What spin - these are my thoughts
Posted By: icytoes on 2009-02-17
In Reply to: Despite your attempt at spin - Afghan and Iraq are 2 different wars.....nm - sm
There is no spin to ones thoughts and feelings. I'm not sitting here trying to get you to believe one thing or another. I posted about a news story I read and my feelings. That is not spin.
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
Please do not spin my thoughts on CSK
I stated in my posts that I admire Mrs. very much. You have a very jaded view of Republicans and conservatives, so having a further conversation with you would not be productive and/or would not change your mind. I'm not trying to anyway but just trying to refute some of the gross misstatements in your posts. From your thoughts you think Repubs are the essence of evil. I think putting every Republican in the evil box implies that you are very polarized. I am not. There are some Democrats that I admire greatly as well as there are some Republicans I think should fall off the face of the Earth and vice versa.
I didn't sit and watch the whole funeral (I have to make a living). I heard Sen. Kennedy was there and spoke. I could be wrong on that one. I know there were some very upbeat and positive moments during the funeral. It definitely wasn't a dire depressing event. I'm only making comments about the politicans. You may think that no one was put off by Carter's comments, but please be assured talk radio is abuzz about the inappropriateness of the comments during Mrs. King's funeral and how classless it was. I'm sure the majority of the audience agreed with Carter. Our present Commander in Chief attended the funeral and to insult him nearly directly was definitely inappropriate and classless to say the least, especially at a funeral.
I think you need to get your facts about the Wellstone funeral straight. The Wellstone funeral turned into a Republican bash-fest by Democrats, so I don't see your point in bringing that up as an example of Republicans desecrating a funeral, because Democrats did that all on their own.
Anyway, I think America sees what is going on. I know that many people don't agree with Bush, but most people don't have the deep seated hate for Bush that you and other liberals seem to share.
This is my last post on the subject here...have a nice evening.
Sigh....spin, spin, spin, you are making me dizzy....
deny, deny, deny. I have said over and over and over again...do you people have a cognitive disability? I don't give a rip about who or when or how many times Clinton had sex or who it was with...the man committed felony perjury! He broke the law. Instead of acknowledging that, saying it was wrong, and that any President who committed a felony should be impeached, you just wanna say well no matter what he did, Bush is worse. You are so totally consumed by hatred for George Bush your value system is skewed. Look...is perjury against the law or isn't it? Should a sitting President who breaks the law not be impeached? If George Bush had dinged an intern, lied about it, and then lied before a grand jury, would you be saying you shouldn't impeach George Bush for committing perjury because he lied about sex?? OF COURSE NOT, you would he asking for his head on a pike!!
So, try to focus...either it is wrong or it isn't. It does not matter what the lie is ABOUT. It is a matter of principle...if you care about principle, and I do.
And another thing, if it WERE Bush who did the same thing Clinton did, I would be calling for HIS impeachment. Because I, unlike you obviously, believe that no MAN, including Bill Clinton is above the law.
Where did you get the figure half a million people? Oh nevermind. I am not supposed to ask you for sources, forgot....my bad.
So, even if it WERE a half million people, if you want to impeach Bush you need to fire Congress because it was THEY who voted to send the troops, not George Bush. He can't vote...helllooo.
Denial, denial, denial. It is so patently obvious...you cannot get past the Bush hatred...cannot see the forest for the trees. Amazing....utterly, completely, amazing. And at the same time...appalling.
Spin this one.
Parish President Aaron Broussard breaks down on Meet The Press
The guy who runs this building I’m in, Emergency Management, he’s responsible for everything. His mother was trapped in St. Bernard nursing home and every day she called him and said, “Are you coming, son? Is somebody coming?” and he said, “Yeah, Mama, somebody’s coming to get you.” Somebody’s coming to get you on Tuesday. Somebody’s coming to get you on Wednesday. Somebody’s coming to get you on Thursday. Somebody’s coming to get you on Friday… and she drowned Friday night. She drowned Friday night! [Sobbing] Nobody’s coming to get us. Nobody’s coming to get us. The Secretary has promised. Everybody’s promised. They’ve had press conferences. I’m sick of the press conferences. For god’s sakes, just shut up and send us somebody.
________________________
There wasn't anyone to send. By all accounts this is not a unique story. At another nursing home 30 residents perished for lack of any assistance. How many nursing homes in New Orleans? Patients too ill to move laid in the beds on the roof of Charity Hospital awaiting rescue and had to watch healthy non-essential personnel being evacuated from the roof of Tulane (closely tied to government research agencies) across the street. The chopper left and it didn't come back for them. The doctors at Charity were reduced to giving each other saline IVs to hold off dehydration so they could try to continue to protect their patients while armed drug addicts were shooting the locks below trying to get in to get the drugs they thought were there. How many of those patients or doctors are alive now? Seems like everyone coming out of there has a story like these to tell, about horrible things happening not during the hurricane or first flood but two, three, four, five days later. These aren't just unfortunate and unavoidable consequences of natural disaster.
You can spin it however you want....
And, no, I do not think she is decent. I also do not believe she will ever be First Lady. Her own mouth will put an end to that dream....
it the spin
Of course we all know they are just spinning it like they can. If Clinton had gotten Edwards' endorsement then all their talk would be about how it solidifies them as the candidate for the blue collar worker. Obama gets the endorsement, so not it's just not important anyway. It's like the spin on the WV primary. She makes it out to be this crucial swing state the likes of Ohio when it matters little and has trended Republican the last two presidential elections anyway. Well, what else can she do? If that's all you have to work with I guess you blow it out of proportion (or minimize it in the case of Edwards). That's politics for you.
