Yes, i read, and if I understood you correctly...
Posted By: sam on 2008-09-03
In Reply to: Umm. The post is about how they voiced over - 20 generals and admirals at DNC sm
CNN was circumventing Obama, which is not surprising, because while they do have a liberal bias, they also have a very CLINTON bias. I was just pointing out that they are not a bastion of integrity.
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
Hmm:) I'm the one who spelled it correctly...
..but obviously I didn't know about the incident? Nice try. Made me smile. I think I can see it from your point of view though. Johnson like Bush? Silly. Lying to the American people to get them to accept a war on false pretenses? Oh so silly, go on with your bad self. How in the world would that ever happen? Sheez, the imaginations some people have:)
You heard correctly.
In fact, McCain came out initially and said that he would be suspending his campaign and heading back to Washington and staying until something was done about the financial crisis. Barry, on the other hand, said he was NOT suspending his campaign and that if they needed him, they could call him. The only reason Barry went to Washington yesterday was at the request of Bush. He requested both McCain and Obama to be there. If it had not been for that request, Barry would never have gone back to Washington and he would have just kept campaigning.
Some people call this a publicity stunt on McCain's part. Personally, I think it just shows to me that McCain will put his country ahead of his own agenda. Obama....however, falls way short in this. Obviously more concerned about his own agenda and campaign.
McCain did not accept the initial bailout as it would make taxpayers pay for this instead of the people responsible for this. Another example of McCain looking out for us little guys on the totum pole (us tax payers) and not looking out for the big corporations and millionaires. So much for Obama's change that we can believe in.
Did I understand correctly? sm
The BP without the night stick "lives in the building"? I was under the impression that polling places were to be public buildings and not residential buildings. Am I mistaken about this?
GP, do I understand you correctly? sm
You "decided to do some research on the birth certificate." Does this mean that you had not, up to this point, even bothered to look at the evidence? If so, I am shocked.
The site you cited is not an independent site. It is most definitely an Obama site and slanted in his favor. This matter needs to be investigated by an independent source IF such a source can be found in the US.
Now that you have posted your evidence, I hope that you will at least take the time to look at what I present as evidence as it does go into a lot of detail explaining why the document Obama has produced as a birth certificate is, in fact, not a birth certificate or even a legal document for that matter. Yes, it is YouTube, but understand that YouTube is just a vehicle for presenting video over the internet, so please just bite your tongue for a moment and look at the information. I think you will find it interesting, especially if you have not even bothered before now to actually investigate this on your own.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAZAbqgpoGQ&NR=1
posts are not posting correctly
Some of these posts are getting hooked up into other posts that had nothing to do with the previous post. The posts are not posting properly, in other words. So, I apologize if a response is posted where it should not have been.
I don't believe you are quoting the Old Testament correctly. sm
Or interpreting it correctly either. Can you cite me which passages you are referring to?
Memory does not serve you correctly.
began long before the dems to control of Congress. Do some research before you spout your partisan blather. That is exactly what is wrong with this country and this board. You are too busy placing blame, whether deserved or not, to realize that you do not know the truth. You believe spin, not facts.
Look up Glass-Steagall, Gram-Leach-Blilley, toxic mortagages, and packaged derivatives if you really want to know how this began. If not, well continue to blather.
Don't bother to respond. I am not bothering to come back here. I thought this board would be different because it is MTs who use their brains for a living, but I guess MTs can be trolls too, as proven by a majority of the posts here. Luckily, I did find a board where, even though they disagree, they do so with logic, intelligence, and reason.
Good luck to you all. You are going to need it.
At least I spelled Liberace correctly. LOL!
nm.
that is what I never understood especially 8 years ago...
the people vote, but rather than what the majority wants there are those who will force themselves as leaders (Bush, remember that entire fiasco?, taking it to the courts and becoming president in an underhanded way) - and then he totally runs this country by his will only, selfishly just everything that he wanted, runs it into the ground, dividing this nation wider than ever in history (perhaps to the point of north/south days), and here is someone else next in line for the same thing? Someone who thinks he is owed the presidency simply because he wants it - not at all caring what the needs for the country are.
