To answer your question directly
Posted By: anon on 2008-12-12
In Reply to: With the onset of a global economy........sm - m
Would I accept less to save a MTSO, no I would not, but then we're not making near what the auto workers are making, apples and oranges. I feel I pesonally have to take a stand regarding ASR and pay for such. What they're asking us to take is ridiculous. Regardless of global economy, we still live in the good ole US of A and have a certain standard of living to uphold. As long as it is possible I will not do ASR nor will I edit reports being typed abroad. I left MQ last year, refusing to put up with their nonsense. Thankfully I only have a few years til retirement.
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
Well point to the law that directly gives
our military authority over the U.N.? Where is the AGREEMENT that says we have to approve military action through the U.N.? It was not covered in my college political science class or the numerous classes I took between high school and college. We have consulted the U.N. before taking military action AND consulted and worked with the UN for YEARS on the Iraq situation. Iraq/S Saddam consistently and constantly thumbed his nose to the U.N. authorities and broke inspection agreements. I know that not every one in the U.N. supported the war, but if I'm remembering the correctly there was not enough opposition to put up a direct U.N. declaration to oppose the war.
I think we are reading different versions of history and the laws of the land.
Post directly above this
x
Huh? Two of the posters are directly below
_
Really? A lib posted directly under here
and presented an interesting challenge to sm about the Bloomberg article in "while analyzing those millions." Instead of claiming that liberals "always attack the messenger," talking about how they don't want to be educated, making wisecracks about mindreading and trying to belittle them for ALWAYS being on the attack, why don't you pitch in and help sm answer that little puzzler about the FDIC funds referred to in the article? So far, we see no one stepping forward to answer that challenge. It's not that hard. She gave 2 clues.
Well I actually do believe he was talking directly
about the O when he was addressing their failed PM. Two failures in charge of countries. I think if the PM can come sliming here begging for money, this guy should come over and explain to our congress (cos they don't evidentally get it) what they have done to the economy of the world. But the speach he gave might as well been talking right to the enlightened one.
It was a reply to the post directly above it...
"In his private career, seems like he did a lot of work for the poor and several civil rights cases. I guess that would make some conservatives a little afraid of him :-)"
It is the taunt I was replying to. Democrats have not in the past had a stellar reputation for championing the civil rights of African Americans and I pointed that out. And they became interested in the poor African American AFTER they finally got the right to vote. Coincidence?
Again, respectfully...replying the the taunt.
I did address it directly. In the post above....
and you proved my point about the attacking. Typical dem.
Took your advice - went directly to the source -
Okay, went to the source. Says the same thing - Obama 49, McCain 47 with likely voters.
Drudge shows the facts. You were okay with them when they favored your candidate.
What I am hearing is if Obama was so much better than McCain he would certainly have a much larger lead (like 20 points or more), but he doesn't, which goes to show that it is a very close race and you need to prepare yourself that either candidate could win.
Thanks for that info. I did go directly to this man's site...
and he talks about his email there also. I don't put much stock in any web-based sites; too much can be fabricated through the guise of anonymity.
I am talking Palin directly
That person who protrayed herself to be so righteous, so godly, Miss Goody-Goody has lots of skeletons in her closet yet to be all shaken out. It was really, really important when all just held onto every little word or piece of clothing that did not belong to her in the first place discussed. I am glad to see her falling off that high horse, yes I am.
Bravo Zauber..well said and directly to the point..
I will never understand how people think that opposing an erroneous(in this case fictional and delusional) government policy is unpatriotic and a detriment to our troops. I don't want to see any more die for reasons that do not nor have ever existed.
If someone ever posts something directly about one of Obama's children...
like that nastiness posted about Sarah Palin's daughter, I would be criticizing that as well. THere is absolutely NO reason for bringing a candidate's children into the political battleground. I have seen nothing posted here about lies about Obama's family other than some posters taking shots at the way the two women dress, and Cindy McCain got it as bad as Michelle Obama. I think that is pretty silly on both sides. I saw someone post what Michelle said about being proud of her country. It went away pretty quickly. I saw a lot of worse things about cindy Mcain winning her battle over prescriptin drug addiction, but the posts were much more hateful, mean, and personal.