Spin the spin........
I think I will throw up now. Just think, if all animals were gay! And.........truth be told.........billy goats give themselves BJs....................and there are still billy goats!!!! hahahahahahahaha!!!!!
spin, spin, spin. - sm
You stick it - this is a valid news source.
It's out of their own newspaper. What a load of crock that you know the pubs cheat! Check your facts!!!! Oh wait you do know the facts, you just don't want to admit it because your god is in there.
It's the dems who cheat! Plain and simple. You're like a child that doesn't get your way and you decided to throw a temper tantrum.
In the primaries supporters of Hillary had rigged their voting machines so that she received most of the votes, even when people had voted for Barack, they rigged it so it went for Hillary.
Supporters or Hillary who lived in New York and Pennsylvania came to Connecticut and registered there to vote in their state too.
In the 2000 election they found a huge democratic official with a voting machine in his car and he was creating more votes for AL Gore than thee were people. Even the headline in the newspaper read that more people voted for Al Gore that actually lived in the county.
It has always been the democrats who cheat and then they spin it around to make it look like the big bad republicans are doing it.
spin, spin, spin
Change the subject. Nice try. Maybe you missed a very serious case and the pitiful facts surrounding that sex ring in VT a few months ago. Are you sure you really live there? You've got some real doozies for elected officials there. You should be mighty proud to be the #1 most pedophile-friendly state in the union.
Any reason why you try so hard to avoid that story? The perp was supposedly rehabilitated when he was doing all this disgusting stuff. Of course, there's scum in every state.
I'm glad (a) I don't have kids, and (b) I don't live in VT, where you might be someone "supervising" the playground or something. Wow. Where do they find people with such twisted mindsets, anyway?
Pro-war..what a nice little spin
GT I could almost believe you were Cindy Sheehan yourself. Heck, if I were George Soros, Howard Dean, or Michael Moore I'd snatch up as a publicist, a spokesperson in a heart beat. You've sure got the rhetoric down pat. I'm sure you will take this as a compliment but it's not meant that way.
The spin stops right here....sm
So they have all had their panties in a wad for a lie. Is there any new news?
If they can find the right spin they will..sm
But they have to be careful how the approach active duty soldiers you know. Especially since they have spent the last 3 years saying liberals were not supporting the troops.
Talk about spin.....
He is giving you a $5000 tax credit to help you buy the insurance you want that fits your family's needs (McCain). And it is not taxed to you. Go read about it other than listen to what Obama's campaign says. I went to Obama's site, that is where I learned about his plan, not from his opponent, from HIM. Tax the middle class my eye. Obama says even the small businesses will not pay more than they paid under reagan. Under reagan the top rate was 28%. Obama's top is 41%. Helloo?? Laugh all the way to the poorhouse, friend. Buy a case of that snake oil. You may need it.
lol.
OMG! No SPIN on this board?
.
Propaganda - whatever spin they need
We also have socialized K-12 schools and libraries; how is it that big business missed that chance for profit? Never turned me into a Bolshevik. But somehow, if we had free health care, it would corrupt us completely. 
Well...talk about spin.
O may be spending a tad more than Bush in total budget, but he is cutting back 1.4 million on missile defense.....which, IMO, is not a very smart thing to do right now. If Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea have missiles and are sending them up and we show up with a tank....it is like bringing a knife to a gun fight.
O'Reilly: Twisted spin, again.
A quote:
O'REILLY: Massive neglect? Let's take a look at that bit of overstatement. Halfway through President Clinton's tenure in office, the poverty rate was 13.7%. Halfway through President Bush's tenure the rate is 12.7, a full point lower.
[COMMENT According to statistics obtained from the U. S. Census site, when Bill Clinton began his term as President in 1993, the poverty rate was 15.1%. By the time Clinton left office the poverty rate was 11.7%. By 2002, under George Bush the rate began to rise again to 12.1% in 2002, 12.5% in 2003 and 12.7% in 2004.
According to the Christian Science Monitor this most recent increase was unforeseen by analysts who expected the number to drop along with unemployment and may indicate a disturbing trend. While the poverty level for Asians declined and it remained stable for Hispanics and African-Americans, the only group that saw an increase was non-Hispanic white Americans living in the midwest. In other words there are 1.1 million poorer red state residents this year than there were last year.]
O'REILLY: In 1996 the Clinton budget allotted $191 billion for poverty entitlements. That was 12.2% of the budget. ... However, the Bush 2006 budget allots a record-shattering $368 billion for poverty entitlements - 14.6% of the entire budget - a huge increase over Clinton's spending. Did the elite media mention that? Jesse Jackson mention that? Of course they didn't. Because it's much more convenient for Evan Thomas and others to imply that America under President Bush has turned its back on the poor. But it's absolute nonsense. Even in the midst of the war on terror [Note: Did he mean the war of choice in Iraq?], this country is spending a massive amount of money tryin' to help the poor. So why the lie? Because political gain can be made off the suffering of others, that's why. Those who oppose the Bush administration don't care about the truth. They only want to advance their own agenda, so once again the No-Spin zone rides to the rescue.
