatives and senators.
In 1945, 1947 and 1949, the House of Representatives voted to abolish the poll tax restricting the right to vote. Although the Senate did not join in this effort, the bills signaled a growing interest in protecting civil rights through federal action.
The executive branch of government, by presidential order, likewise became active by ending discrimination in the nation's military forces and in federal employment and work done under government contract.
Harry Truman ordered the integration of the military. However, his Republican opponent in the election of 1948, Tom Dewey, was just as strong a proponent for that effort as any Democrat.
As a matter of fact, the record shows that since 1933 Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats.
In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes.
[See http://www.congresslink.org/civil/essay.html and http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1982/3/82.03.04.x.html.]
It has been maintained all the Dixiecrats became Republicans shortly after passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, another big lie. Richard Russell, Mendell Rivers, Clinton's mentor William Fulbright, Robert Byrd, Fritz Hollings and Al Gore Sr. remained Democrats till their dying day.
Most of the Dixiecrats did not become Republicans. They created the Dixiecrats and then, when the civil rights movement succeeded, they returned to the Democratic fold. It was not till much later, with a new, younger breed of Southerner and the thousands of Northerners moving into the South, that Republicans began to make gains.
I know. I was there.
When I moved to Georgia in 1970, the Democratic Party had a total lock on Georgia. Newt Gingrich was one of the first outsiders to break that lock. He did so in a West Georgia area into which many Northerners were moving. He gained the support of rural West Georgians over issues that had absolutely nothing to do with race.
JFK – The Reluctant Civil Rights President
JFK evolved into a true believer in the civil rights movement when it became such an overwhelming historical and moral imperative that he had no choice. As a matter of record, when Kennedy was a senator from Massachusetts, he had an opportunity to vote on the 1957 Civil Rights Act pushed by Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson. Instead, he voted to send it to the conservative Senate Judiciary Committee, where it would have been pigeonholed.
His lukewarm support for theAct included his vote to allow juries to hear contempt cases. Dixiecrats preferred the jury system to trials presided over and decided by judges because all-white juries rarely convicted white civil rights violators.
His record in the 1950s did not mark Kennedy as a civil rights activist. Yet the 1957Act to benefit African-Americans was passed with the help of Republicans. It was a watered- down version of the later 1964 bill, which Kennedy backed.
The record on JFK shows he was a man of his times and a true politician, more given to equivocation and pragmatism than to activism. Kennedy outlined civil rights legislation only after most of the country was behind it and ready for him to act.
For the most part, in the 1960 presidential campaign he avoided the civil rights issue altogether. He did endorse some kind of federal action, but he could not afford to antagonize Southern Democrats, whose support he desperately needed to defeat Richard Nixon. Basically, he could not jeopardize the political support of the Dixiecrats and many politicians in the rest of the country who were concerned about the radical change that was in the offing.
After he was elected president, Kennedy failed to suggest any new civil rights proposals in 1961 or 1962. That failure was for pragmatic political reasons and so that he could get the rest of his agenda passed.
Introducing specific civil rights legislation in the Senate would have meant a filibuster and the obstruction of other business he felt was just as crucial as civil rights legislation. A filibuster would have happened for sure and it would have taken 67 members to support cloture to end such a filibuster. Sixty-seven votes Kennedy believed he did not have.
As it was, Kennedy had other fish to fry, including the growing threat of Russian imperialism, the building of the Berlin Wall, the Bay of Pigs as Cuba went down the communist rat hole, his increase in the numbers of troops and advisers he was sending to Vietnam, and the Cuban Missile Crisis.
In addition, the steel business was in crisis and he needed a major tax rate cut to stimulate a sluggish economy. Kennedy understood his options and he chose to be realistic.
When Kennedy did act in June 1963 to propose a civil rights bill, it was because the climate of opinion and the political situation forced him to act.
