You're right. I wouldn't attempt to reason this through with anyone...nm
Posted By: Democrat on 2005-10-01
In Reply to: Oh pshaw Democrat - AR
x
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
I agree. This is the exact reason why Colin Powell wouldn't run..sm
He didn't want his privacy or his entire family's personal life to be dug up and exploited by the media. He got a lot of respect from me when he chose to protect what was the most important to him...family.
Roosevelt is the reason we're in this mess
xx
Yeah, and you're ALWAYS the voice of reason
Oh brother!
Let me try this again. You're demanding that I comment about France for some reason.
Have it your way, though. I certainly have better things to do. Our side of this conversation is over. I'll continue to discuss this with others who don't have a "French fixation" though.
desperate attempt
to snag the unhappy Hilliary supporters. They predicted this last night -- if McCain felt desperate after watching the Dem convention, he would pick a wild card candidate. If he felt safe, he would go with Romney. Tthanks for showing your cards, Mac. Hill's people are progressive, they won't vote for a ticket that is against women's rights just because one is a woman.
My guess is that this is an attempt....(sm)
to actually help the country. It's called putting pressure on the current president who is just happily sitting on his behind and doing nothing to stop or slow down this economic masacre we have going on right now. I can't wait to see the total job loss by the end of the week.
It becomes my business when they attempt to
Laws affect everyone. They don't want "rights"...they have rights. They just want to change laws to somehow prove they are legitimate, as if the fact they are human doesn't make them a legitimate human being already? I have every right to make it my business when they want to change the laws to suit their lifestyle.
I read all this and will attempt to verify...
but somehow the "She has hated me since 1996" comment makes me a little doubtful....if you wanted to be taken seriously, why would you include that? It makes it sound like payback.
At any rate, I have read, and will be looking into the accusations. Thanks for posting!
To clarify your misguided attempt
I am not a republican, I do not care for Hannity, and I don't particularly care for McCain either. As far as Obama, I know a skunk when I smell one.....
Sorry to pop your bubble.
Fox makes an attempt to be balance
but that's just one network vs. the many left-leaning rest of the major media.
How is that balanced? NEWS should be FAIR and BALANCED, not a thrill up your leg. Now THAT's disgusting.
FOX makes no attempt to be balanced, they just SAY that
It's so obvious, my goodness.
First, this is not an attempt to attack or belittle Obama...
but he said before he went that it was not a "political" trip, because that would be "inappropriate." Yet his campaign people put political posters up at the Western Wall in Jerusalem. Of course it was political. Can't we just be honest about things? On both sides.
And to be fair...the American media as a whole wouldn't cover McCain right now unless he keeled over and died...and THAT is sad. I am not a big McCain fan, but the bias is astounding.
And as far as the dairy aisle in a grocery store...at least he is talking to Americans. They ARE, after all, running for Presiden of the United States...not President of Europe. Just an observation.
Last but not least...it is concerning to me that Obama was going to visit Landstuhl and wounded troops...and at last minute canceled because it would be "inappropriate." I don't get that, to be honest. It is appropriate to talk to the German people in a political speech, but not to visit wounded American troops...when is it ever inappropriate to visit wounded American troops? I honestly don't get that one.
Obviously I am not an Obama fan either. Going to be one of those lesser of two evils years for me. :-)
What you are seeing below is a weak attempt at damage control 101...
That announcement sucked all the air out of the big speech, everyone is talking about Sarah Palin, not Barack Obama. And the best they can do is take potshots at Alaska and that she was in a beauty pageant...and oh I thought the rampaging moose thing was REALLLYYYYY funneeeee. Obama is not the only one front and center that people are excited about...and if these folks think the PUMA folks are going to fall into line because the DNC tells them to....they have another think coming. Just my opinion of course....
Another excuse of a lie - but it wasn't even a good attempt at one
No politician's child has ever been "hauled around and raised by a succession of nannies". You've been watching too many movies. Maybe in the past (like the 1800s) a child has had a nanny with them but not a succession of them. Had to laugh at that one.
Next, her family is with her. Sorry guess you don't consider her husband (the father of this child) to be somebody important enough to be with them.