Hard-working Americans are providing the poor with Medicaid, food stamps, supplemental security income - that's free money - child nutrition programs, welfare payments, child daycare payments, temporary assistance to needy families, foster care, adoption assistance and health insurance for children. But, it will never be enough for the Jesse Jacksons and Howard Deans of the world. Never! If they told you the truth, they'd go out of business.
Now, I fully expect to be attacked by the far-left media for tellin' you all this. I'm sure they'll label me a racist, a shill for Bush, stuff like that. But, I don't care. The dollars don't lie. We are a generous nation. And that is the truth.
COMMENT
Most of the poor in this country WORK, many of them hold down two and three jobs. If you want to read a damning book on this topic, I suggest you get Barbara Ehrenreich's Nickeled and Dimed: On (Not) Getting by in America. Ms. Ehrenreich went underground and worked at minimum wage jobs for a year. She discovered a few unpleasant facts about life on the lower rungs of the economic ladder. Self-satisfied, replete, rich men like Bill O'Reilly sit in their posh offices and scare hard-working Americans into believing that their taxes go to indigent scofflaws who sit at home guzzling beer, smoking pot, eating chips and watching TV. Those of us closer to homelessness know this is not the case.
When he mentioned that SSI (social security supplemental income) is free money, he neglected to say that it is money that goes to disabled Americans or that providing health coverage for children reduces trips to the emergency room!
Sometimes I wonder how many poor people Mr. O'Reilly actually knows or has associated with on a long-term basis? For the past 15 years I've been involved in a local program that offers music scholarship to needy families. In that time I've taught 7 different children from 7 different poverty situations and I came to know the families personally. Most of the adults in the family work really hard. Sometimes the kids worked, too, after school. Some had parents trying to break a drug habit (yes, they held down a job) or schizophrenic parents (who were incapable of working) or an abusive parent (who worked, then took it out on the family), but most were blessed with caring parents who were doing the best to provide for their children against almost impossible odds.
So when I hear guys like O'Reilly spout their simplistic tripe implying that the poor are sucking the lifeblood out of hard-working Americans, I see red.
Also, I don't trust O'Reilly's numbers on entitlement programs simply because he never once used the words inflation-adjusted dollars. If he was simply quoting raw numbers, I'd like to remind him that 15 years ago the dollar went farther. Additionally, he did not indicate through graphics or verbally whether or not there was parity between the two budgets, i.e., was he citing figures that included exactly the same programs in both figures?
Given O'Reilly's dubious track record, one cannot accept his statements without independent verification.
Yeah, loving your spin
MT was answering a POLL, not actively saying she was going back to Iraq. Any idiot could see that except people who have spin reality to suit their liking which goes on here all the time.
The MSM did cover it, but all positive spin. sm
They said the troops were unarmed. No mention of FEMA thwarting relief efforts either.
Here is an article archived on Alex's page about some of it. Of course, since it did not come from Fox News it can't be believable.
http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/mexican_dutch_troops_sent_biloxi.htm
zero still equals zero no matter how you try to spin it
x
Of course you will. It's called spin. lol...sheesh.
nm
Kissinerger Spin Doctor?
Palin, Kissinger Split on Talks with Ahmadinejad
Email
Share September 25, 2008 7:55 PM
ABC News' Teddy Davis, Arnab Datta, and Rigel Anderson Report: During an interview with CBS News' Katie Couric which aired Thursday evening, Sarah Palin called Barack Obama "beyond naïve" for wanting to talk "without preconditions" to rogue leaders.
"I think, with Ahmadinejad, personally, he is not one to negotiate with," said Palin, referring to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. "You can't just sit down with him with no preconditions being met."
"Barack Obama is so off base in his proclamation that he would meet with some of these leaders around our world who would seek to destroy America and that, and without preconditions being met," she continued. "That's beyond naïve. And it's beyond bad judgment."
Asked if she considers former Republican Secretary of State Henry Kissinger to be "naïve" for supporting talks without preconditions, Palin said, "I've never heard Henry Kissinger say, 'Yeah, I'll meet with these leaders without preconditions being met.'"
Palin was overlooking that Kissinger (with whom she met earlier this week) has backed negotiating directly with Iran over its nuclear program and other bilateral issues -- a point which Couric reconfirmed at the closer of her interview.
"Incidentally," said Couric, "we confirmed Henry Kissinger's position following our interview, he told us he supports talks if not with Ahmadinejad, than with high-level Iranian officials without preconditions."
When contacted by ABC News about the split in position with Kissinger, the McCain-Palin campaign had no immediate comment.
Perception and spin are so interesting
The shoe-throwing incident is a perfect example. I saw Bush pretty nimbly dodging the thrown shoe, not ducking or "cowering" as some of the MSM talking heads described it, just whipping his torso to the side briefly, and centering up again with remarkable aplomb.
Wondering what he was supposed to do: Stand still and get smacked? Execute a perfect tai kwon do block? Catch and throw it back? Just askin'.......
Wrong - no matter what way you spin it
I make less than 250K a year and my taxes have doubled. Each year I used to either get something back (it was small, maybe a 100 or 200) or break even, and on top of that I used to get a rebate. Now because of the tax INCREASE my taxes are doubled this year.
Why you keep saying $250K is beyond me because even after he said 250, he then said I mean $200, then I mean $175, and then it went to I mean $150. Even Bumbling Biden came out and said it's now $150.