The climate of opinion had changed dramatically between World War II and 1964. Various efforts by groups of Protestant and Catholic clergy, along with the Urban League, NAACP, Congress of Racial Equality, black activists, individuals both white and black and, of course, Martin Luther King Jr., as well as other subsets of his movement, are what forced civil rights to be crafted into federal law.
The National Opinion Research Center discovered that by 1963 the number of Americans who approved neighborhood integration had risen 30 percent in 20 years, to 72 percent. Americans supporting school integration had risen even more impressively, to 75 percent.
The efforts of politicians were needed to write all the changes and efforts into law. Politicians did not lead charge on civil rights – again, they just took credit, especially the Democrats.
The 1964 Civil Rights Act
When all the historical forces had come together, Kennedy decided to act. John Kennedy began the process of gaining support for the legislation in a nationally televised address on June 11, 1963.
Gathering business and religious leaders and telling the more violent activists in the black leadership to tone down the confrontational aspects of the movement, Kennedy outlined the Civil Rights Act. In it, the Justice Department was given the responsibility of addressing the worst problems of racial discrimination.
Because of the problem with a possible Senate filibuster, which would be imposed by Southern Democrats, the diverse aspects of theAct were first dealt with in the House of Representatives. The roadblock would be that Southern senators chaired both the Judiciary and the Commerce committees.
Kennedy and LBJ understood that a bipartisan coalition of Republicans and Northern Democrats was the key to the bill's final success.
Remember that the Republicans were the minority party at the time. Nonetheless, H.R.7152 passed the House on Feb. 10, 1964. Of the 420 members who voted, 290 supported the civil rights bill and 130 opposed it.
Republicans favored the bill 138 to 34; Democrats supported it 152-96. Republicans supported it in higher proportions than Democrats. Even though those Democrats were Southern segregationists, without Republicans the bill would have failed. Republicans were the other much-needed leg of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The Man From Illinois
In the Senate, Hubert Humphrey was the point man for the Civil Rights Act. That is not unusual considering the Democrats held both houses of Congress and the presidency.
Sen. Thomas Kuchel of California led the Republican pro-civil rights forces. But it became clear who among the Republicans was going to get the job done; that man was conservative Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen.
He was the master key to victory for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Without him and the Republican vote, theAct would have been dead in the water for years to come. LBJ and Humphrey knew that without Dirksen the Civil Rights Act was going nowhere.
Dirksen became a tireless supporter, suffering bouts of ill health because of his efforts in behalf of crafting and passing the Civil Rights Act. Nonetheless, Sen. Dirksen suffered the same fate as many Republicans and conservatives do today.
Even though Dirksen had an exemplary voting record in support of bills furthering the cause of African-Americans, activist groups in Illinois did not support Dirksen for re-election to the Senate in 1962.
Believing that Dirksen could be forced into voting for the Civil Rights Act, they demonstrated and picketed and there were threats by CORE to continue demonstrations and violence against Dirksen's offices in Illinois. James Farmer of CORE stated that people will march en masse to the post offices there to file handwritten letters in protest.
Dirksen blew it off in a statement typical of him: When the day comes that picketing, distress, duress, and coercion can push me from the rock of conviction, that is the day that I shall gather up my togs and walk out of here and say that my usefulness in the Senate has come to an end.
Dirksen began the tactical arrangements for passage of the bill. He organized Republican support by choosing floor captains for each of the bill's seven sections.
The Republican swing votes were from rural states without racial problems and so were uncommitted. The floor captains and Dirksen himself created an imperative for these rural Republicans to vote in favor of cloture on filibuster and then for the Act itself.
As they worked through objections to the bill, Dirksen explained his goal as first, to get a bill; second, to get an acceptable bill; third, to get a workable bill; and, finally, to get an equitable bill.
In any event, there were still 52 days of filibuster and five negotiation sessions. Senators Dirksen and Humphrey, and Attorney General Robert Kennedy agreed to propose a clean bill as a substitute for H. R. 7152. Senators Dirksen, Mansfield, Humphrey and Kuchel would cosponsor the substitute.
