You're really worried about your fellow citizens?
Posted By: interesting............sm on 2009-02-06
In Reply to: Nothing eery about the calm O supporters. - His priorities are exactly where they need to be
because if that were the case, you would be asking him why he continues to let illegals and overseas workers with visas into this country to take those very jobs they report are gone.
You don't know any of this is going on because you don't pay attention to anything unless Obama has said it. If he doesn't tell you illegals are taking these jobs, then you'll just pretend they are not. Sorry you don't feel illegals taking our jobs to the tune of 1.5 million right now isn't MORE important than spending more of your money.
Ever stop to think if they didn't have the jobs, Americans would?
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
Well, if you're so worried about your money
you need to let your government know you are NOT paying for other countries to abort their children. If the other countries want to stop the rape that causes most of the unwanted pregnancies, then they can start castrating.....that should take care of the problem.
If you're so worried about your body........
and you think so much of YOUR bodyl, at what point do you think about the body of an unborn child? Shouldn't you be worried about YOUR body before you get pregnant?
What about the freedom and rights of a living being that just happens to be carried in a womb? If you don't want a baby, then how about NOT getting pregnant in the first place? And please don't give me the garbage about "it happens", blah, blah, blah.....there's always a way to make sure it doesn't happen.
Fellow Arkie
I know where that is! We used to shop in Fort Smith when I was little. From Mena, now south Arkansas. Your part of the country is beautiful. Where the Ouachitas meet the Ozarks! 
To my fellow Americans.....
we are all screwed. I don't think any one in government has a clue what is the right thing to do and the ones who do won't say anything as it might go against their party and who would want to do that. If one party has a good idea, the other party refuses to vote for it because it wasn't their party and let's face it.....neither party wants the other one to look good. Government is going to stick it to us again so we might as well be prepared and get the vaseline out for a little bit of lube.
Hello there fellow vegan
Okay, have to admit I'm not total vegan but am trying. I love beans too. We eats tons of black beans, garbanzo's, and some navy beans and lately been on a homemade split pea soup kick. I do love beans, less meat (we stick to mainly chicken and ham. Although I still won't eat a fava bean (mainly because they said it was like a lima bean and lima beans are repulsive to me).
Is that what they laughed about. I had forgotten.
So am trying here to be more vegan myself. There are certain veggies I just cannot get enough of (brussel sprouts for one).
If you have or know of any good recipes or websites of how to transition more veggie I'd love to hear from you. More than welcome to send me an email.
Thanks and let me know how you like the fava beans.
As I pointed out before...that fellow is not entirely honest either...
and Bush did not lie. While the bill does not explicitly state it will cover families to $83,000, it opens a loophole that will allow New York to again ask for the $82,600 raise and under the new bill would probably get it, because the stipulation preventing it was being removed. So basically what Bush said is true...he should have worded it differently.
Here are some things that were not brought forward that are also bad things about the bill:
Bush had good reason to veto SCHIP
By Grace-Marie Turner
Article Launched: 10/14/2007 01:33:38 AM PDT
Is President Bush a liar who hates children? That's what many of his critics now are asking in the opinion pages of major newspapers across the country. Why else, they say, would he refuse to sign a bill providing health insurance to poor kids?
Specifically, the president has vetoed a bill expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program designed to provide health coverage to lower-income children. One nationally syndicated columnist went so far as to call Bush's rationale in vetoing the bill a "pack of flat-out lies."
This kind of rhetoric is wrong and misleads readers about the facts of this important issue.
There is no debate over whether to reauthorize the SCHIP program so it can continue to provide insurance to needy children. That's a given. The debate is about whether children in middle-income families should be added.
The president is absolutely right in insisting that SCHIP focus on its core mission of needy children. When SCHIP was created in 1997, the target population was children whose parents earned too much for them to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford private insurance. The president wants the program to focus on children whose families earn less than 200 percent of the federal poverty level. In today's dollars, that's $41,300 a year.
About two-thirds of the nation's uninsured children already are eligible for either Medicaid or SCHIP, but aren't enrolled. Raising the income threshold won't solve this core problem. Congress should require states to focus on the 689,000 children whom the Urban Institute says are uninsured and would be eligible for SCHIP if eligibility were limited to the $41,300 income level.
