Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Wow, that was a powerful, cogent, scholarly argument!..................nm

Posted By: Cyndiee on 2009-02-22
In Reply to: wrong again..nm - sorry

nm


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

There was no one cogent thought in that post. Not one. sm
blah blah blah HATE BUSH blah blah blah BURN IN HELL blah blah blah WARMONGER BUSH blah blah blah BUSH IS HITLER blah blah blah... That's all you ever say. You don't talk about Able Danger.  You don't talk about Islamic threat.  You don't talk about ANYTHING that is worthwhile.  You just spew hatred.  Reality Check was right.  There is no use in anyone coming here who does not hate Bush.  And I don't.  I don't support him 100%.  The fact is, a lot of conservatives have reservations about things like illegal immigrantion and the like.  But I never spoke of any sitting President the way you do.  And I certainly had an opportunity. I guess that's what separates us.  Hatred and lack of hatred.  In that case, I am glad to be in the latter group.  Have a nice hate-filled day. 
POWERFUL! :) nm
nm
My Bush certainly is all powerful. sm

The fact is, you don't understand Kyoto at all do you?  It's just another reason to hate Bush and it has to be so because someone says it is so.  Not only is Kyoto suicidal to any economy, the whole premise was based upon what amounts to pushing paranoid stupidity. I mean, how laughable is it to pretend that miniscule amounts of CO2 from human breath, from Dr.Peppers and Hummers give humanity more power over weather than the huge natural CO2 levels and the extreme effects of the sun? And to fight this myth, we need a price-doubling energy-banning treaty? Grrr. What a LOL!

Fact is, there's just no such thing as global warming. Today, over 40% of US states are in cooling trends. The 1930's US decade remains as warm as any since. And no US year is warmer than 1934. Even the 1922 world record for highest temperature is still held by Libya. So forget about the global myth.

Second, no weather chart in the world has ever been able to show a parallel relationship between increases in human CO2 and increases in the regional temperature. NONE. Even in Los Angeles, where large CO2 increases still produce 2004 temperatures 3.5 degrees cooler than the highs of the mid 1950's. So forget about linking man and the CO2 myth as well.

The only proven link between man and climate is in $green$ frauds, where most environmental claims are likely as corrupt as any UN oil-for-food scam.

Recently, it was revealed the UN's lead member used falsified data to hype his claim of the 1990's as the warmest in the last 1,000. As it turned out, this study, although frequently used by the media and UN to accuse human influence, was never peer-reviewed by anyone - until now.

And once it was, the study was rapidly debunked by at least 4 mainstream science publications for it's numerous errors and gross miscalulations that made his wild claims impossible to replicate. So the warmest and coolest years over the last 1,000, still remain the Medieval Warming Period(1000-1400) and the Little Ice Age(1500-1850).


So gt, be careful what you wish for. Bush was not the only President to not sign Kyoto.  For good reason.  You didn't give one cogent reason in your argument about the effects Kyoto would have on economy, especially our economy.  But then, maybe you were just looking for another reason to blame Bush when the economy was TRULY in the crapper. 


POWERFUL INTERVIEW....sm
Double wowzers!!!

I am impressed and concur with Pat and the interviewers view points.

Thanks for sharing.
Wow - powerful message
Loved it - We all need to be reminded.
Wow, you must feel very powerful,
being the All-Knowing One who knows the minds and hearts of every single person that voted for Obama.
A powerful statement I ran across today...sm
Regarding whether we are winning or losing the war in Iraq.

*Who can win or lose a battle of morality, religious beliefs, and or political ideology? Nobody wins or loses. People just continue to fight until one side finally decides it's futile to try and change the minds of the opposite party!

