Yep, homework done, everybody read
Posted By: hang on a minute on 2008-10-09
In Reply to: Federal Reserve....... I have done my homework - sm
You're hired.
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
Homework for the Fearful - article to read
An interesting article - posted at bottom of this email. Yes, FYI, it is from a liberal leaning online source.
The author suggests that fear is a powerful emotion. I knew if McCain won I would have had many fears. I also knew I would choose to try my best to trust yet stay aware. Above all, I would have wanted to see him do far better than I ever imagined and be glad to eat crow when he did, rather than to sit and wallow in my fears and disappointment, thinking he would do terribly.
Does your higher power say to fear? Mine doesn't.
I'm amazed at this day and age that anyone still believe Obama is a Muslim. Do you not realize the evangelicals and fundamentalists and extremists of our own country are feared just as much as extremist Muslims might be? As for the cries of socialism and communism - have you not Googled and educated yourself about the FACT that there are already aspects of our government HERE AND NOW that are socialistic and communistic?! (OH NO!!. And, we all accept them, want them, and both sides, Dem/Rep, brought them about. As for the embarrassing comparisons to Hitler... do you not know Bush (W) has been compared to Hitler also? It's just embarrassing. Google George W. Bush and Hitler, see whatcha find!
Find something good, even if it is the most minimal thing, that you respect the office of president. Go with it. Ignore the rest - put it in a letter like this author suggests. Turn off your TV! Better yet, get rid of cable. Read more books that make you feel good, spend time with your family. Trust that your higher power will take care of things.
Thank you for listening.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jesse-berney/homework-for-the-fearful_b_142108.html
I did my homework
While everyone knows that McCain wishes to stay in Iraq “for 100 years” (those are his words), and his attitude toward every enemy and perceived enemy from Iraq, Iran, North Korea and every other country, there are many other disturbing issues about McCain.
He believes in the neoconservative goal of remaking the world to fit our desires and beliefs. Everything you are accusing that would happen if Obama is elected will happen to other countries if McCain is elected. And you are okay with that????????
McCain has a little more contempt for the First Amendment and free speech. He is the principal author of a campaign finance bill that severely restricts political speech. He said he would rather have a clean government rather than one where “First Amendment rights are being respected”.
His general attitude is that criticism of the government, the war, and in particular himself is in some way “unpatriotic”. This is totally absurd. So he is the only one allowed to criticize his opponent? Whenever Barack criticizes McCain, McCain always comes back accusing him of being unpatriotic.
He voted in favor of amnesty towards illegals and is generally pro-immigration.
He has supported increased government regulation, support for raising social security taxes, and has persistently attacked political free speech in the McCain-Feingold Act.
For everyone who believes he will continue the Bush tax rebates each year, not only did McCain oppose those cuts, he aligned himself with the likes of Ted Kennedy and voted against both the 2001 and 2003 cuts.
“At best on foreign policy he would be a competent Bush.”
Like George Bush he tends to support federal power over federalism, executive authority over legislative, and generally leans toward the imperial presidency.
McCain voted against establishing a national holiday in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. He now says his position has “evolved” yet he’s continued to oppose key civil rights laws.
His reputation is built on his opposition to torture, but McCain voted against a bill to ban waterboarding, then applauded Bush for vetoing that ban.
McCain opposes a woman’s right to choose. He said “I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned”, so you have to wonder about the depths of his pro-life convictions.
The Children’s Defense Fund rated McCain as the worse senator in Congress for children. He voted against the children’s health care bill last year, then defended Bush’s veto of the bill.
He’s one of the richest people in a Senate filled with millionaires. Yet McCain says the solution to the housing crisis is for people facing foreclosure to get a “second job” and skip their vacations.
Many of McCain’s fellow Republican senators say he’s too reckless to be commander in chief. One Republican senator said “The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He’s erratic. He’s hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me”.
McCain talks a lot about taking on special interests, but his campaign manager and top advisers are actually lobbyists. The government watchdog group Public Citizen says McCain has 59 lobbyists raising money for his campaign, more than any of the other presidential candidates.