This is not political ambition for her. She wasn't out there going at it day after day after day like Barack, Hillary, Biden & McCain. Her name was one of many that they were looking at. It was a job interview just like other jobs (just a bit more prestigious). I guess then if you go apply for a job you better think about it if you have kids before you put your ambitions before them.
Lastly and most importantly by doing this she IS putting the needs of her child first. As VP she will be able to make the decisions and vote on the issues that will make the country a better place for her children (all of them - not just her special needs child). That to me is putting her children way before herself.
your attempt at a funny retort is in fact
nm
No, I didnt misstype....attempt at irony. lol. nm
nm
You can google his taxation attempt in March
I see what is really going on here. For weeks I heard Obama won't tax us, he's gonna save the middle class, yaddda, yadda, yadda, and you call all facts lies. Now, I'm so sorry you think the actual bill on capital hill which he helped propose is a lie, which means you think he is a lie, but his vote is there.
Get off your lame brain duff and googgle it, if you dare!
In your response, what I see if someone who truly does not care about this country at all but chooses to believe you are going to get a bigger free ride. If you think his taxation attempt on YOU, the poor middle class or whatever, is going to get a tax cut, I dare you to look it up for yourself. I know you won't....you don't want to see the truth about this man.
Your pathetic attempt to try to cover up the fact...(sm)
that there is no basis for the comment above (that being that Obama is taking rights away) by trying to distract the conversation by attacking me personally does nothing but show the absolute absurdity of the republican party's talking points.
Lots of hidden references in that little attempt....sm
at comedy, at which he miserably failed. How wonderful does he think he is? And arrogant: I think they need to put a new page in the dictionary with his picture on it for arrogance! If he would get trying to get attention for himself and concentrate more on those JOBS HE PROMISED, I'm sure the country will be more appreciative and sure as heck a lot better off!
I don't see how a conservative, prolifer could attempt to defend his statements...nm
x
Another lame attempt to try to not get people to read the article
Your computer got a virus, yeah right!!!!
You don't like that I'm not drooling all over the O like you are then fine, but to come out and say that articles that are not praising your god gives your computer a virus is a bunch horse hockey.
Sheesh, I would have expected a better excuse than that.
P.S. - Am anxious to hear the supreme courts ruling. They are meeting on the 5th. Although I know that all the O worshippers will try and cut it down for some insane reason. The SC's ruling will determine it. Let's just wait and see.
Despite your attempt at spin - Afghan and Iraq are 2 different wars.....nm
x
Cheney? All whatt he is saying now is just a lame attempt to justify all the
evil he did during this 8 years.
At least Bush keeps silent. I think Cheney was worse than Bush.
I bet Cheney has nightmares.
No wonder that he is so concerned with the security of this country, he is afraid somebody might 'get' him.
This is the reason we are in Iraq and it's the same reason I didn't vote for him in 2000: Didn't
his own personal reasons.
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050620/why_george_went_to_war.php
The Downing Street memos have brought into focus an essential question: on what basis did President George W. Bush decide to invade Iraq? The memos are a government-level confirmation of what has been long believed by so many: that the administration was hell-bent on invading Iraq and was simply looking for justification, valid or not.
Despite such mounting evidence, Bush resolutely maintains total denial. In fact, when a British reporter asked the president recently about the Downing Street documents, Bush painted himself as a reluctant warrior. "Both of us didn't want to use our military," he said, answering for himself and British Prime Minister Blair. "Nobody wants to commit military into combat. It's the last option."
Yet there's evidence that Bush not only deliberately relied on false intelligence to justify an attack, but that he would have willingly used any excuse at all to invade Iraq. And that he was obsessed with the notion well before 9/11—indeed, even before he became president in early 2001.
In interviews I conducted last fall, a well-known journalist, biographer and Bush family friend who worked for a time with Bush on a ghostwritten memoir said that an Iraq war was always on Bush's brain.
"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and Houston Chronicle journalist Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said, 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He went on, 'If I have a chance to invade…, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency.'"
Bush apparently accepted a view that Herskowitz, with his long experience of writing books with top Republicans, says was a common sentiment: that no president could be considered truly successful without one military "win" under his belt. Leading Republicans had long been enthralled by the effect of the minuscule Falklands War on British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's popularity, and ridiculed Democrats such as Jimmy Carter who were reluctant to use American force. Indeed, both Reagan and Bush's father successfully prosecuted limited invasions (Grenada, Panama and the Gulf War) without miring the United States in endless conflicts.