Peace and love...*
Powerful ad to show right to life

Link below:


And since when do the rich and powerful get to make...sm
all the decisions for the hardworking, undereducated, less intelligent, the poor and middle class to their own benfit. That is not a democracy.
A powerful message at a time we need it most
Click on the link below.  I encourage all faiths to see this message.  Thank you.
What a powerful post. Refreshing, too.
Thanks so much for sharing this profound insight.
Well, I thought for sure it was the great and powerful "O."
nm
Mesmerized followers of the great and powerful "O".....
see only one truth...that issues from the great and powerful mouth. No matter WHAT that is.
Once powerful Christian Coalition teeters on insolvency...see article.

Pat had better tell them to get their bankruptsy papers turned in before Oct. 17.


 


Once powerful Christian Coalition teeters on insolvency
By BILL SIZEMORE, The Virginian-Pilot
© October 8, 2005

The Christian Coalition, the onetime powerhouse of the religious right founded by Pat Robertson, is struggling to stay afloat.

The group’s annual revenue has shrunk to one- twentieth of what it was a decade ago – from a peak of $26 million in 1996 to $1.3 million in 2004 – and it has left a trail of unpaid bills from Texas to Virginia. Among the creditors who have sued the coalition for nonpayment are landlords, direct-mail companies, lawyers and at least one former employee seeking back pay.

It has even come to this: The company that moved the group out of its Washington headquarters in 2002 went to small-claims court Friday in Henrico County trying to collect $1,890 that remains unpaid on its three-year-old bill.

It is the latest in at least a dozen judicial collection actions brought against the coalition since 2001. The amounts sought by creditors total hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The reasons for the group’s decline are legion, say supporters, critics and experts who have followed its trajectory. Among them are the loss of key leaders, including Robertson, who resigned as president in 2001; alleged mismanagement by his successors; the cyclical nature of politics; and bitter infighting within the organization and with other political players on the religious right.

CHRISTIAN COALITION TIMELINE

1988 After Pat Robertson’s failed bid for the Republican presidential nomination, he turns to Ralph Reed – a shrewd political operative who became a highly visible spokesman for the religious right – for day-to-day operations of the coalition founded in 1989.

1997 Ralph Reed leaves the coalition and later sets up a political consulting business in Georgia, where he is now seeking the 2006 Republican nomination for lieutenant governor.

2000 The coalition, which had been based in Chesapeake through the 1990s, moves to an office on Capitol Hill in Washington.

2001 Robertson resigns as president, turning over the reins to Roberta Combs, right, who, within a year, closes the Washington office and moves the group to South Carolina. Since its move to South Carolina, the coalition has been pursued by a variety of creditors, including suppliers of services for its 2002 “Road to Victory” rally in Washington.

2004 In a fiscal report to South Carolina, the coalition claims revenue of $1.3 million and expenses of $1.5 million, leaving a $200,000 deficit.

“Their future is really bleak,” said Mark J. Rozell, a professor of public policy at George Mason University who has followed the Christian conservative movement for years. “The Christian Coalition is a shell of its former self.”

In one sense, the group is a victim of its own success, Rozell said. It is widely credited with helping Republicans seize control of Congress in 1994 and the White House in 2000, but with those goals achieved, it has lost much of its reason for being.

“These types of opposition groups tend to do really well when the other party is in power – especially, for a religious right group, when the folks in power are Bill and Hillary Clinton,” Rozell said. “But when Bush is in the White House and the Republicans control Congress, the need for a Christian Coalition as a counterweight to established power just isn’t that great.”

Coalition officials insist everything’s fine. As if to underline the point, last month they announced the hiring of a new executive director, Jason T. Christy, the 34-year-old publisher of The Church Report, a national news and business journal for pastors and Christian leaders.

“The Christian Coalition is going to be around for a long time,” said Roberta Combs, the group’s president. “I really believe that with all my heart.”

The coalition arose from the ashes of a failed 1988 bid for the Republican presidential nomination by Robertson, the Virginia Beach-based founder of the Christian Broadcasting Network.

To run the group’s day-to-day affairs, Robertson brought in Ralph Reed – a shrewd political operative who became a highly visible spokesman for the religious right.