Michelle Obama was out stumping for her husband and she said something in public people thought she should explain.
Barack Obama used drugs in his youth and was open about it. No one here condemned that. yet they tore the hide of Cindy McCain in strips because she admitted an addiction to prescription drugs because of an injury. do you find that fair? At ALL fair?
Why can't we at the very LEAST leave minor children out of this???
That should read: McCain directly denied
then continue reading the above post. time for another cup of coffee.
The moderator asked you to stop directly below this post.
You don't know the meaning of the word *respectful.* You want to come here and censor this board and lay down the law about what is *newsworthy* and what isn't, the same way you people want to control every aspect of every American's life. How ya makin' out in that regard? Not too well, eh? 
You and your other sidekick(personality?) below don't come here to debate.
You come here to incite, and regardless of your promises, you'll never leave. Nobody is bothering you on your board, and you have to release your evil vile hatred somewhere or else you will explode, so you come here.
If you want to see vicious, consult the nearest mirror.
Typical pub. Can't address a single issue directly.
nm
Evidently, pubs didn't care that McC directly denied
tried to diffuse all the scare tactics fall-out. What I want to know is why would McC supporters and their campaign turn a blind eye to a frightened senile old woman and keep right on pushing agendas that will produce more such embarrassing moments for their own candidate? Is this the kind of leadership we can expect under a McCain regime? How disconnected is this candidate from his own campaign management and supporters? Is that really the picture you want to paint for him? How much more fuel do you guys intend to use to stoke the fires of ignorance, division and deceit?
McCain seemed really sad last night when he tried to reassure that shaking, frail, senile old woman, but instead of looking presidential, he just looked like a beaten down has-been. Congratuations on an utterly moronic campaign strategy. Enjoy the fall-out.
Yes, the chips exist honey. I was speaking directly to the hysteria evoked
It shows a distinct lack of knowledge about the world and the peoples who inhabit it.
As to those that perpetuate this mythos...well, if you allow anyone to prey on your fears, you give them power over you. People need to investigate all sides of an issue, not just the perspective they agree with or the one spoonfed to them.
Not to mention that the "Jihaad" holy war itself was caused directly from Daddy Bush having to
rush in with Desert Storm in order to secure the oil wells, securing the oil for all his oil baron friends and himself. Bin Laden himself said that when we rushed in, we had "tainted" Muslim soil and felt he had to retaliate. Of course, these are the ravings of a madman, but Bush policies directly inflamed the already hostile Taliban fighters. Also, the Bush and Bin Laden families have a long history in the business world, and the night of September 11th, the government made it pssible for Bin Laden family members in this country to flee and not face retaliation........please look it up in the newgroups, I have seen many amazing documentaries about these facts on Discovery, History Channel, Military Channel, and some of the news channels.
why do you answer so stupidly, the right answer
if you had any brains, would have been......
'well, she made a mistake.'
But telling me that I need a job, is so stupid, yes, stupid AND a very weak point.
I can answer that. The answer is no. nm
Answer
I was frequently banned on the old forum format, at least once a week during the weeks I was actually posting (I would then get disgusted and stay away for up to a month at a time). Have only been banned once since the new format so I would agree with your analysis.
Otherwise as to other folks banned, I remember lots and lots of complaints/comments but can offer no specifics. I also remember seeing a lot of interesting posts go poof! Used to really really be bad on the old religion board. But hopefully that's improved also.
I would have bet it all that you would answer this way.
I suppose you also believe that poverty causes crime.
You would not like my answer
so I won't even go there...
So the answer is yes,
Where did the soldier in the article lie?
I come from a family with multiple generations who served and continue to serve in the military, including Iraq, so spare me your little lecture about troop morale.
Have a lovely day.
This should answer...
at least one of your questions. I found this site: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/MedicaidGenInfo/05_SCHIP%20Information.asp
Which states that in general, states can not permit the implementation of preexisting condition exclusions.