Herskowitz's revelations illuminate Bush's personal motivation for invading Iraq and, more importantly, his general inclination to use war to advance his domestic political ends. Furthermore, they establish that this thinking predated 9/11, predated his election to the presidency and predated his appointment of leading neoconservatives who had their own, separate, more complex geopolitical rationale for supporting an invasion.
Conversations With Bush The Candidate
Herskowitz—a longtime Houston newspaper columnist—has ghostwritten or co-authored autobiographies of a broad spectrum of famous people, including Reagan adviser Michael Deaver, Mickey Mantle, Dan Rather and Nixon cabinet secretary John B. Connally. Bush's 1999 comments to Herskowitz were made over the course of as many as 20 sessions together. Eventually, campaign staffers—expressing concern about things Bush had told the author that were included in the manuscript—pulled the project, and Bush campaign officials came to Herskowitz's house and took his original tapes and notes. Bush communications director Karen Hughes then assumed responsibility for the project, which was published in highly sanitized form as A Charge to Keep.
The revelations about Bush's attitude toward Iraq emerged during two taped sessions I held with Herskowitz. These conversations covered a variety of matters, including the journalist's continued closeness with the Bush family and fondness for Bush Senior—who clearly trusted Herskowitz enough to arrange for him to pen a subsequent authorized biography of Bush's grandfather, written and published in 2003.
I conducted those interviews last fall and published an article based on them during the final heated days of the 2004 campaign. Herskowitz's taped insights were verified to the satisfaction of editors at the Houston Chronicle, yet the story failed to gain broad mainstream coverage, primarily because news organization executives expressed concern about introducing such potent news so close to the election. Editors told me they worried about a huge backlash from the White House and charges of an "October Surprise."
Debating The Timeline For War
But today, as public doubts over the Iraq invasion grow, and with the Downing Street papers adding substance to those doubts, the Herskowitz interviews assume singular importance by providing profound insight into what motivated Bush—personally—in the days and weeks following 9/11. Those interviews introduce us to a George W. Bush, who, until 9/11, had no means for becoming "a great president"—because he had no easy path to war. Once handed the national tragedy of 9/11, Bush realized that the Afghanistan campaign and the covert war against terrorist organizations would not satisfy his ambitions for greatness. Thus, Bush shifted focus from Al Qaeda, perpetrator of the attacks on New York and Washington. Instead, he concentrated on ensuring his place in American history by going after a globally reviled and easily targeted state run by a ruthless dictator.
The Herskowitz interviews add an important dimension to our understanding of this presidency, especially in combination with further evidence that Bush's focus on Iraq was motivated by something other than credible intelligence. In their published accounts of the period between 9/11 and the March 2003 invasion, former White House Counterterrorism Coordinator Richard Clarke and journalist Bob Woodward both describe a president single-mindedly obsessed with Iraq. The first anecdote takes place the day after the World Trade Center collapsed, in the Situation Room of the White House. The witness is Richard Clarke, and the situation is captured in his book, Against All Enemies.
On September 12th, I left the Video Conferencing Center and there, wandering alone around the Situation Room, was the President. He looked like he wanted something to do. He grabbed a few of us and closed the door to the conference room. "Look," he told us, "I know you have a lot to do and all…but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way…"
I was once again taken aback, incredulous, and it showed. "But, Mr. President, Al Qaeda did this."
"I know, I know, but…see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred…" …
"Look into Iraq, Saddam," the President said testily and left us. Lisa Gordon-Hagerty stared after him with her mouth hanging open.
Similarly, Bob Woodward, in a CBS News 60 Minutes interview about his book, Bush At War, captures a moment, on November 21, 2001, where the president expresses an acute sense of urgency that it is time to secretly plan the war with Iraq. Again, we know there was nothing in the way of credible intelligence to precipitate the president's actions.
Woodward: "President Bush, after a National Security Council meeting, takes Don Rumsfeld aside, collars him physically and takes him into a little cubbyhole room and closes the door and says, 'What have you got in terms of plans for Iraq? What is the status of the war plan? I want you to get on it. I want you to keep it secret.'"