The coalition mobilized millions of conservative Christians with its voter guides – pocket-sized candidate scorecards distributed in churches.

Reed left the coalition in 1997 and set up a political consulting business in Georgia, where he is now seeking the 2006 Republican nomination for lieutenant governor. He has also become a central figure in the American Indian casino gambling scandal surrounding indicted Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

The coalition hit its zenith in 1996, when it pulled in a record $26 million in revenue. By contrast, in its 2004 annual report to the South Carolina secretary of state, the group reported $1.3 million in revenue and $1.5 million in expenses, leaving a $200,000 deficit.

Based in Chesapeake through the 1990s, the coalition moved to an office on Capitol Hill in Washington in 2000. Its Chesapeake landlord sued the group in 2001 for $76,546 in back rent, in a case that is still open in Chesapeake Circuit Court.

Within months of the move to Washington, 10 black employees filed a racial discrimination lawsuit alleging that they were forced to enter the office by the back door and eat in a segregated area. The coalition settled the suit in December 2001 for about $300,000, according to several published reports.

That same month, Robertson announced his resignation as president, saying he wanted to spend more time on his broadcast ministry and Regent University, the Christian school he founded next door in Virginia Beach. He was succeeded as president by Combs, head of the coalition’s South Carolina chapter, who closed the Capitol Hill headquarters in November 2002 and now runs the group from an office in Charleston, S.C.

On its Web site, the coalition still lists a Washington post office box as its mailing address, but it no longer has an office in the capital. It employs a lobbyist who works out of his home.

It was the move from Capitol Hill that left an unpaid bill resulting in the claim against the coalition Friday in Henrico County. The coalition is contesting the claim.

Since its move to South Carolina, the coalition has been pursued by a variety of creditors, including the mailing companies Pitney-Bowes and Federal Express. The group has also been sued by suppliers of audio, lighting, exhibit construction and other services for its 2002 “Road to Victory” rally in Washington, which featured a star-studded lineup of speakers, including Robertson and now-indicted House leader Tom DeLay.

Even the coalition’s longtime Virginia Beach law firm, Huff, Poole & Mahoney, has joined the chase. The firm secured a $63,958 judgment for back legal bills in 2003 that resulted in a garnishment of the group’s bank account and a partial payment of $21,136. The firm has retained a South Carolina attorney to try to collect the rest.

One of the coalition’s most costly legal battles was a 2002 blowup with Focus Direct Inc., a San Antonio direct-mail company that sued the group over a major fundraising campaign that went sour. The case dragged on for two years. Combs said it was settled for $200,000.

One of the coalition’s co-defendants, Northern Virginia fundraiser William G. Sidebottom, declared bankruptcy as a result. His attorney, Kevin M. Young of San Antonio, said it was a messy case.

“My father was a preacher, and I became aware of an old saying: 'There’s no politics like church politics,’” Young said. “This is an example of that. On the outside, everybody’s making a happy face, but behind the curtain, it was pretty unseemly.”

And then there’s family politics.

Combs hired her daughter Michele as communications director and Michele’s husband, Tracy Ammons, as a Capitol Hill lobbyist. When their marriage dissolved into a nasty divorce and child-custody battle, Ammons was fired.

He then sued the coalition for $130,000 in unpaid salary, accusing his mother-in-law of “personal animosity and malice” arising out of a desire to break up the marriage.

Explaining in an affidavit how he went months without a paycheck, Ammons said: “I believed that … I could trust my own mother-in-law.”

In another affidavit filed in the Ammons case, Tammy Farmer, who worked at the coalition as a bookkeeper in 2001, said she found the group’s financial affairs in disarray.

“I witnessed a very consistent and chronic pattern of Roberta Combs intentionally refusing to pay valid debts, salaries and accounts for no discernible reason,” Farmer said.

As the overdue bills piled up, Farmer said, telephone service would be cut off occasionally and vendors would refuse to do further business with the coalition.

Farmer said Combs frequently told her, “Don’t pay … they’ll never sue.”