McCain has sought closer ties to the extreme religious right in recent years. The pastor that McCain calls his “spiritual guide”, Rod Parsley, believes America’s founding mission is to destroy Islam, which he calls a “false religion”. McCain sought the political support of right-wing preacher John Hagee, who believes Hurricane Katrina was God’s punishment for gay rights and called the Catholic Church “the Antichrist” and a “false cult”.
McCain has an irrational, explosive side that makes many question whether he is fit to serve as president and to be commander in chief. Nowhere is that sentiment stronger than in the Sensate where McCain has few friends or supporters (maybe that’s why he keeps saying “my friends” every 3 or 4 minutes in his speeches). When he ran for the nomination in 2000, only 4 senators endorsed him.
There have been witnessed incidents where he has used profanity at colleagues and exploded at them. He would disagree about something and then explode. It was incidents of irrational behavior. McCain’s outbursts often erupted when other members rebuffed his requests for support during his bid in 2000 for the nomination for president. When McCain asked for support from a fellow republican senator the senator explained that he had already committed to support Bush. The witness said McCain then said “f—you” and never spoke to him again. He doesn’t have a lot of support from people who know him well.
On another occasion at a policy lunch another senator disagreed with him and McCain used the f-word and then called him a “sh—head”. The senator demanded an apology. McCain stood up and said “I apologize, but you’re still a sh—head”. He said this in front of 40 to 50 republican senators, and people who disagree with him get the “f-word”
Many people say he is a “vicious person”. Senators are leery of speaking on the record about what McCain is really like.
In 1998 McCain stated that Chelsea Clinton was ugly and Janet Reno and Hillary Clinton were lesbians (I had wondered where that started). McCain stated “Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because Janet Reno is her father”. This is his idea of a joke?
Bertram Brown, MD, a psychiatrist who formerly headed the National Institute of Mental Health and was an aide to JF Kennedy said “The true strength of the character of the person, not his past accomplishments, will determine whether his presidency ends in accomplishment or failure”. By this statement I cannot understand why anyone would want someone with McCain’s character in the office.
Other people have said that “his temper is bombastic, volatile, and purple-faced. Sometimes he gets out of control. Do you want somebody sitting in the White House with that kind of temper?”
Judy Leiby, a longtime member of Dennis DeConci’s (Democrat) staff, worked on veteran’s issues and had differed with McCain on some of them over the years. After DeConci announced he was retiring McCain showed up in his office and was walking down the line shaking hands with the postal workers and he ignored Judy Leiby. One of the other postal workers asked if McCain knew Judy Leiby and McCain said “oh yeah I know her”. McCain turned away from Leiby, then turned back and said “I’m so glad you’re out of a job, and I’ll see that you never work again”.
Other incidents report McCain spewing profanities at another democrat in the white house, which led to pushes and shoves before the two were separated.
In 1993 McCain came across the Senate floor while mocking Ted Kennedy and then told him to “shut up”. Observers in the chamber said that “A stunned Kennedy returned the comment telling McCain to “shut up” and “act like a senator”.
McCain has been seen slamming fists on his desk, scattering papers across the room, jumping up and down, screaming obscenities for at least 10 minutes, and shook his fists like he was going to “slug” people.
The question on the minds of those who know him is whether a man who seems so out of control should have the authority to unleash nuclear weapons.
You really need to do your homework
xx
You need to do your homework......actually
You seem to be stuck on thinking anyone who is against Obama MUST be a republican. That is a very close-minded way of looking at this but if you need proof that the "pubs" aren't the only one screaming fraud, take a look at the DEMOCRATIC, yes, that's what I said, DEMOCRATIC election officials in Ohio alone who are saying they are seeing tons of voter registrations coming in in waves, with thousands of them frauds. They all have the same hand writing, false information, etc. Sorry to disappoint you again.
okay, you need to do some homework
Who owns the Federal Reserve? Who did Paulson work for? Why is J.P. Morgan the beloved son? Why was Lehman allowed to fail? Why is Citibank suing Wells Fargo to buy Wachovia with FDIC help? The banks own the government! Bush just does what he is told.
