and I will agree with you on one thing too
Posted By: actually.... on 2008-10-29
In Reply to: Well I will partially agree with you. - gourdpainter
Actually my dad lost his job back in the 1970s but it was very difficult for him. he wanted to work longer, but the company was gone and he had no place to turn. So basically he was "retired" about 7 or 8 years before he planned. Fortunately, for him and for us, my parents had always saved well, did not spend money they didn't have and lived within their means so they were able to live fine anyway. What I will agree on is that they stood together on things the way people no longer do. When their company was asking cutbacks (which was got the union going on their strike idea in the first place) several of the younger guys were in jeopardy of losing their jobs. My dad and his three friends had worked there for 40 years, those being the jobs they took when they returned from their service in World War II. People used to stay at jobs and be happy to have them! Anyway, these four men each took a week off every month (voluntarily and without pay) in order to allow one of the younger guys to keep working and not be let go. Now that is admirable. That is how people used to treat one another. Now it's all about ME and no one else matters. That is one of the biggest problems I see today - selfishness. The whole strike issue is too ambiguous. It accomplishes nothing. The workers go on strike. if they succeed, the company gives them what they want (more money, better benefits - again, more money). Then the costs of the goods produced or service rendered goes up so the company can pay these higher salaries and increased benefit costs, and everybody pays more for the goods and services so in the end nobody came out ahead. You may have ended up with a bigger paycheck but had to pay more for the same stuff so what good did it do in the end? It was a union power play, and it hurt many,many people. Sorry, rambled on there. The outsourcing issue is a problem due to business taxation in this country, and we have one candidate who wants to increase business tax. How will that help? NOT.
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 would agree except for one thing. sm
They are teaching our future generation. Whether I give them power or not, and I don't, they have unlimited reign to spread their propaganda.
That is not the same thing. While I do not agree....
with many of the arcane tax laws we have, redistribution of wealth is taking money from the private sector and directly redistributing that money to people who did not earn it. Not from the tax coffers that every american pays into. To put it more simply...say the government decides to take half of what you have and distribute it to your neighbors who don't have as much as you have. That is what Obama is talking about. Plays on class warfare...taking from the haves and giving it to the have-nots. When we pay taxes into tax coffers it is up to the government (sad to say) how that money is spent. We have control over that. Now what Obama has said he is going to do is bypass the tax and rebate system, choose which private sector company he wants to "tax," and redistribute that money directly back to people who did nothing to earn it.
I agree with you on one thing....for sure....
there are problems in BOTH parties. They have, for the most part, lost touch with us out here in Middle America. I am talking about the upper tier policymakers in the parties, the ones who REALLY run them, not the rank and file members. The Democrats dissed part of their rank and file members this week and I think they will live to regret that. The Repub hierarcy did the same thing, pushing McCain over the others when they should basically stay out of it and let the people decide. Now, if McCain is smart, he will choose a VP who is not a rote party yes person. I will wait for that.
But, BOTH parties need to clean house, and it needs to be back to what the majority of the people want, not what the upper tier of the political parties want. On EITHER side.
I agree with one thing you said. sm
You said:
We need to drop our RELIGION and DENOMINATIONS
I couldn't agree more. We need to drop religion and start thinking like rational human beings before it's too late. Stop believing in fairy tales like the bible. Revelations? Good grief. Try thinking of things in terms of facts, evidence, science, and reason instead of looking in an ancient book of fiction (the bible) and expecting it to predict the future for you.
At least we agree on one thing...LOL....
However....you totally miss the Joe the Plumber point. What difference does it make if he WAS a plant? I do not believe he was, but even if he WAS...this is America for the love of Pete!! Can't an American, Republican or not, ask a candidate a simple question??? No one forced Obama with a gun to his head to give a socialist answer. He did that all by his little ol' self. That goes to show that he BELIEVES that. That is what he BELIEVES. He believes in redistribution of wealth. He is a socialist. Hello. lol. :-)
I do agree with one thing you said about him...
he is intelligent. The rest of it...remains to be seen. I do not see integrity in someone who throws a 20-year relationship under the bus when it becomes a roadblock to the Presidency. Whether he has ALL the peoples' best interests at heart remains to be seen, not an established fact. As to the best and brightest in his campaign...I could not disagree more. Two of his advisors (until he also threw them under the bus) were main orchestrators of the Freddie/Fannie mess. Bring our nation to honor? That certainlyyyy remains to be seen.