Wallace (voiceover): Woodward says immediately after that, Rumsfeld told Gen. Tommy Franks to develop a war plan to invade Iraq and remove Saddam—and that Rumsfeld gave Franks a blank check.
Woodward: "Rumsfeld and Franks work out a deal essentially where Franks can spend any money he needs. And so he starts building runways and pipelines and doing all the necessary preparations in Kuwait specifically to make war possible."
Bush wanted a war so that he could build the political capital necessary to achieve his domestic agenda and become, in his mind, "a great president." Blair and the members of his cabinet, unaware of the Herskowitz conversations, placed Bush's decision to mount an invasion in or about July of 2002. But for Bush, the question that summer was not whether, it was only how and when. The most important question, why, was left for later.
Eventually, there would be a succession of answers to that question: weapons of mass destruction, links to Al Qaeda, the promotion of democracy, the domino theory of the Middle East. But none of them have been as convincing as the reason George W. Bush gave way back in the summer of 1999.
time for the lefties to pile on and yuk it with your poor attempt at humor.nm
I just don't have the energy to fight anymore, I guess. This was lame attempt!
I need to work anyway. 
You're entitled to your opinion. I guess it depends on what side of the spectrum you're on.nm
x
We're not defending Bush we're pointing out the obvious
All you see in your view is Bush, Bush, Bush. Nobody else exists. You have yet to answer any of the questions I posed yesterday. We're not the one obsessing about Bush. I'm sure you'll counter that with I don't owe you any answers! It's really telling that for five or six days this board was mute about the Israel/Lebanon situation. You were too busy posting trash news about Bush like nothing was even happening, but I know that the left has wait for its talking points. You all cannot formulate opinions on your own. You have boilerplates ready to go though. *This is Bush's fault because _____________ but you have to wait on Howard Dean, Bill Clinton, etc. etc. to fill in the blanks for you. It's not just a phenomenon here but with all the left. You can count on at least two days of silence when something unforseen breaks out in the world, because they have to retreat to their bunkers to get their talking points straight, but it will always start with *This is Bush's fault because....
Hey, if they're smoking cigs, they're paying for SCHIP.
xx
They're too lazy to show patriotism......they're waiting
xx
So you're not racist but you're most definitely SEXIST and AGEIST!!!
"Someone more in our age group..."
"She should be taking care of her family."
Your true colors are showing, and they're truly ugly.
Just because they're LOSING doesn't mean they're VICTIMS.
What is it with people these days? You think that just because Hamas is getting its fanny handed to it that that magically makes them victims, and we should all weep and throw cash at them?
From the dawn of time, lesser civilizations have fallen to stronger ones.
It's why the human species survived and the neanderthals didn't.
It's why Rome conquered the Celts.
It's why the Barbarians conquered the Western Roman Empire.
It's why the British conquered the American Indians.
It's why the Spanish conquered the Aztecs.
It's why the Muslims conquered Israel the first time. But, since their societal progres seems to have permanently parked in the Stone Age, now Israel is conquering them right back.
Deal with it.
You're right. They're simply not worthy of a reply.
New reason
Bush gives new reason for Iraq war
Says US must prevent oil fields from falling into hands of terrorists
By Jennifer Loven, Associated Press | August 31, 2005
CORONADO, Calif. -- President Bush answered growing antiwar protests
yesterday with a fresh reason for US troops to continue fighting in
Iraq: protection of the country's vast oil fields, which he said
would otherwise fall under the control of terrorist extremists.
The president, standing against a backdrop of the USS Ronald Reagan,
the newest aircraft carrier in the Navy's fleet, said terrorists
would be denied their goal of making Iraq a base from which to
recruit followers, train them, and finance attacks.
''We will defeat the terrorists, Bush said. ''We will build a free
Iraq that will fight terrorists instead of giving them aid and
sanctuary.
Appearing at Naval Air Station North Island to commemorate the
anniversary of the Allies' World War II victory over Japan, Bush
compared his resolve to President Franklin D. Roosevelt's in the
1940s and said America's mission in Iraq is to turn it into a
democratic ally just as the United States did with Japan after its
1945 surrender. Bush's V-J Day ceremony did not fall on the actual
anniversary. Japan announced its surrender on Aug. 15, 1945 -- Aug.