Oh if only we would do our homework....
In this time period of debtor's prison, poor houses and jails; England simply farmed out its wretched refuse to the New World, and unceremoniously dumped them out on the quays of New England.
That pattern of considering a prosperous nation a dumping ground and safety valve for failed nations, continues today, with the unbridled and endless "immigration," being foisted onto a politically correct, gullible American public. We imagine that the "Mother of Exiles" immigrant mantra, parroted by the central bankers, obligates us to absorb all the Third World riff-raff of the planet.
Our lawmakers assure us that Mexico's problems are our number one national priority. Failing that argument; they would have us believe that our country is an enforcer of United Nations resolutions.
His English friends asked Franklin how he could explain the remarkable prosperity of the New England colonies. Franklin replied:"That is simple. In the Colonies, we issue our own paper money. It is called 'Colonial Scrip.' We issue it in proper proportion to make the goods and pass easily from the producers to the consumers. In this manner, creating ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power and we have no interest to pay to no one."
This information came to the attention of the English bankers, who deemed it necessary to have the British Parliament pass a law which prohibited the Colonies from using their scrip money, and made it mandatory that they use gold and silver money that was provided by English bankers.
This was the beginning of the plague in America of debt-ridden money, which has since brought great misfortune to our republic, and is indeed now the single greatest threat to our national security, and future as a sovereign country.
Do your homework
The civil war did not start over slavery. Lincoln did not want to abolish slavery. He used it as a pawn in winning the war. Basic high school american history.
Mrs. M, you don't do your homework....
if you really cared about your freedoms in this country, that would be a BIG red flag for you. Instead, you're just so stuck on Obama being president, you can't look past the end of your nose.
Perhaps McCain should have done his homework
nm
Ah, no dear, do your homework.............
Obama stood in front of the country and declared out of his OWN mouth he would go line by line and and not only that, but would NOT allow any more lobbyists or pork spending, which we now know and most with a brain knew to begin with, was a bold face lie. He has 12 lobbyists in his administration only!!! And, as we ALL know, he has NOT gone line by line over ANYTHING.....nada! WHat a shocker there!
Federal Reserve....... I have done my homework
The Federal Reserve is not a bank...it has absolutely nothing to do with government, though it does run our government as well as many governments throughout the world. The Federal Reserve is made up of very deep filthy rich pocket individuals. Just try to find the names of those that make up the Federal Reserve....you can't. You can only find their board of governors. Our President does elect the chairman, in this case Bernanke. Fed Res is a private central bank that decides everybody's interest rates. The history on that is a good read and sickens me frankly, because it is a deceitful organization with a corrupt history. NOBODY owns the Federal Reserve except those you will never know of.....these families go back to the days of British rule, though by carefully reading, you will get the picture of who those families are.
Paulson worked for Goldman Sachs among being elected to other high boards (and has very close ties with China which scares the crap out of me); don't know what he really has going with them, so everyone should be concerned there, as half of the billions they have taken from us are now going to foreign investors/countries....why? No foreign country is going to pay us if we invest and their country fails to profit.
JP Morgan was a very powerful banker and during his time alive, he helped combine GE and actually financed steel companies in this country which created a huge economic boom for this country when it really needed it, so he basically is considered a man who saved the US economy and more imporantly, the US government on at least two occasions. This is a man who dates back to England, where his dad was also a wealthy banker, so like I said, we have always had strong ties with British banking since we tried to break from the British rule. Morgan's contributions to this country go way back and are really good ones, so he has handed down quite a good legacy. He even helped our railroads succeed. He is responsible for establishing U.S. Steel, so you can see why this company is basically gold to many. Matter of fact, he helped sell push gold to keep this country afloat. His life is a good read as well.
