Whoa! Who said I am a Democrat?

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

"would much rather live in an environment of mutual respect, cooperation and tolerance, rather than taking the fearful, suspicious, paranoid, cold-blooded, hateful, exclusionary approach you and your buddies are promoting."

Whoa Nellie!!! Do you know the difference between legal and illegal????  I am all for LEGAL immigration.  I would not thank anyone to come invade my home and demand their right to do so nor do I thank those coming into our country ILLEGALLY for doing the same thing. 

As for Houston, once again I can't quite get a grip on your perspective.  If you're happy in Sharpstown, more power to ya but most of the people I know who still live in Houston certainly don't share your view.  If memory serves me correctly, didn't they close the 59 flea market because of high crime?  As for Bellaire, it used to be a pretty elite neighborhood but I doubt it is now.

Thanks for the "education" anyway.

I had no idea!   Do you want to know something embarrassing?  I didn't even know about earned income credit until my child was 10 years old.  I was raised with such a Republican attitude I couldn't even give money back to myself!!  GEEZ!!   I would do my own taxes and didn't know I could claim it.  Then one year I did Turbo Tax and was like WT&*&*&&!!!!!    Be glad I'm not an accountant or doing your payroll!  

Okay, I just IM'd my loser SIL and asked how much she got back.  She said $6200.  I'm ticked now.  She buys groceries for her grandma once a week and pretends that is a real job.   

Forget everything else I have said tonight.  Arrghhhh!!!

This is/was a good board with some good folks.  PERHAPS she just hadn't seen these posts.....maybe....hope that's the case.

Otherwise, I agree that it's probably time to boycott this board. I have long been aware of the definite bias of the powers that be.  But I still hold out hope for fairness in the long run.   And I was banned on the conservative board for calling someone stupid!!!!  (which I shouldn't have, I admit).

First and foremost, please express my personal appreciation to your husband for his service to this country.  By no means would I EVER  ridicule a military person.  They have served and DIED for the freedom we have and they continue to do so.  I say the war in Iraq is ridiculous and that is my personal opinion.  I think it was wrong from the getgo and I think it is WRONG to put our service men and woman in harm's way with many of them sacrificing their lives needlessly.  There has never been peace in the middle east and there never will be (IMO) all the way back to biblical times.

Bush's "excuse" for the war was to capture or kill bin Laden wasn't it?  So why has that not been done?  Because, again in my opinion, the war is not against terrorism but about the wealthy oil barons.

AND, I pray for you and your husband.  You too are making a great sacrifice and, again, your husband is serving his country and for that he deserves and gets from me the utmost respect whether or not I happen to agree with the politicians who sent him to war.  May he be safe and soon return to you.

Back up the train.  Fox news isn't blaming illegal immigrants for swine flu.  Did you get that spin from MSNBC?  The swine flu did get started in Mexico so anyone traveling to and from Mexico, including illegals, are a potential threat of spreading the flu.  That is common sense. 

As for N. Korea.....regardless of whether they are going to test their missiles just for sh!t and giggles or so they can nuke someone.....a threat is a threat and there is no reason why the UN should apologize. 

My husband gets a pretty good retirement check each month so I would argue they didn't QUITE steal all the pension money.

The BBC is very liberal, so this is quite shocking!

 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7700913.stm
 

Viewpoint: The case against Obama
Peter Wehner
Former deputy assistant to President Bush

If the polls hold, the American people will elect Barack Obama as their 44th president.
He is a man of prodigious political talents who exudes grace, equanimity and self-possession. He is unflappable, possesses a first-rate mind, and is capable of inspiring rhetoric.
And he would be a very bad choice for president.
On the most important issue he has confronted as a legislator, the surge of forces in Iraq, Senator Obama was a harsh critic.
His opposition to President Bush's new strategy was wrong.
Much worse is the fact that Obama continued to oppose the surge at every stage, even after it was obviously succeeding.
To this day, even as he finally concedes the surge has "succeeded beyond our wildest imagination," Obama insists his opposition to the surge was correct.
Senator Obama's view is that a defeat in Iraq would somehow help our efforts in Afghanistan.
Indeed, if Obama had had his way, all American combat troops would have been withdrawn from Iraq by March 2008, which would have led to civil war and genocide; an unprecedented victory for al-Qaeda and Islamic jihadists; and a boon to Iran.
This fact is, by itself, a shattering indictment to Obama's judgement, and in the area that is the most important responsibility of a president: his duties as commander-in-chief.
Extreme liberalism
I suspect, too, that Obama will, as his running mate has said, invite an international challenge early on.
Obama appears to be a man who dodges conflict and hard decisions; the result may be dangerous displays of indecision and weakness.
Beyond that is the fact that Senator Obama, while exuding a centrist style and employing soothing rhetoric, has amassed a record that places him on the extreme left end of our political spectrum, whether the subject is taxes, trade, healthcare, the size and role of the federal government, the federal courts, missile defence, or virtually any other policy area.
In fact, Senator Obama has been judged by the non-partisan National Journal as the most liberal member of the Senate.
His record as an Illinois state senator is, if anything, more troubling. He opposed legislation that would have prevented infanticide against children who had survived abortion attempts.
Senator Obama has presented himself as a post-partisan figure. Once again, however, his record belies his claim.
He is among the most reliably partisan voters the Democrats have.
He has not opposed the special interest groups of his party on a single important issue. And he has no impressive bipartisan achievements to his credit.
Senator Obama is, in short, an orthodox partisan, a man of left-leaning instinct who has - through the power of his rhetoric, head-snapping shifts in his position, and the attractiveness of his personality - won people over.
Race card
Even Senator Obama's claim of being a practitioner of a "new politics" is fraudulent.