What your spewing is spin. In other words it's a BIG FAT LIE. "He passed the largest middle class tax cut" my foot. That's in the same boat as "voluntary mandatory"
His plan is to make the middle income poor, raise the lower income to be poor/middle income so we're all equal. And he aint touching the wealthy.
Tax cut my butt...One big fat lie and I know because I am now reaping the consequences of his tax INCREASE!!!!!!
Conservative Spin Fail
Cavuto was directly addressing coverage by cable news organizations when he made those quotes, directly comparing Fox News to CNN and MSNBC. (Watch the video clips.)
And, unless they covered it on Married with Children or the X-Files, there was no "Fox" coverage of the Million Man March because the only news broadcasts on Fox at that time were provided by local affiliates from other networks,and that was at the discretion of individual stations. They did not have a national nightly news broadcast.
It's a figure of speech..., not spin. I was always referring only to.
x
ADHD. The no bash reply was to your spin
Of course we should compare plans. Your question is a rhetorical innuendo. Your words, not mine. Comparing plans is where it's at.
Think for yourself. Kick the Fox spin to the curb and think people.
nm
Nice spin there.....but give it a rest.
Nobody in their right mind wants Biden in charge of this country. That doesn't mean that person would want Obama killed if Biden wasn't the VP. So stop putting words in people's posts.
There is no spin, no excuse, no reason. The govt did not do as they were supposed to do.
.
Despite your attempt at spin - Afghan and Iraq are 2 different wars.....nm
x
There is no Fox spin when we are reading the same news elsehwere - see message
Believe it or not people who listen to Fox news ALSO get their news from other reputable sites (newspapers, CSPAN, local news, etc). Unlike those who will only choose MSNBC (a propaganda station) or CNN (Communist News Network). People who listen to those two stations are so blatantly hateful towards anyone else. MSNBC is the worst. The commentators on that station definitely have an agenda to put fear and paranoia out. They have nothing to back up their claims and they are attacking the other news stations (mainly Fox) because they are losing huge huge sums of money (millions) because more and more people are turning them off and watching the stations that will give them the truth, and let both sides speak without acting like elitists.
Think for yourself? Let me tell you. I've been reading this board for some time wondering why people are writing some of the stuff they do. Well yesterday while the tea parties were going on all over the country I heard MSNBC was not covering it at all. I thought that's pretty stoopid because they are going to lose more viewers if they choose not to cover a major event (which watching all the coverage even my DH said this is bigger than election day was). So I was curious and said surely they wouldn't be that stoopid. Well sure enough, nothing. However, within the first 10 minutes I saw exactly the same thing that posters like you come to the board and do. Trash others for not having the same viewpoints they (or you) do. I could only take 10 minutes of MSNBC. Then had to turn it off. However, throughout the day I kept going back to it thinking surely someone there would have sense to cover any of it. After all over a million people in this country participated. I remember MSNBC covered the million man march. I did keep switching to MSNBC through the day, but still nothing, and I was never disappointed to find the same ol hate spew being reported, and then I remembered why I stopped watching them. However, I did learn that every negative post and bashing of people who are not liberals on this board are an exact replica of what was being said on MSNBC.
The people who watch Fox news and other stations do think for themselves because we are given all the facts (both sides) and we make our own opinions and conclusions. We are not told by Keith Olberman, Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, and the others how to think and what to do and how to bash and destroy. People who continue to listen to MSNBC, CNN and other left-wing liberal stations who have nothing but hate for the other side, those are people who cannot think for themselves. You need others to tell you what your opinion should be.
...more thoughts
My feeling is that there aren't many cartoon characters that are as scary as he is. And he does appear to be a remorseless person, capable of just about anything. He has been a big orchestrator of the untruths Bush has mouthed, especially during the campaign. I can't believe he is as ignorant as it appears he was in this Plame case and that's why it's so interesting as it slowly unfolds. He seems much too devious to be caught up in something like this.
My thoughts on this
This is a twerpy, paranoid person with a tiny mind who is trying to be a tyrant on this board, as are most of the rude posters who appear on here from time to time. Unfortunately on some level they always succeed in their need to upset this board because they are very hard to ignore, like an annoying insect.
My thoughts
Unfortunately even though many of us feel we are responsible citizens on this earth, we can't rely on all our neighbors (whether globally or down the block) to also take the same care we do. Recycling still is random from state to state and lots of folks still choose not to recycle....and therefore over time it has to become a mandate. Historically that is when laws are needed, when some folks can be responsible but others can't. It seems an odd riddle that older laws we easily embrace and defend (many which are kind of silly but still on the lawbooks), but yet as the need for new or revised ones crop up we resist and feel our liberty is at risk.
I'm not sure why anyone would balk at conservation.....or even many aspects of environmentalism. My greatest hope is to leave this earth in as good of shape as possible for my children and grandchildren as well as other's children and grandchildren. Unfortunately at this point I am hoping we can at least leave a habitable planet in 50 years to our future generations. It is my true belief that our human discord will very soon become secondary to a global environmental breakdown that is a greater threat than any war has ever been. Hope I am wrong.
Thanks for you thoughts
It's not that I dislike Hillary, it's just that I have some misgivings about her and admit I know little about her political stance....and I like Obama and Edwards without any reservation. I would gladly vote for her if she gets the nomination...that I do know!!
a few thoughts
Although I tend to be Pro-Choice I am very much against abortion. The whole idea of it is disturbing for me, to say the least. As far as the death penalty, I think that's a bad idea also, but there are times when I find it hard to feel sympathy for the person being put to death.....I guess I'm human.