However, in states like South Carolina, where SCHIP is run through BCBS, they can implement preexisting condition exclusions, but only in so far as HIPAA rules allow - which I would assume (have not researched) is the 12 month waiting period.
As for your other question, I have a muscle disease (big time preexisting) and I can't even get health coverage privately. I have to struggle to work full time, even on the days I feel like my whole body is on fire, just to get group coverage. I had the 12 month preexisting condition thing, with which they are denying everything - saying that it's all related to the preexisting condition - and I pay $260 a month. I should also mention that this coverage is just for me - no children/spouse.
Hope that helps.
Thanks for the answer....
and you have a good one as well.
Right...there is no answer.
You want it your way or no way and want to squelch any kind opposition. Sounds more like the the old USSR than the old USA. There's that Marxist thing again.
answer...
Again you prove my point. And MSNBC, CNN, and the others are any different, except their slant is to the left? You really think people don't notice that? lol.
Dear...drop the condescencion. Demographics can have many meanings other than the one you describe.
I was talking about news outlets. I know there are other places to get the conservative view...but I want to get both sides. I don't watch the commentators much on either side...hard to find a point in the bashing, and that means both sides. Mostly I just turn them off.
you just know everything, don't you...have an answer for everything
no matter what anyone says, you (meaning the posters on here who continually try to bully everyone into their own way of thinking) will defend her - even if she was caught in bed literally with John McCain you would have an answer for that.
I heard an interview by Jodie Foster where she stated she literally hates weakness of any kind, in any thing. She said if there was a bird fallen out of a nest (to that affect) on the sidewalk in front of her she would want to kick it. That is the majority of what I see on these boards. Nastiness, aggressiveness, women toward women. Do you think kindness is a weakness, because I know most men do. I personally do not want to be a man.
That is okay, Jesus has said the weak shall inherit the earth - I will follow Jesus' teachings before I would ever follow people who think killing over 1 million innocent people is a good thing and are blood-thirsty for even more lives and souls, a majority of which comes right from the pulpits. I think I read somewhere those people will suffer most at the end of the world - as for me I am making sure I am not one of them.
Might is right, bigger is better - you can have all of it and women can get as aggressive as they want but you will find out it was wrong when men do it and it is wrong for women to do it.
here's the answer
I, too, am in a quandry about this election, but I do know that opening up drilling for oil in Alaska is just a temporary solution. We are spending 10 billion ($$$) a month for the war in Iraq. Why are we there? For oil. Think how far that money would go towards developing new alternative energy sources in this country in order to free ourselves from our addiction to foreign oil. Even in Dubai, where they currently have plenty of oil, they are cuttng edge in the development of alternative energy sources. Even they realize the oil is not going to last forever!!. The powers that be in this country are so ignorant and greedy that they refuse to see that this is the ONLY SOLUTION to this madness!!! Wake up, people. This is a change that will garner HUGE improvements in all matters of economy and environment, and showing the rest of the world that the US can be an example in leading the way to making these changes!!!
That's really the best answer
Don't talk to them about it. Judging by this board, things can get very heated and nasty and really, has anyone changed their minds after reading any of this stuff? I think at this point most of us know who we are going to vote for and arguing is just pointless.
Answer. sm
I realize what trouble we are in. That is why it frightens me that this bimbo is literally 1 heartbeat away from the presidency.
See answer above. Aha. nm
nm
Answer
The same number of Democrats as Republicans.
Looking for a serious answer...
I am looking for a REAL answer to this. Not a snide remark from either dems or pubs.
Why are the presidents, leaders, etc of nations we aren't "friendly" with supporting Obama?
Just real answers please. I think we are up to our ears in sarcastic remarks on this board.
Thank you for the answer - nm
nm
Got my answer
It doesn't matter and our vote will be counted.
You don't have to answer
Is it PA. That is the way it is here, God is still very much present in our schools and out, and that is a good thing.
answer this
BLACK? that's what i thought... uh... no and let me make this perfectly clear... I AM NOT INSINUATING THAT AFRICAN AMERICANS WILL RIOT.