The other big problem is that, across the country, states are using SCHIP dollars to insure adults.
Fourteen states cover adults through SCHIP, and at least six of them are spending more of their SCHIP dollars on adults than on children. For example, 78 percent of SCHIP enrollees in Minnesota are adults, 79 percent in New Mexico, and 72 percent in Michigan.
With these statistics in mind, the Bush administration issued a ruling in August requiring states to demonstrate that they had enrolled 95 percent of eligible needy children before expanding the program.
Yet the bill that Congress passed, and which the president vetoed, nullifies that ruling and effectively refuses to agree that needy kids should get first preference. Instead, the congressional measure would give $60 billion to the states over five years to enroll millions more "children" - although many of them will, in fact, be adults. Others will be from higher-income families.
New York, for instance, could submit a plan that would add children in families earning up to $83,000 a year to SCHIP. New Jersey could continue to cover kids whose parents make up to $72,000. All the other states would be allowed to cover kids in families with incomes up to $61,000.
Most children in these higher income families are already covered by private insurance. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 77 percent of children in families earning more than twice the poverty line have private health insurance now.
No one doubts that SCHIP is a vitally important program for needy children, and that our nation needs to do a better job of helping working families afford health insurance. But giving the states incentives to add middle-income kids to their SCHIP rolls will prompt families to replace private insurance with taxpayer-provided coverage.
This is completely backward. The goal of SCHIP should be to provide private coverage to uninsured children. If Congress would send the president a bill that does that, he says he would sign it in a minute.
How I hate to disagree with my fellow....
But that is just nonsense. It would do nothing but create anarchy and keep the government so busy rotating presidents in and out of office, that absolutely nothing would get done. I will agree with you that the Bush presidency is one of the worst and that we will be seeing the ramifications of it in the many, many years to come and I am just hoping that he can keep things on an even keel until his term is over. But a no convidence vote? Never.
Not a fellow liberal, just a few things to say...
the National Right to Life Committee is not a religious organization. This from Wikipedia: The National Right to Life Committee is the largest right to life/pro-life organization in the United States with affiliates in all 50 states and over 3,000 local chapters nationwide. The group works through legislation and education to work against abortion, infanticide, euthanasia and assisted suicide. It was founded in Detroit in 1973 in response to the Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade which legalized the practice of abortion in all fifty states. It a non-sectarian, non-partisan group whose founding members included leaders in fields of science, religion, law, ethics and medicine. Its board consist of an elected representative from each of the 50 states and several at-large board members.
It might surprise you to know, there are Democrats, and there are liberals, who are not pro choice. There are Republicans who are pro choice. It is not a political issue. It is a deeply moral, deeply personal issue. In my case, it is tied to my belief in God (not my God, He is everyone's God). Perhaps not so in others. Those who do not have God in their lives, I do not expect them to understand where I am coming from, and I am not trying to force anything down anyone's throat. That is MY personal conviction. In others, perhaps it is tied to their own sense of morality and what to them is right and wrong. That is our right, just as your stand is yours.
I would counter what you say by saying how could you stand up with such strong conviction for the less fortunate, the sick, for all living things EXCEPT the unborn, the most innocent of all? And the helpless? Piglet...who in this world is MORE helpless, more utterly defenseless than an unborn child? Who?
If you have the benevolence to stand up for all the others you mention, why does that not extend to the unborn? Why are they excluded?
How is it different for a woman to deem an unborn child inconvenient and decide to kill it before it is born or partially born, and that is fine, yet let that child be born and she smother it the next day and you would be outraged, or at least I hope you would. How is that right in even a most twisted sense? The plain and simple fact is it is still a dead baby who was murdered. I realize that terms like "Murder" and "Chopped up like salad in a blender" are terms that make people uncomfortable. And well they should. Because that is the stark reality of abortion, choice or not.
In this day and time, in all but the most extreme circumstances (rape, incest, possible death of mother), there are ways to prevent an inconvenient pregnancy. If we stopped performing abortions except in those extreme cases, that would stop 90%, of not more, of all abortions.