Now, common sense dictates why Citigroup is fighting with Wells Fargo, even though Wachovia did agree to sell to Citigroup to begin with. That's the behind-the-scenes deals that you will never know the truth about. As far as FDIC, the Federal Reserve was pushing for it, but our government did NOT want to make any financial guarantees of funds. THere is a block on that buyout for a good reason; if this took place, with a sell to either Wells Fargo or Citigroup, this would put the US citizens' money in the hands of three banks, Bank of American, JP Morgan, and whoever bought Wachovia. Whoever buys Wachovia would literally own 30% of the banking industries profits (bad, bad, bad). If only these three banks exist, they would dominate the banking industry and would have so much power that they could set their own prices for loans and services. I'm sure then stricter federal regulations would be placed on them but no doubt then the smaller banks would be so squeezed, they would have to look for buyers as well and guess who would buy them then? Wah lah....a monopoly will be formed......
So, in answer to your question, the banks don't own the governement, the Federal Reserve owns the government and always has since Roosevelt's days back in 1913. That is why those of us who understand how wrong it is for the fed res to even exist, want it abolished. Ron Paul has brought this before the floor on many occasions, to many deaf ears. Now, ask yourself why that is. Mostly, because most those nitwits don't have a clue what the federal reserve is, where it came from, and what it does.
So when you end up with just three banks, look out folks!! This has happened before with three central banks in our history and they all participated in fractional banking...creating money out of thin air.....sound familiar?
So if you want to solve this problem, blame the Federal Reserve and petition your government to abolish it NOW. I beg everyone to please do your homework on the Federal Reserve and when you think you could puke knowing the corruption of it all, then here is a site for a petition to sign to abolish it. Ron Paul has been all over this for years. President Andrew Jackson abolished the first version of a centralized governing bank. Thomas Jefferson could see this coming.....
Thomas Jefferson said, "If the America people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currencies, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their prosperity until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." This is serious business folks!!
http://www.petitiononline.com/fedres/petition.html
This looks interesting. A long read, so will read it when I get home from work. nm
nm
Obviously u didnt read, I said NONE of them are moral. Read the post before spouting off.
I read on CNN (yes, I do read liberal stuff too..hehe)...sm
...that Karl Rove was actually very disappointed in the McCain campaign for airing negative type ads against Obama.
So I would say that Rove is definitely not in the hip pocket of the McCain campaign.
Good research sam - but a lot to read right now so gotta read it later
I've been goofing off too much from work. I appreciate what you wrote and will read when I'm done with work here.
sorry, should read I did not read post that way.
,
All you have to do is read up on Marxism, read up on...
black liberation theology, and look at what Obama is proposing. All of it a matter of public record, most of it from his own mouth. Your denial of it does not change the facts. If you support socialism, vote for him. Certainly your right. You are already wanting to squelch any kind of dissent...what's up with that? If you seriously consider calling someone a socialist a smear, you really need to read up on your candidate. I did not post a smear, I posted a fact. Redistribution of wealth is socialist and he already said he was going to do it...I heard him say it and it is now a campaign commercial. Sigh.
Some on this board can only read what they want to read (nm)
x
READ THE ARTICLE-READ OTHER
READERS COMMENTS!!!
Nan please read what I have to say
I've read your latest posts. You fit the decription of a troll at times, but I don't really care about that. DOesn't matter. What I do notice is that you incite other posters with calculated insults, condescension and twisted and sometimes cruel logic. Then when the object of your insults becomes angry and lashes back you pretend to be an unfairly accused innocent and the object of someone else's crazy, uncalled-for rage.
This is compatible with borderline personality disorder. My mother had it, a brother-in-law battles it and I am all too familiar with it.
I did read it.
Not posting the whole article puts the quote out of context. It's not really a way to do things on a chat forum, but then maybe you don't post in a lot of other forums. Those I frequent always post the whole article or at least a link. It would give you a lot more credibility. Take it for what it's worth.
Read this...