Anyway, I've always wondered why the political belief systems align in such an odd manner, as you have alluded to. It seems one group is totally against abortion but support the death penalty, support aggression in our foreign policy, support most military actions, and take a negative, hard line on government funding of programs to help the poor, particularly children of the poor. Alternately, liberals seem to be more peaceful, war-as-a-last-resort, question the ethics of a death penalty, generosity toward those less fortunate by choice or by circumstance, yet also support Pro-Choice. This has always puzzled me.
I am an agnostic and happy to let the mystery be without pretending and hoping to know the answers to the unknowable. I find spiritualism most evident in nature and feel that man needs to protect and love his/her planet. After all, it's all we have. We need to be as conservation-minded as possible and reign in overpopulation to start with.....
Some other thoughts
I agree that if she is running for the white house and it is a very close race she had every right to stay in. Nobody was telling her to get out, they were simply pointing out the mathemetical facts that there is no way she can win because she is too far behind. I've never heard any news people saying she should get out. So her & Bill's argument that everyone is picking on her and everyone is telling her to get out does not have a leg to stand on (especially because when asked to name who in the news is saying she should get out they don't have a name to give). She has fought hard (sometimes dirty - but then again each candidate fights dirty). So while I agree that she should stay in when it is so close, what I don't agree with is just ignoring the facts and treating Obama like he doesn't matter and that his supporters that voted for him don't matter. I don't agree with her doing "fuzzy math" and saying certain states that voted for him - well they don't matter. When she does her math about her having more votes, she is not counting Maine, Iowa and some other state, and she is giving some reason why she is not counting their vote (as though it's a legitimate reason). She says Michigan counts but Iowa doesn't? And New York counts but South Carolina doesn't? And this other state she won counts but one that Barack one doesn't? And she thinks that is legitimate??? And she thinks it perfectly fine that she had her name on the ballot but he didn't when they both agreed not to. They said today that the people who wanted to vote for Obama couldn't because his name was not on the ballot. And they had a total id*iot today saying, yeah, so? That is the most demoralizing thing to say as a reply. Everyone was in an uproar when Cheney said "so" when they said 1/3 of America doesn't agree to the war. Well the people should be equally in an uproar when not both candidates name is on the ticket when they BOTH agreed that it would be that way (i.e. neither name on the ballot). She and her supporters are just coming outright saying...only my votes count. If you voted for Obama, well your votes don't count. And I'm going to fight hard so that only the people that voted for me will be counted. To heck with the rest of you. That is very disrespectful and that is what angers me. Especially since she is saying "every vote should count". I also do not like being in the same category that she is saying all white women are voting for her. The fact is more white woman over 55 are voting for her. The white women under 55 and a lot of the "white" people who have had some college education are voting for Obama. She likes to inflate it to include all white people. She makes it sound as if only black people are voting for him. She doesn't care if the Obama supporters are upset or not, only her side matters to her. Which again it is a race and while I do understand what she is doing I don't approve. She has had a hard campaign (so has Obama). I also think its funny that so many republicans are trying to push people to vote for Hillary. That is because they know McCain will win hands over Hillary. Yes nobody wants another 3rd Bush term with McCain but there are so many more that do not want a 3rd Clinton term. Has to make you think, why are the republicans so determined to get her in? Because they know they will win. They don't want Obama in there because they know they can't win against him. As for her supporters...they are saying they won't vote for Obama, but when it comes down to it they will vote for him. The reason I believe they will is that Hillary has said through her campaign the most important thing is getting a Democrat in there. I hope (I was going to say I have no doubt, however, I do have a little doubt so hope is a better term), I hope that she does everything to bring a Democrat (Obama) into the white house. A lot of people support her and if they support and believe in her then they should support her decidion to get Obama elected and will vote for him. On the other hand, that little bit of doubt that creeps into my mind is that I have a sinking feeling she is going to sabatage his campaign so that McCain will be elected due to her actions and she will run again in 4 years. I guess her attempts at smearing Obama with the Rev Wright didn't work (it was her senior campaign officials that pushed that story) and now they are trying something else. We'll see how it goes. One thing she definitely needs to do is quell some of supporters into not looking like total id*iots with their screaming rampages of how its being stolen from her by a "black man" and what they say about "nobody is going to vote for a black man" and that it is just handed to Barack because he is black then McCain is going to win. This argument is biggotted and stu*pid and she should make a speech to her supporters telling them the truth and they need to put their difference of opinion aside and do the right thing. This is a contest and he is winning fair! That's the plain and simple truth. It's time to bring the democratic party together, not tear it apart for their own personal gain.
Just a few thoughts.
First of all, if your sister has been attending the same church that long and doesn't know what they are preaching about......that is just sad. As for Rev. Wright, he is all about African American Theology. Look it up.......that kind of belief is downright scary. It is all black power and no equality to it. It is racism and that is that.
Finally, my husband and I use the comment of being thrown under the bus all the time. The has been around long before the McCain campaign.
my thoughts
hatred comes from within; it is a fear-based, primitive emotion. No one can MAKE you hate. You have to come to that conclusion based on the way you view the world. Please do not project such things on a good man.