REASONS FOR ABORTIONS: COMPILED ESTIMATES
rape 0.3 % (0.1-0.6 %)
incest 0.03 % (<0.1 %)
physical life of mother 0.2 % (0.1-0.3 %)
physical health of mother 1.0 % (0.1-3 %)
fetal health 0.5 % (0.1-1.0 %)
mental health of mother depends on definition
"personal choice"
--too young/immature/not ready for responsibility
--economic
--to avoid adjusting life
--mother single or in poor relationship
--enough children already 98% (78-99 %)
Not sure where you are going with the deciding how we die thing...unless you are talking about assisted suicide/euthanasia? That slippery slope may lead somewhere you don't want to go...when that decision is taken away from you and given to someone else, to whom you have become inconvenient and a bother and it would be in their best interest that you be dead. Think about that very carefully. And before you say "Oh that would never happen" I am sure that people who made the same comment about abortion never thought it would be legal or commonplace either. The Terri Schiavo case...I just think it would behoove anyone to think very carefully about that particular snowball and do they really want to start it down the hill.
Looking out for your fellow Americans, how noble sm
Did you figure out how to spell McCain yet?
Wouldn't you want your fellow supporters to think for
;?/
LOL...Kind of like saying *my fellow prisoners*..
I read articles on this fellow......... sm
during the campaigns before the election. His predictions are not very promising and I believe we are in for a long, rocky ride. The government bailouts are just the beginning of government owning America, lock, stock and barrel.
I live in a rural, rather economically depressed area now and wonder how quickly my area will start seeing these changes. I wonder if it will be one of the first and hardest hit or if the more affluent areas of the country that enjoy a wider variety of jobs and better paying jobs will be more adversely affected first.
My 18-year-old son and I were discussing his future last night. Although he is a junior in high school, I told him that it is time that he started looking at the job markets in our area and deciding on a job that would pay well and would be in demand for a few years, at least. He won't be going to college, partly because of financial issues, but mainly because he is just not "college material" but I do want him to investigate trades-type schools and trades jobs in which he will be able to provide for himself as an adult in an economy where blue-collar workers struggle at best. 
Personally, I am not spending any more than is absolutely necessary to survive at this point. I guess I'm being "unAmerican" by not stimulating the economy, but right now I'm more concerned about what my future holds and whether I will be able to keep my home than whether I have a big-screen TV or an iphone. Times are indeed getting scary.
I am concerned for my fellow democrats on this post
Is there possibly anything else you can discuss or raise cane about other than Bush? To say that Bush started the fires in California is just beyond the scope of common sense.
I am not a Bush supporter, never was, never will be....however, not all the ills in the world or in our own country can be blamed on him alone.
I am most astounded by some of these postings, as they don't seem to make much sense and make you sound much less intelligent than I am sure you are.
Blame the people who elected him and blame Congress for not pursuing further investigation, but to keep rehashing it is blarney.
Are you calling your fellow pubs ignorant?:
x
I think Palin IS a scare tactic. She & her fellow
believe in FREEDOM.
Freedom of Speech.
Freedom of/from Religion.
Freedom of Association.
Pursuit of Happiness.
Marching in lock-step with America's religious Nazis somehow just doesn't fit with what our forefathers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution.
Nope....she just stated she was here to post issues for her fellow liberals...
(or he, whichever the case may be), and I just mentioned I had not seen any issues posted. Are YOU the posting police?
And what facts to post....I hope you are really proud of your fellow posters...
right now.
Just look at what US citizens have been through
at stake in this election, not just for us, but the rest of the world. Everyone is on-edge, pissed-off, nervous, angry, fearful, hopeful, etc. You name it, the emotion is out there. It's likely that regardless of the outcome of this election, there will be protests and possibly violence by the losing side. So that's got me nervous, as well. Our entire governent needs a major overhaul & housecleaning.
Anyway, yes, your feelings are accurate, and have mainly to do with our fear for our futures. This election will essentially decide whether I my later years in a modest, (but at least HEATED!) apartment, with some food in the cupboards and a savings to draw on, or whether I spend those years living in a cardboard box underneath a freeway overpass.
Seasoned Citizens sm
To season a citizen you use a dash of salt and pepper, a pinch of Viagra (mycoxaflopin), and a fine sprinkling of "OxyFast."