Pandora's Box
September 22, 2005
By Ken Sanders
You have to hand it to the Bush administration. No matter how bad things might be in Iraq, and no matter how dim the prospects are for Iraq's future, Bush & Co. still manage to look the public straight in the eye, smirk, and insist that the decision to invade Iraq was a good one. Call them determined, even stubborn. Call them dishonest, perhaps delusional. Regardless, the fact is that by invading Iraq, the Bush administration opened a Pandora's Box with global consequences.
Bush and his apologists have frequently promised that the invasion of Iraq will spread democracy and stability throughout the entire Middle East. That naive declaration could not be farther from the truth. Not only is Iraq itself in the clutches of a civil war, the U.S.-led invasion threatens to destabilize the whole of the Middle East, if not the world. It may have irrevocably done so already.
By most definitions and standards, Iraq is already in the throes of civil war. Whether defined as an internal conflict resulting in at least 1,000 combat-related fatalities, five percent of which are sustained by government and rebel forces; or as organized violence designed to change the governance of a country; or as a systematic and coordinated sectarian-based conflict; the requirements of civil war have long since been satisfied.
While our television screens are saturated by images of chaos and death in Iraq, the stories beneath the images are even more disturbing. Purely sectarian attacks, largely between Iraq's Sunni and Shiite populations, have been rising dramatically for months. According to Iraqi government statistics, such targeted attacks have doubled over the past twelve months. Police in Iraq are finding scores of bodies littering the streets, bodies of people who were blindfolded or handcuffed, shot or beheaded. The Baghdad morgue is constantly overwhelmed by bodies showing tell-tale signs of torture and gradual, drawn-out, agonizing death.
In Baghdad, Sunni neighborhoods live in fear of Shiite death squads like the Iranian-backed Badr Brigade of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), Iraq's leading Shiite governing coalition. Such death squads operate openly, in full uniform, and with the deliberate ignorance, if not outright sanction, of the Iraqi government. On a single day in August, the bodies of 36 Sunni Arabs were found blindfolded, handcuffed, tortured and executed in a dry riverbed in the Shiite-dominated Wasit province.
At the other end, Shiites face each day burdened by the terror and trauma of being the targets of constant suicide bombings. The army and police recruits killed by suicide bombs are predominantly Shia. In Ramadi, a Sunni stronghold, Shiites are fleeing their homes, driven out by murder and intimidation. On August 17, 43 Shiites were killed by bombings at a bus stop and then at the hospital where the casualties were to be treated.
There are less-violent examples of the deepening rifts between Iraq's Sunnis and Shiites since the U.S.-led invasion. By some estimates, nearly half of the weddings performed in Baghdad before the invasion were of mixed Sunni/Shiite couples. Since the invasion and its resulting instability and strife, such mixed weddings are all but extinct. This new-found reluctance of Sunnis and Shiites to marry each other is just another indication of the increasing isolation and animosity between the two populations.
The recently finalized Iraqi constitution does little to bridge Iraq's growing sectarian divides. The culmination of sectarian feuds passing for political debates, Iraq's constitution only ratifies the sectarian divisions of the nation. In the north are the Kurds who long ago abandoned their Iraqi identity, refusing to even fly the Iraqi flag. In the south is a burgeoning Shiite Islamic state, patterned after and influenced by Iran. Both groups have divvied up Iraq's oil reserves amongst themselves. Left in the nation's oil-free center are the Sunni Arabs, dismissed as obstructionist by the Kurds and Shiites. So unconcerned are the Kurds and Shiites with a unified Iraq that they both maintain their own large and heavily-armed militias.
Of course, the constitution still has to be ratified. If it is ratified, it will likely be by a Shiite/Kurdish minority, effectively maintaining the status quo that motivates, in part, the Sunni-led insurgency. If, on the other hand, the constitution is defeated, there's little reason not to believe that the three major factions in Iraq won't resort to forcibly taking what they want. Either way, in the words of one Iraqi civilian, God help us.
