Thought you all would find this interesting

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4fe9GlWS8

• Thought you all would find this interesting - Backwards typist
  • I guess I missed it, or Obama got a hold of it. SM - MT and worn out
    • I just clicked on it and it came up. (nm) - Backwards typist
      • Ok, I got it to come up. Must have hit a key wrong or something. nm - MT and worn out
  • Better yet, to all those in coal country or who have - onlyinamerica
    • My husband says this video/audio of Obama saying he will...sm - ms
      • sorry - internet is forever - if it was there, it is still there somewhere - - Amanda
        • That comment is very naive. sm - ms
    • The coal fields are already bankrupt - Backwards typist
  • We can find these all day... - Just the big bad
  • I saw this somewhere else ......sm - m

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

is that the same ones who are making blatently racist and sexist comments about Sotomayor are the same ones who whined about the treatment of Palin.  Go figure.  I will, however grudgingly, admit though that so far Bill O'Reilly seems to be an exception to that.  However, I think this is only because he realizes that pubs are likely to lose a huge voting block with hispanics if they continue this crap.

I read an article today that brought to mind an interesting idea.  That article says the US is a pyramid about to collapse.  The article stated that due to certain circumstances the country could split into six parts (which I'll list below).  I then thought about how I keep reading and hearing how the world is changing and we have to go along with it to "keep up".  The US is a huge country, made up of a lot of different regions.  Maybe the country should be divided into separate countries.  Each one with our own president.  That way others who want certain leaders can have them and those of us who don't, we get someone who understands our region.  What do others think about the possibility of the US being divided into separate countries.  These were how they were listed below.

1.  US Pacific coast.  The Chinese make about 53% of SFrancisco's population.  Seattle is dubbed as gateway for Chinese emigration, and the pacific coast gradually falls under the influence of China.

2.  South - the Mexicans.  Spanish has almost become a state language there..

3.  Atlantic coast represents a different ethnos and a different mindset which may split into two.

4.  Central depressive regions make a group.  The five central states of the US where the Indians live have already declared their independence.  It used to be considered a joke, but now it's a fact.

5.  Canada has strong influence in the North.

6.  Alaska belongs to Russia and was granted on a lease.

I say split the country accordingly and let us elect our own president that understand our regions/needs.

S.Amdt.4170: To protect families, family farms and small businessees by extending the income tax rate structure, raising the death tax exemption to $5 million and reducing the maximum death tax rate to no more than 35%; to keep education affordable extending the college tuition deduction; and to protect senior citizens from higher taxes on their retirement income, maintain U.S. financial market competitiveness, and promote economic growth by extending the lower tax rates on dividents and capital gains.

NAY: Biden and Obama   YEA: McCalin

I.E., this is in the voting record in the public records. There are not too many voting records there for the O since he started his campaign and most of those he voted NAY or say Not Voting.

Down the drain?  Beware of Obama's plan to 'spread the wealth around'

By Betsy Newmark
High School History and Government Teacher/Blogger

If the McCain campaign can’t use this Obama quote to raise doubts about his attitude towards wealth and success, then they deserve the shellacking they seem headed for.

“Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn’t it?” the plumber asked, complaining that he was being taxed “more and more for fulfilling the American dream.”

“It’s not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance for success too,” Obama responded. “My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody … I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

Plumbers of the country, unite! Forget about the work and effort you put into building up a business or the scummy work that you do that many of us don’t know or don’t want to do. If you have succeeded, you should be willing to give up more of what you earn to help those who haven’t had the great good luck that you have had to be a successful plumber. Remember how Obama is going to give 95% of all of us a tax cut even though over 30% of the population doesn’t pay taxes?

He might call it a tax credit, but what he’s really doing is his vision of “spreading the wealth around.” It sounds a lot like Huey Long’s 1935 plan to “Share the Wealth.” And when he finds that he can’t tax the top 5% of the population to gain enough wealth to spread to the 95% of the rest of us, do you really think that he’ll stop with that 5%?

Remember…This is the guy who said in the ABC debate during the primary season that his approach to raising tax on capital gains is not based on whether it would provide more revenue but on his idea of what is fair:

GIBSON: All right. You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, “I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton,” which was 28 percent. It’s now 15 percent. That’s almost a doubling, if you went to 28 percent.

But actually, Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.

OBAMA: Right.

GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.

OBAMA: Right.

GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.

So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.

Just what we need in these fragile economic times — a guy who wants to raise taxes because he thinks it’s a matter of “fairness” and time to “spread the wealth around.”

That will be some incentive for other plumbers who want to work hard and build up a successful business.

But don’t worry - according to Joe Biden, it’s the patriotic thing to do.