Have been following the news about Pakistan.
We are all citizens of the world.
The sooner we realize this, the sooner we can put an end to war and try to do something to protect this planet before it self-destructs.
The Majority of Citizens?
Let's see tomorrow morning.
Like containing disorderly citizens? nm
x
my children are citizens
they were born in Germany yet they are US citizens and German citizens. They have dual citizenship. they are US citizens and they have a born abroad certificate which is the proof of their US citizenship which is exactly the same as a b/c. you guys crack me up. and no i am not an O fan, but i think that this would have been the FIRST thing that McCain and Palin would have pointed out had all this crap been true.
Yes, concerned citizens can be
nm
Yes, proposed changes, which citizens cant
nm
Law abiding citizens don't have anything to worry about...sm
Just the same way a warranted wire tap should not have any problems procuring a warrant. It's too bad you don't see the potential for corruption here(and accusations are already floating).
As far as phone companies passing out private info, you have to give consent for companies to share your private information with other companies legally. That's why we have Consumer Privacy Laws (or is this a thing of the past too? No, really is it?)
No, but Illinois citizens are so used to corrupt
even this guy has suddenly made them stand up and take notice...... what a sorry crook! He'd probably sell his mother for a buck.
There are many Muslim-Americans who are citizens of the US. (nm)
They are eligible to vote in the presidential election and are just as concerned about the important political issues as everyone else in this country!
Citizens are allowed to vote
with any motivation they wish - FOR someone, AGAINST someone, because they had soup for lunch, etc. Supreme Court (hey there's a case someone can discuss) upheld same-day registration and voting. Since they know the constitution and the law, I will trust their judgment.
The election system is OBVIOUSLY sound, because when Ohioans suggested that the Bush reelection count was rigged, they were denounced as conspiracy theorists. One cannot have it both ways.
However, he did not believe that all citizens are equal under the law. Shame on ...sm
you likening BO to Hitler.
Sorry, but according to the law, anchor babies are US citizens - nm
x
Pop 8 was vote of MAJORITY of citizens who said NO...
--
I never said citizens weren't allowed to vote.
I just do not think that same day register and voting should be allowed. That is my personal opinion and I have the right to have that opinion regardless on how a court ruled on the subject.
Shouldn't the citizens of Alaska take care of that
-
Anchor babies are natural citizens... sm
by virtue of being born on American soil, just as the babies of Chinese immigrants or German immigrants or any other nationality are citizens of this country if they are born on US soil. Granted, the influx of illegal aliens from Mexico has created a problem in that it has burdened the welfare system in this country, but that is not the issue here.
The issue is that Obama cannot produce proof that he is a natural born American citizen. The birth certificate floating around the internet purported to be real is a fake. You can find anything on the internet these days, true or not. Just the fact that liberals shoot down every article posted in support of a conservative's point of view as being "not a credible source" is proof of that.
Mr. Obama is well aware of the questions being raised concerning his birth certificate. If he had a REAL birth certificate, why would he just not produce it and put an end to all the speculation? Because he can't, plain and simple. He flew to Hawaii to see his ailing grandmother and "coincidentally" his "birth records" were sealed at the same time. Isn't that interesting?
Mr. Obama lived for 5 years in Indonesia, a country that does not recognize dual citizenship, therefore nullifying his American citizenship IF it ever existed in the first place. There are no records on file where he ever applied for citizenship after returning to the US.
We have to produce birth certificates for our children to attend school today. Why shouldn't the man who would be POTUS have to show his?
Barack Obama is not even legally a black American. He only has one black great-great-grandmother on his father's side while the other 7 were Arab.
That makes him 50% white, 43.75% Arab, and 6.25% black. 12.5% is the minimum required to legally claim any racial status in America.
Obama would qualify as the first Arab-American president, NOT the first black president. That is why they keep saying "African-American" and NOT black because they know he is African Arab and not African black.
Why would you want anyone who has any kind of questionable background leading our country? Would you allow persons of questionable background to teach your children in school? What if that person was suspected of having an inappropriate relationship with a child but it could not be proven? Would you want to run that risk?
I agree that America has more pressing problems that whether the man about to take the helm is a natural born citizen, but do you want someone who is not even an American leading us through these problems?