The discord in Iraq is not limited to fighting between Shiites and Sunnis. In Basra, for instance, rival Shiite militia groups constantly fight each other. The notorious Badr Brigade, backed by SCIRI, have repeatedly clashed with dissident cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi militia. The Badr Brigade frequently works in conjunction with Basra police and are suspected of recently kidnapping and killing two journalists. Suspecting that the Basra police have been infiltrated by both the Badr and Mehdi militias, the British military sent in two undercover operatives to make arrests. The British operatives were themselves arrested by the Basra police. When the British went to liberate their men, they found themselves exchanging fire with the Basra police, their heretofore allies, and smashing through the prison walls with armored vehicles.
Iraqis aren't merely growing increasingly alienated from each other, as well as progressively opposed to coalition forces. Iraq's estrangement from the rest of the Middle East and the Arab world is widening as well. Seen more and more as a proxy of the Iranian government, the Shiite/Kurd dominated Iraq finds itself at odds with the Sunni-dominated Middle East. For instance, since the U.S.-led invasion, not a single Middle East nation has sent an ambassador to Baghdad. And, despite promises to do so, the Arab League (of which Iraq was a founder) has yet to open a Baghdad office.
There are, clearly, many reasons other than sectarianism for Iraq's estrangement from the Middle East and Arab nations, security being the foremost. However, Iraqi diplomacy, or lack thereof, is also to blame. From chiding Qatar for sending aid to Katrina victims but not to Iraq, to arguing with Kuwait over border issues, to blaming Syria for the insurgency, Iraq's fledgling government seems to have taken diplomacy lessons from the Bush administration. In fact, with the exception of Iran, Iraq has butted heads recently with nearly every Middle East nation.
Iraq's constitution hasn't won it any friends in the Arab world, either. For instance, Iraq drew strong condemnation from the Arab world when a draft of its constitution read that just its Arab people are part of the Arab nation. Only after the outcry from the Arab League and numerous Arab nations, did Iraq change its constitution's offending language. (The argument by Bush's apologists that the Iraqi constitution's alleged enshrinement of democratic principles threatens neighboring countries is unconvincing. Syria and Egypt both have constitutions that guarantee political and individual freedoms. In practice, however, such guarantees have proven meaningless. Why, then, should they feel threatened?)
Iraq's varied relationships with Middle Eastern nations will be immeasurably significant should Iraq descend further into civil war. For example, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Jordan would most likely come to the support of Iraq's Sunnis. (There are already signs that the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq has impacted Saudi Arabia's Sunni population. According to a recent study, the invasion of Iraq has radicalized previously non-militant Saudis, sickened by the occupation of an Arab nation by non-Arabs.) Iran would only increase its already staunch support for Iraq's Shiites. Turkey would also likely be drawn in, hoping to prevent any Kurdish success in Iraq from spilling across its border. Moreover, Iraq's violent Sunni-Shiite discord could easily spark similar strife in Middle East countries like Bahrain, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia.
In such a worst-case scenario, Iraq's instability would spread and infect an already unstable region. If the Gulf region were to further destabilize, so too would the global economy as oil prices would skyrocket, plunging the U.S. and so many others into recession.
Put another way, Bush's illegal, ill-conceived, short-sighted, and naive venture in Iraq could reasonably result in total chaos in not just Iraq and the Middle East, but the world over.
A Pandora's Box, if there ever was one.
Sorry, but can you read?
pizza. Don't you think they've thought of moving? It isn't always practical to simply uproot. In this case, there is an elderly family member and children. Again, from the throne passing judgement.
This makes no sense: I'm talking about a certain segment of our society who refuse to learn, refuse to work, and who YOU wish to bring up to an equal place as the rest of society who works hard and earns what they have. Huh? You still missed the point...good grief.
I read that. And then MT goes on
to criticize you for suggesting that posters visit eXtremely Political and is aghast at the post that calls for shooting someone who doesn't agree...... she just FAILS to mention that it's a NEOCON who wants to shoot LIBERALS!!!