Your answer is in the
x
Yes, see your answer above. nm
x
answer
into poverty, but you don't want the money it takes to care for these children to come out of your pocket???? Am I on the mark?
Answer: First of all, I wouldnt be forcing anyone to have a baby born into poverty. That would be THEIR choice. Yes, it is a CHOICE to get pregnant or not. If you dont want to get pregnant you should use BIRTH CONTROL, given out FREE to anyone who cannot afford it. Of course, you cannot actually shove it down someone's throat and make them swallow it, I guess. Second, I already DO pay for these unwanted children. It is called WELFARE.
I guess this is another so-called way to sling mud at Obama. The rich republicans can't have it both ways. You either care for the unborn (welfare for their mothers) or you allow the mother the choice... Which is it? Answer: First, I am not slinging mud at Obama. I would be against abortion no matter who was running for office. Second, I am not a rich republican but a poor democrat. Sorry to dissappoint! Third, I believe that education about birth control and sex should be funded more, there should be more support out there for teens on how to NOT GET PREGNANT in the first place. Second, there are NO unwanted children in the world. If the natural mother did not want the child, there should be, and I am sure there are, government funded programs to allow these girls to adopt out their babies to the MILLIONS of people who want to adopt. Also, our government should help fund would be parents to be able to adopt w/o having to spend thousands of dollars to do it. So that way people in the good ole' USA could adopt w/o having to go to third world countries to do it. Another thing, the government should reevaluate their priorities in that it costs almost nothing to have an abortion and commit murder versus spending thousands on adoption. Go figure that one!
Not all abortions are a form of birth control, ya' know. I knew a very religious lady that aborted her child due to hydrocephalus. The child would been born deformed/a vegetable. This would have put this lady at high risk. She prayed about it and soon after aborted the child. She had to live with that.
That is the child that God gave her. I dont have all the answers about why that would be, but murder is still murder. So does that mean because the baby was deformed that he was less of a baby, a human life? Not our call to make. As far as her having to live with that, this is true. However, as a Christian, we also have to live with whoever we put into office. They represent us, our beliefs. We have to answer for who we give the power to. We are all responsible.
Not all situations are the same. Furthermore, you can't force your child to have a baby or to have an abortion. Either way, it's her body.
In the OT of the Bible God speaks about the children of Israel. They were worshipping an idol and offering their children to it. He spoke about innocent blood be shed and he was angered by it. He speaks quite clearly that it is murder. Also, if anyone supports abortion, I think they should go to the faith board and click on the post not for everyone and find the link in there to a video, copy and paste and watch what happens to an aborted fetus. At 19 weeks what a baby looks like and see what happens to them when the are killed. I mean, after all, if you can condone it, then you should be able to watch it. |
answer s/m
There is absolutely nothing wrong with being Roman Catholic. There is something wrong when priests or pastors start threatening their parishoners with he11 fire if they don't do as they say. They need to stick with God's business and leave politics out of it.
Answer
When I first answered Amanda her post said that anchor babies by virtue of being born on American soil are american citizens. I said I was fine with that. The reason I am fine with that is because the 14th Ammendment of the Constitution, section 1 says -
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I have not yet found anything in the Constitution that talks about the parents of the child needing to be US Citizens.
There is a lot of info out regarding this subject. I did find an article from the Seattle newspaper that the republican party is talking about no automatic citizenship for kids born to illegal immigrants. Here's that article.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2004450665_gop01m.html
Here's another article that I just found interesting. This one talks about the people who knowlingly break our laws just to have their kids born in America.
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article4435.html
All I say is that if it is in the Constitution we need to follow it. The Constituion and Bill of Rights were written with a purpose.
If an child is born in America to illegal parents, and the constitution says that baby is a US Citizen then that child should be allowed to run for President just like all the other people born in America. If the person is born outside of US soil then no they are not eligible.
Obey the Constitution and stop trying to change it (no, not you personally, that's just my motto).