14 in the United States because of the time difference.
Democrats said Bush's leadership falls far short of Roosevelt's.
''Democratic Presidents Roosevelt and Truman led America to victory
in World War II because they laid out a clear plan for success to the
American people, America's allies, and America's troops, said Howard
Dean, Democratic Party chairman. ''President Bush has failed to put
together a plan, so despite the bravery and sacrifice of our troops,
we are not making the progress that we should be in Iraq. The troops,
our allies, and the American people deserve better leadership from
our commander in chief.
The speech was Bush's third in just over a week defending his Iraq
policies, as the White House scrambles to counter growing public
concern about the war. But the devastation wrought by Hurricane
Katrina in the Gulf Coast drew attention away; the White House
announced during the president's remarks that he was cutting his
August vacation short to return to Washington, D.C., to oversee the
federal response effort.
After the speech, Bush hurried back to Texas ahead of schedule to
prepare to fly back to the nation's capital today. He was to return
to the White House on Friday, after spending more than four weeks
operating from his ranch in Crawford.
Bush's August break has been marked by problems in Iraq.
It has been an especially deadly month there for US troops, with the
number of those who have died since the invasion of Iraq in March
2003 now nearing 1,900.
The growing death toll has become a regular feature of the slightly
larger protests that Bush now encounters everywhere he goes -- a
movement boosted by a vigil set up in a field down the road from the
president's ranch by a mother grieving the loss of her soldier son in
Iraq.
Cindy Sheehan arrived in Crawford only days after Bush did, asking
for a meeting so he could explain why her son and others are dying in
Iraq. The White House refused, and Sheehan's camp turned into a hub
of activity for hundreds of activists around the country demanding
that troops be brought home.
This week, the administration also had to defend the proposed
constitution produced in Iraq at US urging. Critics fear the impact
of its rejection by many Sunnis, and say it fails to protect
religious freedom and women's rights.
At the naval base, Bush declared, ''We will not rest until victory is
America's and our freedom is secure from Al Qaeda and its forces in
Iraq led by Abu Musab alZarqawi.
''If Zarqawi and [Osama] bin Laden gain control of Iraq, they would
create a new training ground for future terrorist attacks, Bush
said. ''They'd seize oil fields to fund their ambitions. They could
recruit more terrorists by claiming a historic victory over the
United States and our coalition.
The reason
Like GT so eloquently wrote below, she has nothing to do with my request that you leave our board. The only person who has anything to do with it is YOU.
You and every single one of your *friends* are rude, crude, abrasive, insulting, and continually lie, lie, LIE. You are the kind of people I would choose NOT to associate with in real life because you have no values and you have a gang mentality, but most of all, you're just deplorable human beings, as you yourselves have demonstrated through your posts.
You have your own board. Would you please just go back there? You are offensive to many on this board. This is the liberal board. You clearly don't belong here any more than I don't belong on your board, where you and you *friends* indeed constantly gang up on anyone who disagrees with you. If that's how you want to conduct yourselves on your own board, that's fine. It's your board, and if you choose to turn it into a filthy sewer, that's your option. But you don't have the right do that on the liberal board. I'm very close to writing to the administrator and complaining about you all before I leave, as well. You don't contribute anything of value to this board, and all you morons do is chase kind, loving and intelligent people away.
As GT says in her posts, you are clearly obsessed with her, and I don't understand why, but you're becoming psychotic about it, and you're showing that psychosis to anyone who reads this board. You paint her to be a terrible person, and from what I read in her posts, she is NOT a terrible person. She is loving and caring and intelligent..all traits that not ONE of you posseses. You are way out of your limited ignorant hateful league on this board. Please. JUST GO AWAY.
There's no other reason.
All they want to do is start trouble. Ignore the gnats.
The reason for this. sm
and something that is not in this short article is the language of the bill and the loopholes it leaves open. I have no doubt at all that the NRA would back terrorists or suspected terrorists from getting guns. However, this bill is badly written and needs to be revised to leave no loopholes for further legislation not included in the bill, which often happens.
This is one BIG reason why
I don't want government involved in my health care. The VA is a joke and our veterans do not get the care that they need and deserve. If heroes like that aren't taken care of by our government....what in the he11 makes us think that the government will take care of us? 