Debt is nothing new for the coalition, Combs said Friday.

“In 1999, when I came into the national organization, it had debt,” she said. “I had to do a lot of creative things. It has less debt now than it had then.”

The Ammons case is in arbitration, but fallout from it continues. Arlington County Circuit Judge Joanne F. Alper imposed $83,141 in sanctions against Ammons and his attorney, Jonathon Moseley, for improper and frivolous pleadings. Both declared bankruptcy as a result.

The coalition’s attorney, Brad D. Weiss, moved last month to withdraw from the Ammons case, citing an “irreconcilable conflict” among himself, the coalition leadership and its board.

Meanwhile, two other attorneys, H. Jason Gold and Alexander M. Laughlin, who had been representing the coalition in the Ammons bankruptcy proceedings, moved to withdraw as well. Their reason: The coalition had failed to pay them.

News researcher Jakon Hays contributed to this story.


LOL No argument s/m

I'm neither Democrat or Republican, I usually call myself independent.  I march to my own drum.  I would have liked to have seen 2 different candidates than what we had.  I would have liked to see a true Christ-like man, humble and honest in his/her campaign...i.e. the "Straight Talk Express" which McCain claimed to have and didn't.


I simply voted AGAINST the man who bragged that he had voted "with the president over 90% of the time, more than even his Republican colleagues."  We certainly need change.  I know I haven't fared so well under Bush.  All is not lost for those who think Obama is a monster if he in fact turns out to be what he's been accused of being. .  Remember Richard Nixon? 


you win the argument
If you like Bush you are a rare person indeed. His approval rating is 26%.

So now is your time to shine because your guy is still in charge and you should enjoy it.
Yes, anything to make an argument...sm
No pun intended to reality check, but yes anything can turn into an argument. Yep.
Why don't you take your little argument over to the CON board.
You can con each other on the CON board.  How's that?
So is posting the same argument.
I remind you that the monitor recently posted we could cross-post, as we have had liberals on the conservative board, as long as the posts were not bashing. 
Wow, that's a good argument....
it is not a personal choice. There are two people involved, one of whom has NO choice. Not fair.
Is that your only argument for socialism?
My word....people are committing adultery on both sides of the fence, that will never change. What in the world does that have to do with socialism and socialists candidate?
But you have made your argument here FOR
You already know where Obama stands. He has said outright he will raise taxes to pay for more social programs. He wants to tell you how to get your healthcare. I agree we definitely need to do something about healthcare but then that could be easily done if the fat cats on capitol hill, including Obama, would stop insurance lobbyists and make it illegal for lobbying....period!!! They then would have to make it more affordable or they will not have a business to run in the first place.

I too would like to see our troops come home from Iraq but not give that money to Obama because it will be wasted faster than you can blink and on what? More socialist programs...

If you look deep into what Obama hasn't detailed in his healthcare plan, you will see that you WILL be paying DEEPLY for it. He has managed to waltz around the details of his plan, which include HUGE tax hikes to pay for that wonderful healthcare he wants to give you.

With the two candidates I am left to choose from, I choose a capitalist over a socialist any day. I'm about to believe Obama would sell his soul to the devil to get in that position.
Okay, that argument aside, here's a legitimate
What will be your thoughts, and more importantly - your ACTIONS - if the candidate of your choice doesn't win?

Where do you go from there?
Do you have a plan as to what you will do, or not do, or change, or flee, if your candidates lose the election?
I can see both sides of the argument
Yes, many people are getting threatened and businesses getting picketed for supporting Prop 8. You cannot deny that (what was the pink taliban or whatever that disrupted church service a month or so ago?)

But on the other hand, if they want these donations anonymous, than that means Obama and other politicians can make their donations anonymous, and I think it's the publics right to know who is financing the next leaders of the country.