Much of what Obama has presented about himself is a mirage - an impressive one for sure, but a mirage nonetheless

He has run ads about Senator McCain's position on healthcare, social security, immigration, and the Iraq war that are demonstrably false.
After saying he would never do such a thing, Obama and his supporters have employed the "race card" in a disturbing fashion - with Obama warning that key Republicans would use the fact that he's black against him, and later saying that George Bush and John McCain were going to try to frighten voters by saying Obama has "a funny name" and "doesn't look like all those other presidents on those dollar bills" (both claims are untrue).
And Senator Obama's intimate 20-year relationship with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright - an anti-American extremist - is troubling.
It reinforces the sense that much of what Obama has presented about himself is a mirage - an impressive one for sure, but a mirage nonetheless.
And even if you were inclined to believe that Senator Obama will govern as a centrist - a questionable claim, given his record - the Democratic Party will hold a commanding position in the House and Senate.
Speaker Pelosi and majority leader Reid and their committee chairmen - many of them partisan, ideological, and ruthless - will exert enormous pressure on Obama to move left.
From all we know about him, Senator Obama will not resist it or defy them. And that, in turn, will lead to overreach.
Which is why even though next Tuesday will be a difficult day for Republicans and conservatives, the wise ones will understand that our moment will come again, and perhaps sooner than we think.
Our task is to be ready.
VIEWPOINTS
Peter Wehner is a former deputy assistant to President George W Bush, and currently a senior fellow at the Washington-based Ethics and Public Policy Center. This is one of a series of comment and opinion pieces published on the BBC News website in the run-up to the US election.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/americas/7700913.stm

Applauding.

He raises some very interesting points, doesn't he?  I'm glad, too, that he wasn't fired.  I wish somebody like him (or he) WOULD run for President because I'd vote for him, as well.  After our invasion of Iraq, how DO other countries know they won't be next, and why wouldn't they want to protect themselves from an unwanted, uncalled-for American invasion? 

We need someone who can straighten out America and make it a much better place and lead by example so other countries WANT to be like us, rather than having our form of *freedom* forced upon them.

You really need to stop obsessing on me, Nina.  You've made your hatred of me known, but it's starting to get spooky.  Please find another hobby.  You're beginning to resemble a stalker. 

At the very least, you might want to scan the board before accusing me of saying things I didn't.  It will only take you a second, and you will appear to at least have some common sense and credibility if you do so.  Right now, I seem to be your target, and your hateful obsession is quite transparent.

Have a lovely day, dear.

I hadn't read the part where they included the US troops in the mix.  What I read was that the Iraqi Prime Minister wanted amnesty only for terrorists who killed American soldiers and NO amnesty for terrorists who killed Iraqis.  I felt this was a slap in the face to America, and that's the precise reason I'm so outraged over this.

It's interesting that you said that's what you *make of it.*  Every time I've read something on this issue, I walked away just kind of scratching my head because I was unable to grasp an understanding of most of it.  Even the bill itself that was voted on yesterday did nothing but express the *sense* of the Congress regarding this issue.  How can it be so important to take up Senate time, including the debate and vote, when the end result is that they are EXPRESSING THEIR SENSE?  Seems like a big waste of time to me and lends even more credibility to Harold Ford's view that it was nothing but a stunt.

What I don't understand is why 19 Republican senators would publicly place themselves in the position of voting their *sense* that they were in favor of letting terrorists off the hook when it comes to killing our soldiers, given that the majority of Iraqis think it's okay to kill Americans. 

I suppose some sense could be made of the reasoning behind it if we were dealing with terrorists/insurgents that could be trusted, but with 65% of the general Iraqi population thinking it's okay to kill Americans and 88% of the Sunni population believing so, I don't feel comfortable placing any trust in them.

I havent attacked anyone on here.  I have no problem with the republicans.  It takes both parties to run this country.  I do feel that we have gotten off on the wrong track and I do feel that Bush has not done a great job.  I dont feel that way specifically because he is a republican but because I just dont feel that he was the best guy for the job. 

I will vote for Obama.  If I had more choices, maybe I wouldnt vote for him.  But McCain worries me and I feel that given my opinions of him, I have no choice but to vote for Obama. 

With respect to the 10% tax, I still think $9,000,000 of disposable income goes a lot farther than $9,000, and 10% of $10,000,000 is just a drop in the bucket, compared to 10% of $10,000.

Anyway, my understanding of the "Fair Tax" is that it isn't based on income.  It's based on "consumption." It's (my paraphrasing) a federal sales tax instead of a federal income tax.  And spending up to the poverty level is tax-free, with their "fair tax rebate."

So if someone can afford to buy that 2006 Ferrari, they can also afford to pay the tax.  If someone can only afford a $500 1989 Mitsubishi, they will probably not have to pay any tax if it is considered under the poverty level.

This only addresses federal government tax issues, though.  It doesn't even begin to touch state, county and local taxation.

And from what I've read, I haven't heard what percentage of tax they are proposing. 

So I'm still not sure which I'm leaning towards.  I'm actually sort of swaying between the 10% and the "fair tax."

Nice to see you here, thanks for the invitation, and I agree.  We should debate here.

How can you castigate someone for being on the liberal board when you are on the conservative board.  Just pointing out a little pot-kettle scenario.   Like Brunson, I won't be posting on here anymore.  And like Brunson, hopefully you will return the favor.  Have a nice evening.

Johnson didn't have a haves, have-more, elite base like Bush bragged about having.  He just cared about normal everyday people.  How I miss those days.