You are the reason I put it in here, to
see just how much it would bother you. Knew you would make a fool of yourself again and give us all another good laugh for the day. It's just another name to me, could be Tom Thumb as far as I care.
I am sorry that is the only reason you
want Obama to win this election. I am afraid you are in for a rude awakening, my child! No need for rubbing in my face, I can easily live it, I have a higher power on my side! As stated earlier, I have a life outside this election, I only wish the same for you.
Here's another possible reason:
Maybe people who are struggling to afford healthcare, fill up their gas tanks and feed their families just happen to agree with his VIEWS on the issues.
This is the reason
We have always felt O was wrong for the position. We have been discussing what his policies will mean to the country. His lack of knowledge, his plans are bad for the country and will not keep us safe, his redistribution of wealth and how that will not help the economy and will put us into a depression. It will now mean there will no longer be a middle income anymore. Those middle income will now be among the low income and the downright poor will now also join the low income. So we've tried discussing O and his plans/issues. Nobody wanted to listen. They are just too he!!-bent on hating Bush with such abhorrence they won't listen to reason. O tells people he's going to give them all this stuff for free and people believe it. We've tried pointing out his character flaws and who he keeps for company - Ayers, Wright, Farrahkan, etc. Only after he hears an outcry from some he decides to say, oh yeah, I don't agree with him, he just happened to be someone in my neighborhood which is an outright lie, but people just hate Bush/Cheney so much they won't see past his lies.
I think we all have a feeling O will win, unless a miracle happens (and they can - we can all hope and pray), but a lot do not know what it is like to live in a socialist country. Where what you work for his taken away from you without your consent and given to others who like most are now saying they will quit and just get the handouts O is promising.
We are trying to expose O for what he truly is. His followers do not seem to care that he sat through 20 years of Wright's hateful anti-American sermons twice a month for the past 20 years and never got up and walked out of any of them. His followers do not seem to care that he will blantantly change the constitution just so he can be elected. His followers do not seem to care that the people who gave him his start in politics are Ayers. While you all choose to believe he was "just a guy in my neighborhood". His followers do not seem to care that he is accepting money from countries like Libya and our other enemies - the same ones who are trying to destroy us and wipe us off the planet as a nation unless we convert to Islam. There are so many reasons we are so appalled that this character slimed his way up and stole the election from Hillary. As election day comes closer we are ever more worried that that O could get in. We will hope and pray he doesn't but the thought of what will happen to our country. Everything our country was based on and evertything our founding fathers went through to make this a great country will be lost forever. But that is okay for his followers. After all Farrakan said he is the messiah, so most of his followers must be Farrakan supporters too. It's a very sad time to see how many of O's followers want to live in socialism, how many of you do not care if the country is safe, how many don't care that they are have re-education camps to throw those who do not think like them in and if they cannot be re-educated they will be eliminated. It's frightening to think many who support him will most likely be like those in Germany who turned in people who didn't agree with the Fuhrer. I just don't want to live in a country like that, but many do say "History will repeat itself".
For some reason......
they didn't want to give you that loan. Refusal because of $11? Sounds like an excuse to me. Our lender (who also sold us the property) even lied about how much we put down..........
The only reason I have
ever called you a kool-aid drinker is because you constantly post about rhetoric. When will you wake up and realize that even democrat politicians say one thing and do another. You can't get much more obvious about than the Obama administration and yet you continue to sing his praise. You are blinded by your own political party.
Obama...the man who said he would sign no bill with pork in it and then did without batting an eyelash.
The man who said he would pull troops out of Iraq and has extended the time frame to keep troops in Iraq longer and to deploy more in Afghan. He ridiculed McCain for not wanting a time line but I guess a time line is okay as long as you can push it back whenever you feel the need, huh?
A man who promised tax cuts on 95% of the American people and yet he wants cap and trade which will tax everyone A LOT.
Gay rights activists sing his praise and yet Obama himself isn't for same sex marriage.
He wants people to have the right to choose to carry a child or abort it and yet he takes the rights away from hospitals and doctors by not allowing them to refuse to perform that procedure. You complain about taking the rights away from people but yet you have no problem taking rights away from people with a different view point than yourself.