I just find it interesting that the homosexuals are assaulting and threatening supporters of the Prop 8 for what they believe in when they themselves are asking for fair treatment for what they believe in.
You don't do your argument any good

by talking down to people.  The point I gathered from the the Bloomberg article seems to state what many have said and that is that with all the spending the government has done and will continue to do, the government could have paid off almost all mortgages and settled what was touted as the root cause of all the problems, the subprime mess. 


Bailouts don't work, handouts don't work, the free market does. 


With one mistake after another, rookie Obama's decisions and policies demonstrate one thing only and that is his stimulus package is political payback instead of finding genuine solutions.  The vagueness of his campaign speechmaking was the work of a hollow wordsmith after all. 


"I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle."
-Winston Churchill

 


I am so sick of this argument
All that clause means is that their will be no state sponsored religion - like saying everyone has to be Baptist or Lutheran or Catholic. It had nothing to do with taking God out of the white house or supreme court or anywhere else! The only reason that happened is because Christians just sat by and didn't say anything while everyone else whined about it and now it's too late to reverse all that because the mindset now is "oh we have to have separation of church and state!"

Of course as greedy and grimy as politicians are these days they probably feel better thinking that God doesn't pay attention to politics!

Here's some quotes from the founding fathers:

William Bradford
• wrote that they [the Pilgrims] were seeking:
• 1) "a better, and easier place of living”; and that “the children of the group were being drawn away by evil examples into extravagance and dangerous courses [in Holland]“
• 2) “The great hope, and for the propagating and advancing the gospel of the kingdom of Christ in those remote parts of the world"

John Adams and John Hancock:
We Recognize No Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus! [April 18, 1775]

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798

“The Law given from Sinai [The Ten Commandments] was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code.”
John Quincy Adams. Letters to his son. p. 61

Benjamin Franklin: | Portrait of Ben Franklin
“ God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel” –Constitutional Convention of 1787 | original manuscript of this speech

In Benjamin Franklin's 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach "the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern."


Patrick Henry:
"Orator of the Revolution."
• This is all the inheritance I can give my dear family. The religion of Christ can give them one which will make them rich indeed.”
—The Last Will and Testament of Patrick Henry


Thomas Jefferson:
“ The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.”

“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.”

"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."

Article 22 of the constitution of Delaware (1776)
Required all officers, besides taking an oath of allegiance, to make and subscribe to the following declaration:
• "I, [name], do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration."


That is a valid argument. Thank you

I heard that argument..(sm)

They're saying they'll have to raise taxes when the extended benefits run out.  This doesn't make sense to me.  If while they are receiving extended benefits they are creating jobs with the other aspects of the stimulus, wouldn't the total bill for unemployment go down? 


Not a good argument...(sm)

I could just as easily say that if you believe in the sanctity of life so much, why are you willing to torture and kill others.


That argument won't work because most people who are pro-choice do not believe that life begins at conception.


Ah, the persecuted Christian argument. Please.............

That was the argument in 1960. We didn't buy it then and we are...sm
not buying it now almost 50 years later. Religion should have no part of politics any more than race, gender or anything else that has no bearing on whether a person can lead.
That whole "blood for oil" argument is garbage.
nm
An argument for redistribution of wealth

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/revenue.cfm


FY 2007


Total tax revenues for FY 2007 are composed of:


1.     Individual income tax                  45%. 


Included in individual income tax category are capital gains taxes, which make up between 4% and 7% of individual income tax revenues and between 2% and 3% of total tax revenues within this category.


2.     Payroll taxes                               35%


Social insurance (Social Security).  Funds used to pay for Federal Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance, Unemployment Insurance, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, Medicare/Medicaid, State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)


Supplemental Security Income (SSI).   Individual's share of this is 17.5%.  


3.     Corporate Income Tax                 15%


4.     Excise Tax                                    3%. 


Essentially a consumer tax on alcohol, cigarettes and gas. 


5.     "Other"                                          2%


 


So, individuals' share of total tax revenues amounts to approximately 65.5%, employers 17.5% and corporations 15% plus the mysterious "other" of 2%.    