Answer...(sm)
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Orderly-bankruptcy-option-auto-firms/story.aspx?guid=%7B86C06032-FA65-4B0A-AC3C-EBA0CA835D11%7D
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/orderly-bankruptcy-option-auto-firms/story.aspx?guid=%7B86C06032-FA65-4B0A-AC3C-EBA0CA835D11%7D&siteid=yhoof
There are numerous other articles about the bankrupcy thing. Just Google *orderly bankrupcy.*
As far as the ethics bill (keeping in mind that I have not been able to read the actual bill yet--can't wait to get hold of that one) employers are not allowed to reprimand employees for exercising thier rights under this bill. So, while some might be able to fire people *at will* others can't.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#28304676
As soon as I find the bill itself I'll post it or post a link.
I already know the answer to that one...
nm
Sometimes no answer is all the answer
rhetorical questions seem to throw them into a real tizzy, so I'm not expecting anything more insightful than "whichever way our winds blow."
A serious answer
First of all, when you say that you don't ..."sit back and expect Obama to take care of putting gas in your car and making your mortgage payments" you imply that people who voted for Obama DO. You're entitled to express your opinion, but if this is all you got, then you deserve to be flamed. The "American Spirit" is NOT confined to the Republican party. If you actually listen to what Obama says, he has repeatedly stressed personal responsibility time and time again. There are millions of Democrats in the same financial boat you're in who believe in the same American Spirit and personal responsibility that you do.
Second of all, many of the promises Obama made on the campaign trail have to be put on the back burner because of the financial crisis he inherited that is far, far worse than what's been reported and is going to get a lot worse before it gets better, regardless of what Obama does or doesn't do.
Closing Gitmo has nothing to do with protecting the US from future terrorist attacks. Closing Gitmo is the right thing to do. Not torturing people is the right thing to do. Staying within the rule of law is the right thing to do.
Obama's support didn't happen in a vacuum, you know. People who feel like they've been living under a slimy rock for the past eight years can suddenly see a light at the end of the tunnel and are inspired again. That's a powerful thing that you can't quantify, and the only people who were truly inspired by the last administration are the people who are responsible for the financial mess we're ALL in and are now laughing all the way to the bank. What do you think Cheney's copay is?
Ok, answer me this
If terrorists and/or plotters as I like to call them are not Americans, why should they be tried as if they were? They are not afforded the same rights as Americans for they are not such. I uinderstand there are "innocents" at Gitmo, but if their own countries do not want them back, does that not make you stop to wonder why? And, what should be done if Bin Laden were to be caught? One of the whole points of Gitmo is so that enemies of this country are not on the mainland. I believe the UN should be responsible for trying these terrorists under the name of whi8chever country they terroroized.
I am going to answer this last little bit and then...
I am finished indulging you. I bought it three years ago. I moved in August. I rented it this month after my sale fell through because the buyer could not get financing. Yes, mobile homes do depreciate in value, but the five acres that it sits on have appreciated greatly and, like I said, I bought it way under market value. My husband is in the military, so we move frequently. Is there anything else that you think I am lying about, or are you finished?
I don't know the answer to this.
One big concern I have is giving money to people who got us here in the first place. From your post I am going to assume (and please correct me if I'm wrong) but you and your husband would be fine if he had not have gotten laid off and you didn't have medical issues keeping you from work. That sucks and I get that. However, people who can work and won't......people who ran up their credit bills and got loans they couldn't pay. These are the people that government will help.
They won't help people like us who have worked and supported ourselves for so long and because of the irresponsible people....we are now suffering and struggling. If my husband's dealership would be closed by his boss, I have no clue what we would do. He makes most of our money. The only thing we owe money on is our house. We have everything else paid off through years of hard work. If by chance my husband loses his job and we can't pay for our house, government won't help us. They will take everything else we have busted our rears to pay off. Yet there are people sitting on their lazy butts, popping out more children, smoking their cigarettes, drinking their beer and they are getting government checks to keep up that wonderful lifestyle. They are rewarding irresponsible behavior and I just cannot stand for that.
I don't know that I agree with more government spending as I think that is what has largely got us in this situation to begin with, but I do know that having increased government spending AND tax cuts in the same bill just isn't going to do anything. This stimulus package will not work. If it does, I will gladly eat crow, but I just don't think it will.
|