Because crabby, no matter how greedy the citizens are/were SM
It wasn't just the brokers or just the people who weren't as smart as you not to get an ARM, it was under the leadership of GW......! the lack of leadership. This is why I've called you uneducated, because the information out there about every issue under the sun is there if you care to educate yourself. It's ludicrous to say that someone earned $1500 a month and shouldn't have gotten a $300K mortgage. Your beloved Bush, is the one who PUSHED THROUGH THE ZERO DOWN PAYMENT,,, the worst idea ever.
That money will go overseas as long as U.S. citizens keep
xx
No they absolutely do NOT represent the citizens of this country
So pompous and self-righteous.
I think Bush's administration was the joke, since you asked. At least now we have someone intelligent and not self-absorbed.
I suffered through the abomination of the Bush administration in silence. You bet your sweet bippy I'm celebrating Obama's presidency and the return to power of the Democratic party. I hope to GOD I never see the likes of Dumbya as president again!!!
Still not torture. Poilcemen TAZER our own citizens.
Heck, the 'resource officers' at my kid's high school tazed a kid for spitting in the commons area.
Maybe we should just taze the terrorists. I'll bet they'll talk then. When they start sh!tting themselves and going into convulsions, I'll bet they'll cough up whatever info they have.
Plus, it'll save on the Gitmo water bill, and I think we're ALL for that.
It must be hard for you to accept that even the DEMS voted to keep Gitmo going.
Hey, maybe the terrorits could all live at YOUR house. You guys seem to have a lot in common.
the children born here are automatically citizens -
At one point in time, if a mother and father were here illegally and a child was born, the father would be deported, but the mother could stay until the child was 18. I don't know if that has changed or not.
Those things are citizens exercising free speech,
The world they have been living in under the Patriot Act has pushed them into dark corners underground. They are the ones who ended up on the wrong side of that line in the and Bush drew after 911 when he said, "you are either for us or against us."
They all work, just like you and me, but sacrifice greatly for their activism. If you think the coverage you are getting about who they are, what they are saying or where they come from is fair, you are the one who is living on another planet. You skipped the part about police sweeping up reporters and bystanders, beating them up while hosing them down and dragging them away.
Take a look back into history some 30-40 years ago. These same "things" were the guys who marched and protested on behalf of civil rights for blacks and women and against the last wrong war were had. Yesterday's "things, today's authors, senators, congressmen, journalists, etc.
You must have been born AFTER their struggles bore fruit. Otherwise, you would not be so glib and would have no need to ask such inane questions.
Air Force chief: Test weapons on US citizens before using on enemies.
Air Force chief: Test weapons on testy U.S. mobs
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Nonlethal weapons such as high-power microwave devices should be used on American citizens in crowd-control situations before being used on the battlefield, the Air Force secretary said Tuesday.
The object is basically public relations. Domestic use would make it easier to avoid questions from others about possible safety considerations, said Secretary Michael Wynne.
If we're not willing to use it here against our fellow citizens, then we should not be willing to use it in a wartime situation, said Wynne. (Because) if I hit somebody with a nonlethal weapon and they claim that it injured them in a way that was not intended, I think that I would be vilified in the world press.
The Air Force has paid for research into nonlethal weapons, but he said the service is unlikely to spend more money on development until injury problems are reviewed by medical experts and resolved.
Nonlethal weapons generally can weaken people if they are hit with the beam. Some of the weapons can emit short, intense energy pulses that also can be effective in disabling some electronic devices.
On another subject, Wynne said he expects to choose a new contractor for the next generation aerial refueling tankers by next summer. He said a draft request for bids will be put out next month, and there are two qualified bidders: the Boeing Co. and a team of Northrop Grumman Corp. and European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co., the majority owner of European jet maker Airbus SAS.
The contract is expected to be worth at least $20 billion (&euro15.75 billion).
Chicago, Illinois-based Boeing lost the tanker deal in 2004 amid revelations that it had hired a top Air Force acquisitions official who had given the company preferential treatment.
Wynne also said the Air Force, which is already chopping 40,000 active duty, civilian and reserves jobs, is now struggling to find new ways to slash about $1.8 billion (&euro1.4 billion) from its budget to cover costs from the latest round of base closings.