And Clinton is a serial rapist. So what is your point? sm

Posted By: Brunson on 2006-05-03,
In Reply to: Hitchens is a public and private severe alcoholic - Mind

Everyone knows that Hitchens is an alcoholic.  You are adding nothing to this conversation.  Act like an adult or leave. 

you obviously have a problem already.  Sources I've used include a direct link to the US Senate, factcheck.org (an organization that even Fox uses), going to bills/legistation directly....etc. 

long, but until you actually look at McCain's voting record, posts like this (including the one below) are nothing but opinion.

http://vetsforobama.org/

trillion but if our government continues to spend the money, I fear we may find out the hard way.  All I've heard about is how Bush doubled our deficit in 8 years.  Well, Obama has been in office not even a full month and wants to add 1 trillion dollars to it....although he continues to say 800 billion in his charismatic speeches.  I'm also so tired of the blame game.  Obama himself made sure in his speech last night at the democratic retreat (which, BTW, taxpayers helped pay for, thanks O) to mention that government is a group of people throwing out ideas and it isn't one person dictating everything.  Yet he continues to blame one person, Bush, for our crisis.  This crisis has been a long time coming people and started before Bush, although he didn't help either.  I blame government as a whole and I intend to hold both dems and pubs feet to the fire and since the dems are currently in control......they are most definitely getting more criticism from me because they are in charge at this point.  Doesn't mean I'm not keeping an eye on the pubs too cuz Lord knows there are crooks in both parties.

interesting that Obama ridiculed McCann for taxing healthcare benefits during his campaign and yet that is now something on the table Obama is considering to help fund his healthcare reform. Funny how something that was once ridiculous to him is now something okay to do and how dare we question him. 

Once again.....why aren't democrats holding Obama's feet to the fire here?  Lie after lie and broken promise after broken promise.  If anyone from any other party flip flopped and lied like this....you guys would crucify him/her.  What gives?

From John Stossel's Myths, Lies and Straight Talk  (link at bottom)

MYTH #8 — Republicans Shrink the Government

Republicans always trot out the slogan that they oppose big government and want to shrink the federal payroll. President Bush tells us that big government is not the answer.

President Reagan told us, Our government is too big and it spends too much.

But for more than 75 years, no Republican administration has cut the size of government. Since George W. Bush became president, government spending has risen nearly 25 percent.

And the spending increase isn't just tied to the war on terrorism. The Office of Management and Budget says spending at the Environmental Protection Agency is up 12 percent; it's up 14 percent at the Agriculture Department, 30 percent at the Department of the Interior; 64 percent at the Department of Labor, and 70 percent at the Department of Education.

And the pork keeps pouring out. Even the Peanut Festival in Dothan, Ala., got $200,000.

Alabama congressman Terry Everett, a Republican, got them the money. He wouldn't talk to us about it, but the locals said they like getting your money. I think it's a waste of money, but if they're going to waste money, I guess it's better to waste it here than anywhere else, one man told me.

Economist Stephen Moore, a Republican, says, We fought a war against big government and you know what? Big government won.

He noted, You look at what's happened to the government in the 10 years since the Republicans took control of Congress, the government is twice as big.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123606

I heard this a few days ago, but since everyone only pays attention to articles in mainstream papers and TV news, thought I would post it. Could explain why Bush is acting like a brat.  The pressure coming from the families, the public, and the truth movements is getting intense. 

Apparently, CIA officers are buying legal insurance to cover the cost of their defense should they be indicted by a federal grand jury for their roles in 9/11. They are worried that the results of an internal CIA investigation into some CIA agents’ roles in 9/11 may soon become public and the public outcry would immediately lead to their arrest for murder and conspiracy among other charges.

CIA officers who are charged with something that was done in the line of duty, i.e., for something that is constitutional and legal; are defended by the largest law firm in the world; the U.S. Justice Department. However, for illegal and unconstitutional charges they are on their own. That is why this private legal insurance has suddenly become so attractive to some employees of the CIA; they know that they will not be defended by the Justice Department because what they did was so illegal and reprehensible. That is why they are busy buying private legal insurance. For a well-researched, excellent article found in the mainstream media see the Washington Post for R. Jeffrey Smith’s story titled, “CIA Officers Buy Legal Insurance”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/10/AR2006091001286.html?nav=hcmodule

OKay, so based on your analogy.....if someone trespasses on my land with intent to do me harm and I order them off my property and remind them that it is illegal to harm me or to trespass......you imply that I am NOT allowed to mention what the law states and that it is illegal for them to harm me UNLESS I am a law enforcement officer?

Very interesting view of the world you have. 

You never stated a time frame for cons ordering liberals off the board, ....you stated it was never done and that suggests an indefinite period of time.  Once again, pretty shoddy logic.