 


If you go to the above link and scroll down about halfway, you will find a nifty little chart that shows how much the share corporations paid into total tax revenues has diminshed since 1950.  For example, an early 50s spike on the graph show corporations' share to be approximately 30+%...TWICE AS MUCH AS IT IS NOW.   


 


A couple of other points of interest: 


http://www.sba.gov/ADVO/laws/statement07_0309.html


"…tax compliance costs employers with less than 20 employees a total of $1304 per employee as compared to employers with 500 or more employees which incur $780 per employee to comply with Federal taxes.(6) Put another way, small entities pay 40% more for tax compliance than employers with 500 or more employees.


 


http://www.cbpp.org/8-9-05bud.htm


Center on Budget and Policy Priorities – How Robust was 2001-2007 Economic Expansion?  Figures 1 and 2 will indicate the following information:


 


Based on the 7 economic indicators, Bush years turned in below average growth percentages in every single indicator except for one….CORPORATE PROFITS.  The biggest losers….employment (JOBS) and wages and salaries (PAYCHECKS).   To make this dry economic data a little bit spicier, 2 comparisons have been shown…Bush years against Post WWII averages and Bush years as compared to the 90s decade.  I have run averages on the trough and peak growth comparison data depicted in Figure 2 to come up with the following overall percentages.  Pay special attention to the last 3 items. 


 


1.     Gross Domestic Product (GDP) down 31% from Post WWII average and down 12.85% from the 90s


2.     Consumption down 23.45% from Post WWII average and down 6.25% from the 90s   


3.     Non-residential fixed investment down 40% from Post WWII average and down 58% from the 90s 


4.     Net worth down 16.25% from Post WWII average and down 20.1% from the 90s 


5.     Wages and salaries (PAYCHECKS) down a whopping 55.6% from Post WWII average and down an impressive 40.55% from the 90s


6.     Employment (JOBS) down an amazing 68.65% from Post WWII average and down an impressive 46.65% from the 90s


7.     Corporate profits up 200% above post WWII average and up 126% from the 90s.    


                                  


From where I sit, there is clearly something wrong with this picture.  I will be voting for the candidate who shares this view and plans to restore a more balanced, equitable and FAIR distribution of wealth.  This is not about shifting bucks from one person to another.  This is about corporations whose butts are being bailed out right and left by us Joe Shmoes shouldering more fiscal responsibility toward their shareholders AND toward John Q. Public.  


Citizenship argument...another red herring on
Get over yourself.
The closing argument that lifts us up
what it really means to be an American.  No amount of harsh rhetoric or divisive tactics can touch the hope I hold nor the joy I take in knowing that the country I love, which has lost so much of late, is still there, is on the mend and that better and brighter days are just around the bend.     
Good argument for the 10% threshold. :) nm
nm
What kind of good solid argument is that?
All I saw was a good article assessing the state of our emergency readiness and the conservative comes back with nyah nyah, a guy got shot, hope you're happy.

Is that what anyone calls good solid argument?
I just knew some people would make this into an argument

I just thought it was pretty cool and on the lighter side. But...as usual, some people just want to argue.


Your argument does not hold a drop of water.
Number one. No they wouldn't...journalists are like lawyers...they don't rat out their sources. It is a question of professional integrity. Furthermore, the LA Times went into great detail to describe precisely what was on the video. No cigar on that media bias whining. This is what happens when campaigns declare war on the media, keep their VP pick on a short leash, avoid one-on-one interviews like the plaque and squeal out loud when the rogue goes off script. The media would not be having a field day if there weren't such an abundant pool of news stories being generated daily by this pathetically mismanaged and misguided camp.

Since when is the International REPUBLICAN Institute, chaired by McCain, the REBPULICAN presidential candidate apolitical? Explain this to me, please. The Center for PALESTINIAN Research and Study...apolitial? On what planet is the subject of Palestine apolitical? Seriously, can you point out any Palestinian living either in OCCUPIED Palestine or in the diapora who is NOT political. If it weren't political, there would have been no exchange of funds. Not at all the same as what...a little incoherent here.