This agreement did not mean the end of the filibuster, but it did provide Dirksen with a compromise measure, which was crucial to obtain the support of the swing Republicans.
On June 17, the Senate voted by a 76 to 18 margin to adopt the bipartisan substitute worked out by Dirksen in his office in May and to give the bill its third reading. Two days later, the Senate passed the bill by a 73 to 27 roll call vote. Six Republicans and 21 Democrats held firm and voted against passage.
In all, the 1964 civil rights debate had lasted a total of 83 days, slightly over 730 hours, and had taken up almost 3,000 pages in the Congressional Record.
On May 19, Dirksen called a press conference told the gathering about the moral need for a civil rights bill. On June 10, 1964, with all 100 senators present, Dirksen rose from his seat to address the Senate. By this time he was very ill from the killing work he had put in on getting the bill passed. In a voice reflecting his fatigue, he still spoke from the heart:
There are many reasons why cloture should be invoked and a good civil rights measure enacted. It is said that on the night he died, Victor Hugo wrote in his diary substantially this sentiment, 'Stronger than all the armies is an idea whose time has come.' The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing of government, in education, and in employment. It must not be stayed or denied.
After the civil rights bill was passed, Dirksen was asked why he had done it. What could possibly be in it for him given the fact that the African-Americans in his own state had not voted for him? Why should he champion a bill that would be in their interest? Why should he offer himself as a crusader in this cause?
Dirksen's reply speaks well for the man, for Republicans and for conservatives like him: I am involved in mankind, and whatever the skin, we are all included in mankind.
The bill was signed into law by President Johnson on July 2, 1964.
This does not tell the whole story either...
See below:
What is SCHIP?
The State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was created by Congress in 1997 and is funded by both the federal government and the states. The program is designed to help states initiate and expand the provision of child health insurance to uninsured, low-income children.
SCHIP is administered by the states which have three options for providing SCHIP coverage. They can:
create separate SCHIP programs;
expand eligibility for benefits under the state’s Medicaid plan (a Medicaid SCHIP program); or
use both approaches in combination.
Within federal guidelines, states determine their SCHIP program(s):
design,
eligibility rules,
benefits packages,
payment levels, and
administrative and operating procedures.
At the federal level, SCHIP is administered by the Department of Health and Human Services though the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).
There is nothing here about enrolling all the children in private insurance. That is at the discretion of the states. According to this they can expand the Medicaid coverage for SCHIP...government administered. At the federal level, it is administered by Medicare/Medicaid. Goverment administered. So to say it is not government administered is an untruth.
"Dorn says that's not exactly right, either. "This bill would actually put new limits in place to keep states from going to very high-income levels. SCHIP money would no longer be available over 300 percent of the federal poverty level, which is about $60,000 for a family of four."
That is also an untruth. This is from the bill itself:
SEC. 110. LIMITATION ON MATCHING RATE FOR STATES THAT PROPOSE TO COVER CHILDREN WITH EFFECTIVE FAMILY INCOME THAT EXCEEDS 300 PERCENT OF THE POVERTY LINE.
(a) FMAP Applied to Expenditures- Section 2105(c) (42 U.S.C. 1397ee(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
`(8) LIMITATION ON MATCHING RATE FOR EXPENDITURES FOR CHILD HEALTH ASSISTANCE PROVIDED TO CHILDREN WHOSE EFFECTIVE FAMILY INCOME EXCEEDS 300 PERCENT OF THE POVERTY LINE-
`(A) FMAP APPLIED TO EXPENDITURES- Except as provided in subparagraph (B), for fiscal years beginning with fiscal year 2008, the Federal medical assistance percentage (as determined under section 1905(b) without regard to clause (4) of such section) shall be substituted for the enhanced FMAP under subsection (a)(1) with respect to any expenditures for providing child health assistance or health benefits coverage for a targeted low-income child whose effective family income would exceed 300 percent of the poverty line but for the application of a general exclusion of a block of income that is not determined by type of expense or type of income.