Yet all you ever come back with is that we are a bunch of babies who need to grow some balls and how ignorant we are for watching Fox News even though Fox has higher ratings than the crap you watch.
The channels you profess to tell the truth aren't even covering the tea parties. I personally feel that thousands and thousands of Americans protesting is a big deal and should be reported on whether or not a channel agrees with the reason behind it. Picking and choosing what to report is not telling the truth. It is being very one sided. Any open minded person would realize that.
Reason
Can you demonsrate that the health of those without healthcare coverage is better or equal to that of those who have healthcare coverage?
I see no reason why
marriage would not still be limited to two people (of whatever flavor) at a time. Bygamy would still be bygamy.
You're right. Think what men with half a dozen legal wives and a couple of dozen kids could do to any medical plan, let alone our system for deducting dependents from income tax.
On the other hand, I have a same-sex housemate who is disabled, unemployed and uninsured. We are not gay, but if same-sex marriage were legal, I could marry her and get her insured under my plan. Many marriages involve no sex. Maybe they didn't start out that way but over time they evolve in that direction. We would simply be skipping the honeymoon part.
There is a reason for this......
Less natives of these countries are having children because they are paying such high taxes to let others live off the system, they can't afford to have more children.
Same in the U.S.
Here is a possible reason why.....
Because the smart people have seen through Obama and the rest of the Dems from the get-go and don't want more of what we have now. If you want to win bad enough, you will use any means available, legal or illegal. But then that is JMO.
I wouldn't want to be on the
O'Reilly Factor either. Bill O'Reilly never lets the people talk. He is always cutting them off to speak his opinion. Kind of annoying really. I am no Obama supporter, but I think as a person in general.....I wouldn't want to be on his show. If people have opposing ideas....fine....but let them talk.....stop talking over them. 
Wouldn't we all??
LOL in regards to Christmas, very few people actually celebrate the *true* meaning anymore. Our neighbor has already put their lights up for heaven's sake!
Do Jews believe that he was crucified? I mean is it up until the resurrection that is disagreed with? Or is that just based on who you are talking to?
I mean my belief is that Jesus died and rose again and he had to die for our sins to pay our sin debt so we can go to heaven. I also believe he is the only way to heaven, because if not then it was senseless for him to die. But I do believe he is coming back and we will be gathered with him and after the tribulation heaven will be here on earth and those who didn't believe will be "ashes under our feet" as the Bible says.
I know that a lot of "Christians" now don't believe all of the Bible, or believe there are errors, which just amazes me, but hey, everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. To me God cannot lie, and if God said the Bible is the Truth, well, it's the Truth then.
I'm sorry if I got heated before. I am a new Christian (I was baptized last November, but I would say I didn't get serious until January) and I knew before that a lot of people are against Christianity (in general) but it amazes me how so many people are just downright hateful about it! I mean yes, I can understand, because there are a lot of hypocritical Christians, a lot of Christians who profess Jesus and then go out into the world and do the same old things they used to, and those were my very same arguments before I believed in Him. But I have met so many more Christians that are just CONCERNED! I mean do people not understand that our belief in Jesus is just as strong as our belief that a chair is really there when we go to sit in it?
I'm ranting again. But what I was discussing with you I am just curious because it seems like Jews and Christians agree on a lot up until the point of whether Jesus was Messiah or not. I guess my biggest question is why don't they believe he is the Messiah?
I wouldn't know.
Since we've never cared enough about the average American to try universal healthcare. We could probably find out how it works from the Iraqis, though, since part of Bush's war budget was to provide comprehensive universal healthcare to THEM.
It's sad that some people are okay with paying for Wall Street crooks to get richer and richer.
We're all about greed, greed, greed. Even with all the publicity about Bush's bailouts, I just heard on the news that the end-of-year bonuses are still in place for the Wall Street crooks.
Seems to me that when a government runs around and buys up banks, that's FASCISM, so if we move to SOCIALISM (which will never happen and which is a ridiculous statement), that move will be a giant step UP from what we have now.
I'm sick and tired of eight years of greed. By the looks of things, the majority of Americans are sick of it, as well, which gives me some hope for what is left of humanity.
Obama is right. "Trickle down" hasn't worked. It's time to try "trickle UP."
|