He said he can't cut more people, and it would not be wise to take funding from military programs that are needed to protect the country. But he said he also incurs resistance when he tries to save money on operations and maintenance by retiring aging aircraft.
We're finding out that those are, unfortunately, prized possessions of some congressional districts, said Wynne, adding that the Air Force will have to take some appetite suppressant pills. He said he has asked employees to look for efficiencies in their offices.
The base closings initially were expected to create savings by reducing Air Force infrastructure by 24 percent. |
|
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/09/12/usaf.weapons.ap/index.html |
Actually, I will be MUCH more worried about
nm
Is anyone else worried about
what all they put into this bailout bill? I'm half scared to know what all kind of crap they put in there to entice some of these politicians to vote for it. What was in it for them that they finally said "yea" to?
When Dodd gave a speech about the bill last night, I wanted to throw something at the TV. He was all praising the people who are to blame for this and saying that they were such great help during these proceedings. He is lucky I couldn't reach through the TV and choke him.
I'm not too worried about that. s/m
If necessary we will heat our home totally with fireplaces. Plenty of wood and a good outdoor kitchen of Dutch ovens so we can feast without a speck of energy. Might not like it too much but we could survive with kerosene lamps for light of which we have a number. No internet but oh well......
Has anyone thought that just eating may be a problem? Someone mentioned $10 loaf of bread. We are among the fortunate who live on a farm. We have farm animals and an abundance of wildlife. We know how to raise a garden and how to roam over the hills and gather wild food that is etable. If we enter the next GREAT DEPRESSION, we'll be fine....provided we can keep those who don't have a clue of how to survive from stealing from us. Might be a good time to read up on the Foxfire series of books instead of spending so much time squabbling about who will be the best (WORST) president.
I'm more worried about you being..
able to vote on Nov. 4th.
worried about what is to come
I am worried about our country. My friend is in the military and he said that people in his unit are split now over this election. Not dem versus repub but black versus white. It is bringing out the worst in people, fueling deeply hidden racism, on both sides, and bringing it to the surface. He said that it is getting so bad they are actually fighting, he said like ready to kill eachother. They are forbidden to talk about politics. Scary, this is just one unit in small part of America. What is going to happen if he doesnt win. What is going to happen if he does?
Well, I am definitely worried!
nm
O comes across as if he is more worried about
nm
Worried about Rove?
Am worried about Roe v Wade, but not about Rove. He is not worry-worthy - way too much effort. I AM concerned that nothing will happen to any of them that are involved in Plamegate unless it is some third-string low-on-the-totem-pole flunkie who will be completely blindsided when he gets blamed/fired/arrested. This shadow administration is far more evolved than the Nixon guys. I predict nothing will happen to them but what is worse, we have been lied to so often for the last 4+ years that most of us won't even care. They are going to do what they are going to do...the end. Here in Florida we voted last election for smaller class sizes and not to build a bullet-train between Tampa and Orlando. Jeb just changed both of those things. We are building the train set up and class sizes stay the same. I wonder why we vote on these amendments at all. What difference does it make? And so it is with D.C. It has not mattered for so long what a great number of us have felt about Iraq and all the lies surrounding it. They just do what they want. And before anyone says "we elected him" as a plausible argument, 51% is not a mandate. One half of this country is on the other side. Our country does not deserve the autocratic theocratic government that has been forced upon us. When the shoe is inevitably on the other foot I suspect you won't like it either.
Well, Obama needs to be worried.
I wonder who is transcribing the medical notes of Senators Clinton and Obama.
I'm only saying this because a few years ago, I worked for a company that (I believe) didn't offshore, and on one of my jobs, the patient had the very same name as a prominent Washington politician who was considering running for President.
I kind of giggled and thought the patient must get teased a lot for having the same name. I realized that, as lawmakers, certainly their medical information would be very secure. I stopped giggling when I got to the "Social History" where the patient's occupation was revealed, and I realized that the patient was indeed that politician.
Fortunately, that politician's note was transcribed by an American transcriptionist, but it seemed to be by the luck of the draw, rather than by rule.
After 9/11, I can't believe this country is still so careless. 
|