This is what she wrote:
Sorry, had to answer this one. There have a Whine to Management option. That is PERFECT for gt. Talking about shooting other posters, atheism and porno. Yeah, that's a great place alright. And now they have THE gt as a member. Does it get any better than that. Although, my thoughts are they won't suffer her long. Those people are pirrhanas.
Well, if that ain't the pirrhana calling the shark hungry!
Perhaps you need to read
No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor... otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief... All men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of religion, and... the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities. --Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. ME 2:302, Papers 2:546
Our civil rights have no dependence upon our religious opinions more than our opinions in physics or geometry. --Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. ME 2:301, Papers 2:545
We have no right to prejudice another in his civil enjoyments because he is of another church. --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776. Papers 1:546
I am for freedom of religion, and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendency of one sect over another. --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799. ME 10:78
Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved. I have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle. --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Rush, 1813.
I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance or admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others. --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Dowse, 1803. ME 10:378
Our particular principles of religion are a subject of accountability to God alone. I inquire after no man's, and trouble none with mine. --Thomas Jefferson to Miles King, 1814. ME 14:198
and many more: http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm
You need to read that again.
Yes, it is US law, according to the Constitution.
The United States signed the UN Charter -- which is a treaty. Let me repeat:
Article VI of the U.S. Constitution makes treaties into which the U.S. has entered the supreme Law of the Land.
In other words, we made a treaty with a bunch of other countries to abide by certain rules, including the use of force. Since we entered into this treaty with the UN, that makes it the supreme Law of the Land -- US Law.
Sure, you can say, So what? Nobody's going to take us to court. We can do anything we want. But if we as a country aren't going to respect our agreements with other countries and our own laws, why should anybody else? Nobody is above the law, right?
By the way, I think we were fully justified in invading Afghanistan.
I have read this...
So what. At one point you say he was involved with AIM and had a lackey break someone's arm. Now you are providing us with an article that disavows any connection with AIM at all. Which is it? Could it be that some folks who were involved with AIM in the late 60s early 70s are no longer involved, or are dead or have had major disagreements along the way about what should be done. Banks, Russell Means and Peltier don't even speak to each other any more. That is sad, in my opinion. Trudell, on the other hand, is still around. (I had the pleasure of meeting him last Saturday in Hollywood Florida at the Native American Music Awards) and still fights the good fight although his wife and children were burned to death in an FBI arson. There is a video, called simply Trudell. It has aired on PBS stations. It is also available from Trudell's web site. It you get a chance, see it. There is so much information out there that no one seems to care much about as regards the American Indian from Columbus to today. The history is always written by the victor and the American Indian history is distorted.
You can read whatever you want...
into what people say. Some are not very tactful and some, like our president, just can't get a syntax together to save their souls. I still think the sentiment was not that these Americans do not want democracy. I still think they thought we **deserved** to be surprised because we have ignored Middle East history, the British colonization, the politics, the culture, the nature of Islam when, in reality, bearing in mind our support for Israel and our dismissal of the Arab states, it should not have been a surprise. This has been brewing for quite some time. That is not the same thing. I really don't know what those 2 had in their hearts but I truly believe that one saying the US has treated the Arab states badly in the past does not make one a **terrorist** or a communist or a democracy hater. These people attempt to see all sides of things, in all colors, not just black and white. Those are the people who will ultimately garner peace if it is at all possible. It will not come at the barrel of a gun, no matter what has happened in the past.
Yep, I know, I can read. NM
Well, I don't read the
leftist blogs or any other blogs for that matter, too much like talk radio. I also don't need to plagerize anything; I can think for myself, thank you very much.
I have read this one over and over...s/m
What has happened in this country over the years? Why the almost blind acceptance of things, almost anything that is done? Where are the idealistic youth? Their future is at stake, so many, many issues, yet, where are they? Why the banket of almost deafening silence? It scares me.
have you read...
anything written by Michelle Obama? she is truly a racist. Your remarks about her scare me. Make sure you are truly informed. John McCain is a down-to-earth person who would do well in office, but the reality is no president can make the changes outlined above. It takes all the members of the house and senate to begin to make change, not just one man.