My thoughts
I will try and make this short (ya - right) . I'm reading the responses below and I am laughing. Maybe because it's late right now, but I'm reading the responses and trying to picture what you all look like and the shock that must come across your faces with the responses you receive (because I know the face I make when someone throws me a line). Just is making me giggle right now - like I say it's late.
Okay, with that said this is my feelings about both sides. I was anxious to watch the DNC this week and I will be anxious to watch the RNC next week. I want to hear what everyone has to say on both sides. I want to watch the movies about JM's life. I saw BO's film about his life and I enjoyed it. Barack seems like a very nice person who has worked hard to get where he is and has helped a lot of people (that is normal people like me, my family and friends who have lost jobs, housing etc). It sounds like he was raised on the same values I was (about caring about other people, helping those you can). I believe with the community service and past jobs he's had, and the time he has spent in the senate, he does have the experience and the common sense that a Commander in Chief needs to run a country.
At first I was hesitant to even watch tonight because the whole set up I felt was getting out of hand. People were throwing out the terms rock star, greek, temple, etc, etc. When I first saw it coming together I thought well that's a bit odd and why didn't they just have it where the convention has been all week, but once it filled in with all the people it didn't look like anything greek or a temple. I just looked like a stage on a football field filled with lots of people, and he didn't come across as a rock star. He looked very statesman like, and I could really look up to him as our Commander In Chief. Listening to him speak I was reminded of how I felt when I watched Ronald Regan talk. I felt very patriotic. To me it looked like a lot of people just wanted to hear him speak. I also didn't watch all the stuff before Barack came out because I can't stand Sheryl Crow, Bruce Springsteen (which for the life of me I wish someone could tell me the words to his songs - I listened to the music they played last night and honestly there was not one single word in his songs I could identify - not an "it" "and" or "but" it was all mumbled together - anyway...that's a whole other story). And I certainly can't stand Algore so there was no way I was going to listen to anything he had to drone on about, so I waited until the story of Barack's life and that's when I watched. I did feel that Baracks speech tonight was truly one of the more inspiring speeches I have heard in a long time. I do believe he has the American people's best interest at heart. He is a very caring person and has dedicated his life to trying to change Washington so it works for American's. He has plans that will help get the American economy back on track. It's not going to be instantly but at least I feel there will be someone who understand that America should not continue into a depression while we continue to send $1.8 billion dollars every week to Iraq when they have a surplus. I sit back and think about that and am thinking when is the madness going to end. Iraq has a surplus, we're heading for a depression yet we continue to send money to them. I believe Barack has a responsible plan to bring our troops home. The republicans are now coming out saying that the war has been a success and we won. So if we won we don't need to be there anymore. So I thought overall Barack's speech was very inspiring and gave me some hope for the future.
Also I listened to the commentaries tonight. Not all cos I had to work, but I listened to the republican commenters from Fox and two of them said that Baracks speech was inspiring and they were saying that they (DNC) spent a lot of time and effort preparing for tonight and he came through and gave one of the best speeches and really pulled it through.
My mom told me that you will never agree with a candidate on every issue, so you just vote for the one that you agree with most of the issues on. For me right now I'm seeing that I agree with more of Barack's issues than JM's, but I need to hear more.
On the economy I believe Barack is more knowlegable. I don't believe McCain knows what's going on with the economy. He seems to be stuck on how the economy is great but ask him specific questions and he does not know the answers. When he does not even know how many homes he owns how do you think he would even know how the economy is doing? He's not in touch with what we are going through as Americans. He doesn't know what it's like to worry if your going to be able to put food on your table, or put gas in the car to go to work or even have a job. As for jobs, he has voted and supported jobs going overseas and those companies getting tax breaks for doing that.
Foreign affairs. While Barack may not have years and years of experience, Joe Biden does. I think John McCain isn't very knowlegeable when it comes to foreign affairs (not when he has to constantly be corrected by Lieberman and others close to him).
Heath care - I don't know where John McCain stands on this so I can't comment.
But those are the issues I face everyday. Am I going to have a job with income to pay my bills and where is the economy going. And it's time to bring our troops home with dignity and give them whatever help they need. That's another issue I don't agree with John McCain/Bush about. I do not believe the republican party is doing as much as they can to help our troops, especially when its time for them to come home where they belong.
I do not feel that America is any safer than we were before 9-11. I know we have really p.o.'d other countries sticking our nose in where it doesn't belong trying to dictate to them how they should live and trying to force our viewpoints and political system on them making them fashion theirs as we do ours.
Also, lying in a POW camp for 5 years does not make you qualified to run a country.
More thoughts
I've read all the posts below and it's getting confusing, so I don't want to post something to the wrong person but I have some more thoughts I have to share.
First...I used the word "lying" instead of "being". That does not make me discipicable. I just used the wrong word (it's been done before on other posts so please don't attack me for that). It took away from my message which I still stand by...solely being a POW does not automatically make you qualified to run a country. Balancing the budget, getting the economy back on track, fixing the housing problem, etc, etc. To me that is what makes you qualified. Everytime someone says that being a POW does not make you qualified (which it does not), there is a poster that gets on the defensive. Nobody here is judging McCain's character or patriotism, or heroism, but it sounds like you are basically saying forget everything else, he was a POW he should be president. I just don't buy that. We all know he is a patriot. Nobody is taking that away from him but for me I need to know what your voting record is like. Second I'm reading posts and it sounds like your also saying that he is qualified because he was a POW at Hanoi Hilton. When someone brought up what about the other people being tortured your saying no they wouldn't be qualified because they weren't tortured at Hanoi Hilton and only John McCain knows what torture is. Well tell that to Jessica Lynch. Are you saying that her torture is any less because she wasn't tortured at Hanoi Hilton?