Politicians are SERVANTS, they are supposed to serve us, NOT the other way around. How does this keep happening that we are becoming subservient as our rights more and more are being swallowed up by these men (and now woman) who think we are here just for their benefit to live off.
We need some humanity and someone humble in the white house, that is what appeals to me so far about Obama. Say what you will but he is a servant for the people, I actually do believe that he will look after those less fortunate and I would rather him watch my back in a dark alley -
(long) I have never understood...
...how women have been misled into believing this is a "women's issue." This is a HUMAN RIGHTS issue...no pregnant woman I have ever heard of has ever had anything other than a HUMAN BABY at the conclusion of a pregnancy. That is the end result of a pregnancy, and there is no other conclusion EVER, unless a pregnancy is terminated either voluntarily or spontaneously. Human beings have rights under the Constitution of the United States...the right to LIFE, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Sort of difficult to get the last two if you are deprived of the first one. This country has laws to protect people from being murdered, from having their lives taken from them by another person. I have never understood why babies (and you can call them fetus, fetal tissue, "product" of a pregnancy, whatever you like, but women are pregnant with BABIES) would not have the same right to live as any other human being. There are important issues that women should be fighting for. The right to equal pay for equal work, the right to be treated as equals with regards to credit and housing and financial situations, the right for protection from domestic violence situations, healthy issues, other social issues. THE RIGHT TO KILL YOUR OWN CHILD SHOULD NOT BE A RIGHT WE ARE FIGHTING FOR. Women should stand together and fight for a common goal. This should NOT be that goal.
I never understood the whole thing
I never actually thought Joe was a plumber. Thought that was just an analogy. All I remember is he asked a legitimate question that all of us wanted to know and Obama stumbled on it realizing afterward that what he said didn't sound too good. Then I hear that he's being investigated and harassed all because he asked a question. I think the opposition using the excuse that he was a "plant" was a bunch of hoo-ah because they had "plants" in the McCain camp. But to have your life destroyed because of this???? I hope Joe wins big time.
I heard EXACTLY what she said and understood her
ZZ
His comments were very clearly understood....can you
nm
If I understant your previous writing correctly,
apparently you have been missing in action over the last 8 years. There have been absolutely NO checks or balances, so how would that be any different than what we already have. Obama ushering in a New World Order? You have completely misunderstood this whole conversation. These things have started almost 20 years ago. It is not NEW, it is now being expounded upon, but NOT NEW!! Bush played into this all of his 8 years in office...maybe you should look again and read some more. I am just the messenger.
I don't think he understood or believed a word he said.
And how can I believe him when he has done nothing but lied before? Boy who cried wolf? I s'pose I'm putting my trust, whatever trust is left, in congress. 
I understood Obama's plans
thus my message below. I was simply responding the the wish for socialized medicine that equals that of the wonderful place we call Iraq!
Sarah is not a hypocrite....and if you understood...
socialism you would see the gaping difference. Every person in Alaska gets a check. Including the rich. Alaska is not taxing some citizens at a higher rate to redistribute their wealth to less wealthy Alaskans, even some who do not even pay taxes.
Big difference.
Share the wealth can mean a lot of things. Obama was very clear with Joe the Plumber. He wants to redistribute Joe the Plumber's wealth to other people. He said so. Not eVERY person in America. Just the "people below Joe." THAT is socialism.
See the difference?
you did hear correctly and glad you finally brought it up
I'm so tired of hearing about poor Hillary. She did have people bused in from other states to vote (who weren't from that state). I know it because I was watching it on the news (CNN of all stations). Reporters were seeing out of state vehicles and other stuff.