`(B) EXCEPTION- Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any State that, on the date of enactment of the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007, has an approved State plan amendment or waiver to provide, or has enacted a State law to submit a State plan amendment to provide, expenditures described in such subparagraph under the State child health plan.'.
It does NOT exclude coverage for those OVER the 300% marker. It only limits matching funds. And you notice it says EXCEEDS 300% of the poverty line. So anything UP TO 300% of the poverty line would be covered under the proposal sent to Bush, which equals the $82,600. Bush understands the bill better than this guy does. It does leave it open for New York or anywhere else to put people on the program right up to $82,600 per year income. Just like Bush said. I did not make this up. It is copied directly from the bill that is posted on the Library of Congress website.
Just making sure the whole story is told.
here is that story...
Commissioner dismissal controversy
On July 11, 2008, Governor Palin dismissed Walter Monegan as Commissioner of Public Safety and instead offered him a position as executive director of the state Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, which he subsequently turned down.[44][45] Monegan alleged shortly after his dismissal that it may have been partly due to his reluctance to fire an Alaska State Trooper, Mike Wooten, who had been involved in a divorce and child custody battle with Palin's sister, Molly McCann.[46] In 2006, before Palin was governor, Wooten was briefly suspended for ten days for threatening to kill McCann's (and Palin's) father, tasering his 11-year-old stepson (at the stepson's request), and violating game laws. After a union protest, the suspension was reduced to five days.[47]
Governor Palin asserts that her dismissal of Monegan was unrelated to the fact that he had not fired Wooten, and asserts that Monegan was instead dismissed for not adequately filling state trooper vacancies, and because he "did not turn out to be a team player on budgeting issues."[48] Palin acknowledges that a member of her administration, Frank Bailey, did contact the Department of Public Safety regarding Wooten, but both Palin and Bailey say that happened without her knowledge and was unrelated to her dismissal of Monegan.[48] Bailey was put on leave for two months for acting outside the scope of his authority as the Director of Boards and Commissions.
In response to Palin's statement that she had nothing to hide, in August 2008 the Alaska Legislature hired Steve Branchflower to investigate Palin and her staff for possible abuse of power surrounding the dismissal, though lawmakers acknowledge that "Monegan and other commissioners serve at will, meaning they can be fired by Palin at any time."[49] The investigation is being overseen by Democratic State Senator Hollis French, who says that the Palin administration has been cooperating and thus subpoenas are unnecessary.[50] The Palin administration itself was the first to release an audiotape of Bailey making inquiries about the status of the Wooten investigation.[48][51]
I think the story is entirely possible, but unlikely.
I have done a little bit of poking around and read a few other tidbits here and there and formed my opinion.
Everyone keeps saying that her water broke while she was in Texas, but it did not technically. She was just leaking fluid, and she was not in labor. She had had 4 kids and knew she was not yet in labor and discussed that with her doctor, who gave her the go-ahead to fly. That is not that unusual to me.
She waited a long time to announce her pregnancy. Okay, but probably the reason she waited was because she already knew the baby had Down's (she reportedly found out in December) and knew that there was a higher chance that she would miscarry. Rather than announce her pregnancy, then lose her baby, she chose to keep it private until she was more certain she would indeed carry to term. I understand that. I also think that she probably needed the time to process how her family would adapt to a special needs child, and wrap her mind around it, so to speak. Not to mention the fact that a fifth child is not usually announced with the pomp and circumstance of a first baby. That is typical.
As far as her not looking pregnant, that happens all the time. I remember seeing Pamela Anderson on a talk show and she was 7 or 8 months' pregnant. I was shocked at how tiny she was. She looked barely pregnant, and her baby wasn't even extra small when it was born. DIfferent women carry differently and Governor Palin was dressing in jackets and other clothing which would hide a bulge.
I saw the picture of her daughter and that was completely unconvincing as well. Girls wear shirts tight across the tummy like that all the time, even if they are chubby in the midsection. It is very common. If she was pregnant and trying to it it while posing for a family photo, wouldn't she choose different clothing?