Where can we read about this? TIA - nm
can't read and can't
recognize inappropriate behavior in temprament. Oy.
Read it before....
....Opinion section can state anything they want to, and so can you.
So can I.
Seems to me, though, are those three tiny words by Gov. Palin, that are given very little credence here:
"Hold me accountable."
I kinda have the feeling that she doesn't have much to hide here, having read other parts of this story before too.
So bring it on.
I have the feeling that Gov. Palin will come out on top.
And you believe everything you read on the net?
XO
Have you read it? nm
nm
We both must have read something different....sm
Quotes from the first article:
Charity's Political Divide
Republicans give a bigger share of their incomes to charity, says a prominent economist
In Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism (Basic Books), Arthur C. Brooks finds that religious conservatives are far more charitable than secular liberals, and that those who support the idea that government should redistribute income are among the least likely to dig into their own wallets to help others.
Mr. Brooks agreed that he needed to tackle politics. He writes that households headed by a conservative give roughly 30 percent more to charity each year than households headed by a liberal, despite the fact that the liberal families on average earn slightly more.
Most of the difference in giving among conservatives and liberals gets back to religion. Religious liberals give nearly as much as religious conservatives, Mr. Brooks found. And secular conservatives are even less generous than secular liberals.
Well if you read, why do we have to? nm
nm
Then you don't read enough.
nm
Should read 8 above - nm
x
when I read the first one
I was flying to Arizona to visit my daughter. In the book the setting is on an airplane (one of the main characters is the pilot). Suddenly half the people on the plane are gone and all that is left is a little pile of their clothing on the seat when they had been sitting before being raptured. I had to take a quick look around to make sure all the passengers were still on board! But do try to read at least some of it. I think there are now like 10 books in the series but within the first couple you will know when I am talking about. I believe they have a web site and I know the first 2 were made into movies.
Not what I said. Read it again. am
I said/meant collectively, the hardworking/undereducated/less intelligent/mentally or physically disabled/, any of the above, the poor and middle class.
Did you even read what I said?
A. Lincoln: " It is better to be silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt."
Is there anybody here that can't read?
nm
not if you read it all
maybe it appears to be contradicting because you haven't opened your heart when you read...... that is a big book... if you just read a couple things here and there, it may appear to be contradicting itself... if you actually read and study what it's telling you... no contradictions....
Read it again
and see you weren't happy with the email your friend sent. Therefore, my other comment is for all those who feel the way she does; and, to my huge surprise, there seem to be many on here. I don't see how so many people actually do ... but it certainly seems to be the case!
And I don't see how you can read it
and assume it is the truth.
okay - what I just read said -
It said that Richardson did say that, but that clearly he just misspoke because earlier in a radio talk he gave he stated the plan correctly.
I read it
I've heard it all before. Does anyone happen to recall that McCain has been in Congress now for what 26 years? Obama has been there 2. Did any of you become an accomplished MT in 2 years? Me, I'll vote for the hope for change. I'm really not too worried about what Obama will "change." Remember he can't make any change all by himself. Remember the illegal immigration bill that got buried? Why? Because so many people let their elected politicians know that they were outraged (including myself). Real change will come when "we the people" put enough pressure on these politicians to MAKE them vote our way, Democrat AND Republicans. These congress people don't want to lose their cushy jobs so maybe instead of all the bashing, we ALL need to start thinking about how we can put pressure on them. Regardless of whether McCain or Obama is in the White House, there is PLENTY that needs changing and plenty of people in Congress, Democrats and Republicans that need to GO!!!
If you want to talk "scary," it is pretty frightening when you hear the president declare, "I am the decider." Too close to dictator for my liking. And after Katrina, remember Bush having the audacity to stand up in front of millions and declare, "You're doing a heck of a job, Brownie!" And who was it that voted with the president over 90% of the time?
Just my opinion.
Read this again.............sm
This is the qualification process for the
President and Vice President.
Obama has never run for either of these offices in the past. Therefore, he did not have to be certified. 
|