The "meeting" was a farewell dinner for Khalidi held at a Palestinian community center in Chicago for this American born, Yale graduate, Oxford University Doctor of Philosophy, former professor and director of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies and the Center for International Studies at the University of Chicago, current professor at Columbia University. He is a member of the National Advisory Committee of the US INTERreligious Committee for Peace in the Middle East...a national organization of Jews, Christians and Muslims. He is also a member of the Board of Sponsors of the Palestine-Israel Journal, a publication founded by prominent Palestinian and ISRAELI journalists.

Radical Israel hater? Sam, this may come as a shock to you, but Palestinians take great pride in crossing cultures and religions for the sake of garnering peace in their war-torn country. You need help interpreting what Obama meant by "showing me my own personal bias." This is what occurs when people cross cultures, talk to one another, listen to points of view other than their own and start the process of coming to terms with the ethnocentric bias they carry around from their own cultures. I know exactly what he means. It is precisely the quality an effective foreign policy leader need to have to make effective diplomatic inroads. If you want to make something suspicious and subversive out of that....be my guest. In the absence of the tape, Sam, just how is it that you claim to know precisely what transpired during that farewell dinner?

Notably absence from you post is any direct comment on the fact that Chairman McCain's IRI funded the organization that Khalidi founded for 2 years in a row. If he is the Jew hater you suggest he is, then wouldn't that mean that once again, Chairman McCain had a vetting deficit?

Rabid rants will not support your argument.
with anything. Rememer the burden of proof thingy in the courts? Why do you think Berg the Boob is suing on grounds of "standing" and alleged "harm"...claims that thus far have been laughed out of court?
Another argument based on false premise.
underpinnings of our democracy? Here's a clue just for you. What is the function of the Supreme Court? Since when do the 3 branches of our govt NOT interpret the constitution? This has absolutely nothing to do with Obama and everything to do with the ignorance you seem to feel compelled to display, and dern proudly, I might add.

Before you try to tell the rest of us how we should be thinking and such, perhaps you should be addressing your own severe afflictions, starting with your blind hatred.
The fire safety argument is a lot of hooey.

Is it more of a fire hazard just because more than 15 people meet on a regular basis than if someone has a single  party for 30 people? 


As long as you and the other wiccans are clothed and no open-burning laws are being broken (in a residential area, that would  be a fire hazard) I would have no particular problem with your rituals.  Depending on the time of day/night and loudness of chanting, it might constitute a disturbance of the peace, same as a loud barbecue party in the neighborhood.  But with the basic concept of your meeting, no big deal.


sam, weak argument based on semantics, that reporter's
implication was all too clear, and just another stupid accusation in order to mislead yet more uneducated, misinformed voters.
I'm afraid my history lesson disqualifies your argument.
be a smartass and ask what has changed since his statement. I simply stated the obvious answer. What has changed is his MIND. If he didn't feel qualified, he would not have run. Evidently, 65,431,955 citizens agreed with this chane of heart. You cannot argue away the fact that GREAT presidents have held office with much less experience than Obama...and I look for him to be adding his name to that list of the BEST our country has to offer in short order.
Nope, never said I wasn't black, but I remember the argument you're talking about...sm
Nan, Military Brat and Bush supporter took me to task over whether or not I was black when I said *and who said I was black anyway* I'm trying to find this in archives.

But, what I can't stand is people having a preformed opinion about how I am going to think or should think since I'm black, that's why I don't post my race. Once I posted that I was African American that's when they started the *I thought you said you weren't black.* Which I have never denied my race. Sorry, but not true.
Hindsight is 20/20. The same argument could be made of North Korea if they decide to attack...sm
after Bush's 2nd term has ended.

Clinton and Bush definitely were opposites on foreign policy, but I think he did try - probably didn't do as much as he could. What Bush is doing with the war in Iraq though, I think is irresponsible as well.