All that being said, even if it were to turn out to be true, I wouldn't hold it against her for claiming the child as her own in order to protect her daughter and the baby. I don't see anything wrong in hiding a teenage pregnancy if it can be successfully hidden. No one should be proud of being unwed and pregnant. It's too bad that so many young girls think absolutely nothing of it, an actually get pregnant on purpose knowing full well that the baby's father will never be a part of its life. That is part of what is wrong with our society today.
thanks for your story
We must be nearly the same age because I know several women who were pressured into giving their children away and they are still haunted by that decision to this day. You are correct about the damage Palin is doing to her daughter.
What the..? What was there ONE story about someone
have been SP's doing ?? You make it sound like she handed down firings to several thousand. LOL But hey, if she's that powerful and good at putting her plans into action, then maybe I will vote for McCain/Palin.
Let me tell you a story
Back in the early 70s, I was a single mom, going through a divorce, and no job. My son was only 1-1/2 years old. I needed help and had no one. I went to Welfare to see if they could help me. I got some money for an apartment and food stamps.
After 5 months, I found a job, told welfare I was going off it because I didn't need the help anymore. Well, they absolutely begged me to stay on it for at least another year. Needless to say, it was harder to get OFF it than to get on it. I just couldn't get it through their heads that I didn't want their handouts. I had a standing invitation to come back anytime.
Well, fast forward 8 years. My new husband's job went down the tubes and we went through all our savings, living paycheck to paycheck on mine. Went back to welfare to see if we could at least get food stamps for our 2 kids now. Nope! I earned $11 too much. They told us to sell the cars and the house we were buying and then maybe, just maybe, we would qualify for everything. No way!
Needless to say, we had a friend who owned a bar and served sandwiches and soup. He let my husband work for him doing odd jobs around his property and paid him in leftover soup and sandwiches. Hubby was also able to pick up a few other odd jobs and that's how we survived for 2 years. We had a woodburner and cut and split our own wood, had seeds given to us and grew our own garden in the summer. We survived, but it wasn't easy. The only thing nice about it was my children learned about survival and my husband and I never gained any weight.The kids ate first, then hubby because his odd jobs were tougher than mine, and I ate last.
To this day, I can't look at a plate of spaghetti, soup, or chili. LOL
I actually got the story from CNN ....
Just sayin ... 
And in a related story...
...*Curious George* wants to know who's visiting porn sites. Hmmmmmm... thought spying was only supposed to be used to catch *terrorists*....
U.S., Google Set to Face Off in Court
By MICHAEL LIEDTKE, AP Business WriterTue Mar 14, 8:16 AM ET
The Bush administration will renew its effort to find out what people have been looking for on Google Inc.'s Internet-leading search engine, continuing a legal showdown over how much of the Web's vast databases should be shared with the government.
Lawyers for the Justice Department and Google are expected to elaborate on their opposing views in a San Jose hearing scheduled Tuesday before U.S. District Court Judge James Ware.
It will mark the first time the Justice Department and Google have sparred in court since the government subpoenaed the Mountain-View, Calif.-based company last summer in an effort to obtain a long list of search requests and Web site addresses.
The government believes the requested information will help bolster its arguments in another case in Pennsylvania, where the Bush administration hopes to revive a law designed to make it more difficult for children to see online pornography.
Google has refused to cooperate, maintaining that the government's demand threatens its users' privacy as well as its own closely guarded trade secrets.
The Justice Department has downplayed Google's concerns, arguing it doesn't want any personal information nor any data that would undermine the company's thriving business.
The case has focused attention on just how much personal information is stored by popular Web sites like Google — and the potential for that data to attract the interest of the government and other parties.
Although the Justice Department says it doesn't want any personal information now, a victory over Google in the case would likely encourage far more invasive requests in the future, said University of Connecticut law professor Paul Schiff Berman, who specializes in Internet law.