For all the Hillary supporters take a look at just part of her resume:
1. Firing and prosecuting the White House Travel Office employees so she could enrich her friends.
2. Breaking the law on her cattle futures deals as she engaged in insider trading.
3. Having Bill pardon convicted Puerto Rican terrorists to get votes for Hillary in New York.
4. A record of shenanigans in the Whitewater deal which sent the Governor of Arkansas and numerous other people to jail.
5. Trying to reverse the American Revolution with her health care plan (would have given the Labor Department the authority to raise taxes on workers with NO approval from Congress and no limit would have been placed on the tax hikes either.)
6. Her health care task force was fined $250,000 for meeting in secret and violating government opens meetings laws.
She sickens me and I'm tired of her funny numbers. She did not win no matter what she and her followers want to believe. The voting system has been in place since anyone can remember, and now when she doesn't win she wants to change everything to go in her favor. Like I've said before. She needs to go back to the hole she crawled out of and stay here.
If I remember correctly, in the debates he said he would be happy to pay more taxes.
x
I understood you perfectly....pull out the military....
and what little stability there is will be gone. I cannot see it going any other way. What exactly do you see happening if we pull the military out? Seriously. What will the insurgents do? What will the sunni and shiite militias do? I am serious...what do you think would happen?
My comment was directed at "me" and she understood me...sm
I was hoping everyone would come together, no matter who wins, echoing her thoughts. She understood what I meant.
No offense intended.
I understood perfectly well how you meant your post..nm
nm
If you watched the actual show you might have understood it
Glenn Beck actually cares about what is going on in this country. He is giving the everyday American a chance to let our voices be heard.
If you go to his website (which I'm sure you wouldn't do) he talks about "Project 9.12". He talks about the 9 principles and 12 values. He's allowing people like you and me a chance to let our voices be heard. The country is going down a dark hole and if it doesn't get fixed we will never see the light again (AIG is just one of the many things that will bring it down).
Unlike whiny Olberlame or Mathpukes. Those two make my skin crawl. I can take Rachel Maddow to a certain extent but then she gets on her whiny role too. Your viewpoint of any other news station other than My Socialist News Butt Channel (MSNBC) is so pathetic in it's writing. If your going to go down the road of blatant money-grubbing, media hogs who pray on the pathetic then you are talking about the liberal media stations. Talk about praying on the pathetic ignor@nt. You want to see hate-spewing turn on the MSNBC crowd. When things don't go their way it's like watching a bunch of rabid dogs foaming at the mouth attaching anyone who doesn't agree with them.
Maybe it would be good to actually watch the Beck show before commenting on it because then you would at least might remotely possibly know what your talking about. Otherwise it looks like another agent of MSNBC is filtering on this board.
I guess you think that having people who are liberal on as guests and treating them with respect, letting them speak what's on their mind and saying. "Okay, I'll give you that. I may not agree with you, but your entitled to your opinions" I guess you consider that hateful spewing??? I don't get it. You go to MSNBC (watched that station through the Bush years because my viewpoints were more aligned with theirs), but after awhile you just gotta step back and say wait a minute, that's not fair no matter whether I don't like the other side or not. There is a time when you have to start thinking for yourself. Fox channel does that. They present issues and don't tell you how you should be thinking. They let you decide for yourself. They give both sides an equal chance. But if your one of those liberal loving all democrats do nothing wrong and all republicans do nothing right, and you only get your news from the liberal stations, then yes, what you wrote is true about the "pathetic uneducated half-wits that hang on every word of their hateful spewing garbage" by Mathpukes and Olberlame and the likes of that station.
In case you don't know, America is waking up and turning to Fox and turning off MSNBC, CNN and others because we want to hear the truth. Not the mean-spiritic spew that comes from those stations.
BTW - Fox has 1,217,000 viewers compared to the socialist MSNBC station of 480,000 and Communist News Network of 633,000. That's more than twice as many people. At least I feel like I'm in good company.
I understood her post perfectly - 4 years in 4 minutes
What part of that don't you understand. Pretty simple to figure out.
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.
|