I was in the military, married military, father in military, uncle & grandfather in military. One thing they teach us in the military is torture is torture. They also teach us how to best endure it if we have to go through it (although endure is not the right word, but they tell us what we are supposed to and not supposed to do). We all have to face that possibility when we join.
Being tortured also does something to your mind. That is fact! You are never the same person you are than before you were tortured.
As for John McCains service one poster said he commanded hundreds of soldiers. I read McCain's story. He was a military officer and pilot. He was in a POW camp, but no where in his time in the service did he command hundreds of soldiers. Not all military officers command soldiers.
Lastly, of all people who know what torture is - he voted against (that's right - AGAINST) the bill to ban waterboarding (which is torture!). So he is basically saying no to other countries torturing Americans, but yes to us torturing other people. What?????? To me that tells me something about his "character". Patriot? Yes he is most definitely Patriot. Hero? Yes he is most defintely hero. Character? He has none in my book. Also, his time in the senate and how he treated his fellow senators diminished his character too. Sorry if that offends you but someone who votes that we can torture other people? Well I guess he developed a motto as a POW - "Do unto others as they do unto you".
Again - solely being in a POW camp and being in the military does not make you qualified to be President but how you vote in the senate, what you do to help other Americans, and the plans you have to bring the country out of recession does.
Exactly my thoughts......
@
Some thoughts
Oh my...Charles Manson...now that's creepy for you. When I lived in the Mohave Desert I actually was driving on some highway or road (forget where right now), but I didn't feel right. I just had this creepy feeling. When I told my friend about it she said that was the same road that Manson had travelled on on his way to murder the Tates and others. I didn't know that at the time. Manson is one case I believe the death penalty was warranted in.
You are correct. Ayers is not running for President, but Ayers did start Obama's political career in his home. Ayers and Obama worked closely together. I believe (as do many others), that Obama's ties with Ayers are just temporarily stopped while he is campaigning. No doubt in my mind he will get back with him once the campaign is over. But then you have Acorn and the Annenberg Foundation, the money Ayers/Obama distributed, etc, etc.
As for Obama's drug use in the past. I don't care about that. A lot of people did drugs (Bill Clinton did drugs and I voted for him). In our youths a lot of us do things we don't realize we will regret in the future. I don't believe Obama does drugs now AND McCain also does not do drugs now.
As for McCain and his first wife. You don't know the whole story. None of us do. Things happen in life that are tragic. People do fall out of love. My mom was a very beautiful lady (she was ballerina), and my mom and dad divorced. And they DID remain friend after that and even when she was in the hospital dying he came to visit her every day and even though they were divorced you could see they were good friends (laughed and talked about old times). People don't divorce each other just because of looks. Besides people heard John comforting his wife when she told him she was not pretty anymore he said he was not the most handsome himself. If John's first wife says she admires him and they are best friends I believe her. Why wouldn't I. I am sure the divorce had more to do with "looks", and there are people that say the marriage was over long before that. Nobody knows the "real" reason behind the divorce and I guess that would be a question to ask John McCain instead of trying to incite hatred toward a guy you have no idea about the history of. Right now McCain has been married to Cindy for 28 years and they are totally in love with each other. Always have been.
We do have 9 more days and I can't wait for the election to be over.
My thoughts
This is not going to any poster in specific and certainly not the OP - these are just my thoughts. I have many feelings about this. While I think it's wrong and would never have an abortion myself, I also believe in a woman's right to choose. If the abortion happens before the baby starts to develop (and please don't reply with a step by step guide to the stages of a baby's life from conception to birth - I know it already and no pictures or videos either - have seen them all too and I won't even open it if someone replies with those). What I'm saying is I (personally) believe that if you have an abortion at a time before the baby starts to develop (brain, nerves, etc) that is the time to have one. Once the baby starts to develop then I believe it is harming the baby. I know a lot will not agree with me, but that's my own opinion. Whether it is considered murder or not is between the mother and the Creator. Seeing as nobody has been to "heaven" and spoken directly to our Creator and lived to come back and tell us all about it, nobody knows. Options - yes there are a lot of options like adoption (I'm childless and would have loved to adopt). However, whatever a woman chooses with her doctor is their rights as a woman and as human beings. A lot will argue that it is a sin, the bible this or that, but a lot of us are not christians or believe in the bible and that is our right as human beings too. I think (again only my opinion) if anyone is going to "force" someone to have a baby because of what they believe the bible says (according to their interpretation that is), then you are also forcing your religion on them and telling them they have to have this baby no matter what the circumstances because your bible (your religion) says so. Maybe those people who are doing the "forcing" should be "forced" themselves to take the baby and raise it yourself (no you don't get to get out of it and let someone else pay all expenses (health, food, clothing for the rest of the baby's life (until they are old enough of course), and you don't get to let someone else get up in the middle of the night to do everything you have to do with a baby. YOU will take the baby yourself and YOU will be forced to raise it. Seeing as you are trying to force someone to have a child (because of your religious beliefs) that child then be your responsibility. Maybe after 20 or so kids you'd finally let people live their own lives and face whatever challenges they have to face in lives by themselves. To me this is what life is all about. We face certain challenges in life that our Creator gives us. How we handle them determines what becomes of us after we are gone. Again, until we face "Him" after we have departed nobody will know. I do understand that people feel they are the voice of the unborn child and that's all fine and good and I respect all for that, but I also respect the mother and her physician for their choice they have to make in a difficult time. As for the ones having abortions as a form of birth control - that's a whole nother argument and for that there is a technique called sterilization. IF I am wrong one day when I meet my Creator I will find out and I'll take my Creator's answer any day over anyone who is reading something from a book I don't believe in. Again, all of this is my own opinion.