The erosion of privacy tends to happen incrementally, Berman said. While no one intrusion may seem that big, over the course of the next decade or two, you might end up in a place as a society where you never thought you would be.
Google seized on the case to underscore its commitment to privacy rights and differentiate itself from the Internet's other major search engines — Yahoo Inc. (Nasdaq:YHOO - news), Microsoft Corp.'s MSN and Time Warner Inc.'s America Online. All three say they complied with the Justice Department's request without revealing their users' personal information.
Cooperating with the government is a slippery slope and it's a path we shouldn't go down, Google co-founder Sergey Brin told industry analysts earlier this month.
Even as it defies the Bush administration, Google recently bowed to the demands of China's Communist government by agreeing to censor its search results in that country so it would have better access to the world's fastest growing Internet market. Google's China capitulation has been harshly criticized by some of the same people cheering the company's resistance to the Justice Department subpoena.
The Justice Department initially demanded a month of search requests from Google, but subsequently decided a week's worth of requests would be enough. In its legal briefs, the Justice Department has indicated it might be willing to narrow its request even further.
Ultimately, the government plans to select a random sample of 1,000 search requests previously made at Google and re-enter them in the search engine, according to a sworn declaration by Philip Stark, a statistics professor at the University of California, Berkeley who is helping the Justice Department in the case.
The government believes the test will show how easily it is to get around the filtering software that's supposed to prevent children from seeing sexually explicit material on the Web.
I only posted one story. sm
And the subject, to me, is Ward Churchill has his deception, not AIM. I would think as an OP, you would be more in tune to what the OP publications are saying about him.
Where did you find this story? sm
I can't find anything anywhere on this. Thank you!
I only found one story on this. sm
From an obscure site called Rogers Cadenhead. The remainder of the stories, from the LA Times, etc., did not include anything about U.S. Troops protecting the Hezbollah sympathizers.
Could it be possible there are 2 sides to the story? sm
The US, UK, and Israel also have a long and colorful history of 'creating incidents' to further their own agendas. I would say control of the Middle East is something at the top of the list. Hezbollah is wrong to send rockets into Israel. In fact, they are all wrong, but what do you expect them to do just wait there and be incinerated by Israel?
Here is a follow up to the first story... sm
http://www.lonestaricon.com/absolutenm/anmviewer.asp?a=448&z=56
Real story from the MSM?.....sm
Bush controlled, corporate crony owned media telling the truth - not going to happen. That only happens when you have a democratic republic, not a corporate plutocracy. TV news definitely lies, suppresses, and distorts news.
Actually that's not the complete story...
You did not mention that when Summersby was dying of cancer she stated that it had been a romantic affair after all and wrote about it in her book. This contradicted what she had earlier stated. Who knows what really happened, and does it really matter? I doubt it. It only proves that we're all flawed humans, even some Republicans!!
I like the semaphore story better....nm
nm
yes, he changed the story
"just a bit" to better prove his point that she was a reformer. Like his cross in the dirt story as a POW. When he first told it, it happened to someone else. It went over better when he changed it to first person. That is dangerous behavior. We have been through 8 years of information manipulation. Please no more.
This whole story is absurd, more like a
fairytale or wishful thinking, right is running scared is all.
That's not the whole story/reason. (sm)
I, for one, do not want to pick produce from the fields and do many of the jobs that migrant workers do. I'm not lazy, per se, but I have other opportunities to make my income in ways closer to how I want to live.
Many Americans do not want to do those menial jobs. So, we do need migrant workers who are willing to fill those positions.
That isn't the whole story, though. And it doesn't make it acceptable to allow illegals in regardless of the job situation, etc.
Is this a true story? LOL
nm
Here's the rest of the story.
1. No soup for researching the breakdown on appropriations and who came down for and against as they progressed through time. That "congress did" cop-out does not cover for the fact that between 2002 and 2007, Dems were outnumbered by war zealots with glazed-over eyes as they followed a leader of liars and prevailed on the money issues. Answer: The pubs dominated and ARE credited for building up a $400B debt, no matter how fast you spin it.
2. Thank you. Obama voted against. Vision, conviction and courage to place principle over politics. Biden voted for, but has since stated he believes it was a mistake because of the W administration mismanagement of the war. Go here for Biden on the issue of Iraq: Does not appear to be part of the fleeced flock anymore. http://www.ontheissues.org/Joe_Biden.htm.
3. Obama. Ahead of the curve. Petraeus is not running for president.
4. Petraeus is a military man with a military agenda and a reputation to protect, just like McCain. Trouble is, public is war weary and are looking for nonmilitary solutions…or at least somebody who is willing to consider such notions. There has to be a plan for what lies beyond the surge, which is not an everlasting solution. Question is whose plan? Bush and McCain NOW get it that Obama gots it and are going with his flow. According to you, Petraeus is onboard too. By the way, the Iraqi leadership just might be entitled to weigh in on this one. After all, it IS their country. They backed Obama on international television this past summer, lest we forget.
5. Well then, according to you, Petraeus is onboard troop draw-down. No highjack here, but a bit slow on the draw.
6. There has been no political resolution. Iraqis have not taken control of their own nation. Exactly what do you think will happen after troop withdrawal? The Sunni, Shia and Kurds will throw farewell flowers at the troops and each other in gratitude for all the help and Iraq will become the "oasis of democracy" in the Middle East? All the surge has done is prolong the inevitable. We need to step aside NO MATTER WHAT the consequences and hand the Iraqis the keys to the kingdom and let them sort themselves out.
A story I like to tell about the Ivy League...
I earned a BBA (Bachelors of Business Administration) from Temple University. Many years ago, I had a pretty high-powered job. I'll never forget a young lady who came in to interview with me for a job in our department. It seemed as though she couldn't mention often enough that she had earned her BBA from the University of Pennsylvania. So, following her lead, I spent quite a bit of time talking to her about her time at Penn, and it didn't take her very long before she was expressing her opinion that an Ivy League education was better than any other, and so she was the best candidate out there. I admired her spunk, but not her flawed logic.
I told her that the BBA degree was accredited by a single organization, and that the study curriculum at all schools offering the degree was the same. One could argue that faculty in some schools were better or worse than in others, but there was no hard and fast measure of that opinion. The curriculum, however, was the same in every school.
I asked her what her University of Pennsylvania tuition had been. This was in the early 1980s, and she proudly said it was around $30,000 a year. I told her that tuition at Temple University was about $4000 a year. So the cost of my BBA had been roughly $16,000. The cost of hers had been roughly $120,000. I told her that in my opinion, we had purchased the same product, but that there was a significant difference in the cost of that product. I then asked her if as an employee of our company, I might expect her to likewise overpay on budget items in our department.
The kicker was, my degree was hanging on the wall in my office. She couldn't help but see it. It really wasn't the way to warm up to the interviewer. My impression of her was that someone paid a lot of money for her education, but she wasn't too smart.
thats your story and your sticking to it...
x
Yours is a compelling story....
and is indicative of why assistance is needed to help those truly in need. I have never said welfare needs to be stopped. What I said is able-bodied people who want assistance should have a job or job training attached to it, so they can get OUT of the cycle of poverty. I said that assistance SHOULD be used for those physically or mentally unable to work. However, if any of us are honest, we know that there are thousands upon thousands who are on assistance who are completely capable of working. They take benefits from those who truly are physically unable, like you were, or lessen those benefits and make it harder to get benefits. Assistance programs need to be fixed so that those who really are physically or mentally unable to work can get the help they need.
The other side of the story....
http://www.newsmax.com/smith/barack_obama_tony_rezko/2008/09/02/126890.html
Yep. there are two sides to every story....
you just have to choose the side that fits your view for your country. Godspeed in your search. :)
Other side of the story...
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/09/16/2008-09-16_john_mccain_campaign_releases_troopergat.html
half the story
Refuted.
http://www.nrlc.org/ABORTION/pba/WSJletter111003.html
Try reading this one.