Just some thoughts...... sm
2. The US Department of Energy last time I checked was a page or two before the "funnies."
I was referring to Obama's web site.
3. Within the same time (or probably less) that we could drill for more oil here in the US (which wouldn't even come close to producing the quantity we use, and would not stand a chance on the market due to taxes that are already in place) we could implement other sources of energy. In the course of this we would be providing renewable energy, decrease the horrific environmental impact on the environment, and create new jobs.
Sure, we could grow corn or soybeans or other alternative fuels. We could go with T. Boone Pickens' windfarm ideas, but these would all take years to implement as well as billions upon billions of dollars to bring to fruition. Oil fields create jobs in the fields themselves, the refineries that are already in existence and other industries that use petroleum products in their manufacturing process. Coal already comprises a large portion of the portfolio of electric companies. Do away with the coal mines and coal plants and you do away with a lot of jobs in already economically depressed areas. What are we gonna do, move all our West Virginia coal miners out to the mid west to grow soy beans? You are basically taking jobs away from one sector to provide them to another sector so, in fact, are not creating new jobs but just shuffling them around.
My point is not so much that we should not investigate other fuel alternatives, but until we have them in place, don't fine the coal plants for producing the energy our country needs and don't stop the drilling to save the caribou (they are amazingly adaptive critters). Personally, I don't think energy concerns are going to be on anyone's minds in a few short years. They will have other things to worry about.
My thoughts exactly.
nm
Your thoughts on this?
Please take note to the heading and paragraph 3. Aren't we trying to put people to work? Don't white male construction workers need employment, too? Please read some of the comments, too. The people that made comments seem to have a handle on the construction job market. I found some of their comments very interesting.
http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2009/01/stimulus-how-to-create-jobs-without.html
My thoughts
Reading all the posts below I didn't know who to respond to so just posted here. I do not believe Obama said they should die, but one poster is insisting he did but not providing the link. Not fair! Another poster said the pubs are getting pathetic. Also not fair, and in my opinion pathetic especially since nobody actually said that Obama said the elderly should die. What I'm seeing here is "pubs" are giving examples and "crats" are attacking the "pubs" because, well just because they don't agree with them. This is the "elite" attitude as though they are better (I get it all the time from some of my inlaws). But on this board I'm not seeing the hate from the pubs towards the crats like I'm seeing on the other side. The attitude that some crats have for anyone who is a pub just oozes and is getting quite nauseous (yes I know, I'll save those the trouble of writing a nasty - I'll go take a tums or pepto bismol) The only one who actually provided an actual quote to anything was Just the Big Bad.
My viewpoint is that government does not belong involved in our health care system. There are ways to fix the system without having the government in charge of it. Doesn't anyone remember the disastrous plan Hillary tried to pass off when Bill was president? All I know is I don't want Hillary or any government agency in charge of my health care telling me how many more pills I'm allowed to take to stay alive. The only thing I do know is that during his campaign Obama said no to bigger government, yes to smaller government, but now he keeps it growing and growing.
My thoughts exactly...nm
x
exactly my thoughts................nm
nm
My thoughts
Even though I wrote below I have a couple other thoughts.
As much as I hate cigarettes, and I don't drink alcohol (maybe one beer or a glass of wine once every two or three months), I am against govt getting their grimy little fingers in it. I think by now people know what cigarettes do to them and excessive alcohol drinking.
I have mixed feelings though. I think tobacco should be regulated more, and maybe if more kids were to watch videos of the lung cancer victims or alcoholics in the end stage of their lives and hear the pain and suffering they are going through maybe they wouldn't start to begin with. So maybe the govt should have a preventative plan so kids don't get hooked to start with. As for adults smoking...if they smoke they are going to smoke (just keep it away from me). Same with drinking. Although not everyone who drinks is an alcoholic.
I just don't like the govt in everything. So after tobacco it's alcohol, then we move on to fast food (bad for you so the govt should be telling you whether or not you can have it, right?), then lets see, it will be soda pop, or other sugary drinks bad for you (leads to obesity and obesity-related disease, so the govt should be regulating that for you too. Right?). Then lets see we can continue it into clothing, what people can and cannot wear (I hear in Florida they are already doing that, some underwear law or something).
All I say is people have free will. If they want to smoke or drink then that is their choice and the govt should not be able to tell them what they can and cannot do. As for diseases related to their addictions, if you think about it probably most any disease anyone gets (not all of course, but a lot of them) could be related to a poor choice of habits whether it be smoking, drinking, overeating, etc). I don't know what the answer is for costs of treating these people. Maybe there is nothing we can do for those who already do it, but just try to educate the young on the effects it will have on them in the end. All I say is govt needs to stay out of people's personal lives.
|