Here's the same story on ABC.?. see inside
I thought AOL was considered a liberal site, but I guess not. Here's ABC with a bit more information, but basically the same story:
Inside the White House: What Went Wrong?
Sources in the Meeting Tell ABC News Why the Talk Turned Into a Screaming Match
By JONATHAN KARL
Sept. 26, 2008
If all had gone according to plan, Thursday's White House meeting would have been a triumphant photo opportunity, where top Democratic and Republican congressional leaders come together with the president and the two presidential candidates to support a plan for stabilizing the financial markets. Instead, the meeting devolved into a shouting match that nearly derailed the economic bailout plan.
Here's an account of what happened, based on conversations with several of those present, both Democrats and Republicans:
The first sign of trouble: Twenty minutes before the White House meeting, Treasury Secretary Henry "Hank" Paulson calls House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to say there are problems with the agreement reached earlier in the afternoon. Pelosi is miffed. Democrats believed the issues Paulson raised had already been resolved.
President Bush opens the meeting at 4 p.m., quickly turning it over to Paulson who gives a status report on the markets and says, "We need to get this done quickly." Paulson turns it over to Pelosi, who defers to Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, who defers to Sen. Barack Obama. Obama starts things off for the Democrats by reiterating his principles on what the plan should include. Obama agrees with Paulson on the need to act quickly but says some on the Hill "don't understand the need for the rush." Some of the Republicans took this as an attack on them.
Obama then defers to Sen. John McCain, but McCain defers to House Republican Leader John Boehner to speak on behalf of the Republicans. Boehner says House Republicans have "a lot of problems" with the plan and "most of my caucus is not there."
At this point, the meeting is still fairly cordial. Pelosi even compliments the president on his speech Wednesday night. But the meeting starts to devolve.
After some more give and ake, Sen. Richard Shelby, the top Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, presents a five-page list of 192 economists and business school professors who oppose the plan. Bush isn't impressed. "I don't care what somebody on some college campus says," Bush says. Instead, he says he trusts Hank Paulson, who, he says, has more than 35 years of experience and access to more information than those academics on Shelby's list.
Boehner says House Republicans have a different idea: providing federal insurance for mortgage securities instead of buying them outright.
Obama chimes in again, asking Paulson what he thinks about the insurance idea. Paulson says he thinks the idea is unworkable, and adds, "We can't start over."
After 43 minutes, McCain finally speaks. He says there are "legitimate concerns that need to be listened to" and that there has been "significant progress" in incorporating his principles into the bill. "We have one shot at getting this done right," he says. McCain does not get specific. "He said a whole lot of nothing," says one Republican in the room.
Shortly after that, things get a whole lot worse. Rep. Spencer Baucus, the top Republican on the House Financial Services Committee, speaks in favor of the Republican alternative, setting Rep. Barney Frank, the Democratic chairman of the committee, into a rage. Frank accuses Republicans of "sandbagging" him by bringing up a plan he's never seen. There's more shouting. The president brings the meeting back to order and urges everybody to get back together because "we need to get this done." The deciding factor for him on any final deal, he says, is whether or not Hank Paulson says it will work.
The meeting ends, but the fireworks are yet to come.
Democrats go back into the Roosevelt Room to discuss whether to go out to the cameras waiting on the White House driveway. Paulson comes in and literally begs them not to go out and criticize the meeting. For dramatic effect, Paulson gets down on one knee and says, "Please, I beg you, don't blow this up."
Barney Frank, shouting, "Don't give me that bulls**t."
More Frank: "Hank, you've got a problem here. Republicans want to torpedo this."
Pelosi is also outraged, but the Democrats decide not to go out as a group to the microphones.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=5895827&page=1
Video story
Found interview with REAL PEOPLE about this. Click link below for story, then video next to story. I had a hard time getting vid to play, but viewed another story's video then went back to this one and it worked.
The FBI is investigating and Obama's camp had no comment.
Click below.
|