The only thing I agree with you on is sm
the fact that he took over a mess. But making a bigger mess??? How did that help tell me please?
The only thing Obama is doing is sitting in Washington giving orders to print more money when there is none....something that the rest of us would go to prison for.
Obama is up there "playing president" for the next four years and making the biggest mess this country has ever seen. Then again, I guess if you are so far to the left you are pretty blind and cannot comprehend common sense.
He is making a laughing stock out of this country. He has no respect for the military. Our enemies are sitting back laughing at us
I'm sure. Who you gonna blame it on when the next attack on this country happens? It won't be Bush's fall, it will be Obamas fault for letting the guard down of this country.
The only thing I agree with you on is sm
the fact that he took over a mess. But making a bigger mess??? How did that help tell me please?
The only thing Obama is doing is sitting in Washington giving orders to print more money when there is none....something that the rest of us would go to prison for.
Obama is up there "playing president" for the next four years and making the biggest mess this country has ever seen. Then again, I guess if you are so far to the left you are pretty blind and cannot comprehend common sense.
He is making a laughing stock out of this country. He has no respect for the military. Our enemies are sitting back laughing at us
I'm sure. Who you gonna blame it on when the next attack on this country happens? It won't be Bush's fall, it will be Obamas fault for letting the guard down of this country.
The only thing I agree with you on is sm
the fact that he took over a mess. But making a bigger mess??? How did that help tell me please?
The only thing Obama is doing is sitting in Washington giving orders to print more money when there is none....something that the rest of us would go to prison for.
Obama is up there "playing president" for the next four years and making the biggest mess this country has ever seen. Then again, I guess if you are so far to the left you are pretty blind and cannot comprehend common sense.
He is making a laughing stock out of this country. He has no respect for the military. Our enemies are sitting back laughing at us
I'm sure. Who you gonna blame it on when the next attack on this country happens? It won't be Bush's fall, it will be Obamas fault for letting the guard down of this country.
I totally agree, and another thing. sm
Despite what liberals may think, Conservatives did not go to the poll and vote for liberals to express their displeaure. They just didn't vote at all. As you said, it was apathy. I voted because it is something I would never consider NOT doing, but I was less than enthusiastic about some of my candidates.
I agree. Another thing I would like to see change is.s/m
Corporations being given incentives and tax breaks to move their businesses to other countries. Workers in the United States need jobs too. I would like to see that repealed, and I hope that it is.
Hey that's the first thing you've said that I agree with
helping the situation.
I agree with one thing....what she did was ridiculous...
inflammatory and downright stupid. She is supposed to be the leader of the house...and what she did was just plain stupid. According to the Republicans interviewed they voted no because that was what their constituents were wanting them to do in ratio of about 99 to 1. Still, when she was supposed to be a leader in a bipartisan effort, to make that silly speech right before the vote...seriously poor judgment and she is 3 heartbeats away from the Presidency.
I don't agree with the entire thing....
X
I'll agree with you on one thing
the American people are, for the most part, ignorant sheep.
I agree...have read the same thing. nm
x
I agree with one thing you said. Abortion is
definitely evil.
One important thing we can all agree on:
Please sign this petition regarding HR 427 (Notify Americans before outsourcing information Act), and then forward it to all of your friends and family. It's amazing how many people don't know this is even happening!
After you sign the petition, with one click on the next page you can send the same thing in an email to all of your representatives automatically. The whole thing only takes a few seconds:
http://www.rallycongress.com/support-for-h-r-427-nabopia/1585/support-h-r-427-notify-americans-before-outsourcing-personal-information/
http://www.rallycongress.com/support-for-h-r-427-nabopia/1585/support-h-r-427-notify-americans-before-outsourcing-personal-information/
Agree. The whole thing is just sickening.
x
I agree this would be a good thing if it passes....
but she should move the ethics investigation to Harry Reid next:
REID'S LAST KNOWN NATIONAL MEDIA APPEARANCE: October 18th Trying To Explain His Ethical Issues. Sen. Reid: I bought a piece of land, sold it six years later. Everything was reported. It was all transparent. (CNN's Newsroom, 10/18/06)
[H]arry Reid Has Been Using Campaign Donations Instead Of His Personal Money To Pay Christmas Bonuses For The Support Staff At The Ritz-Carlton ... Federal Election Law Bars Candidates From Converting Political Donations For Personal Use. (John Solomon, Reid Used Campaign Money For Christmas Bonuses At Personal Condo, The Associated Press, 10/16/06)
Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid Collected A $1.1 Million Windfall On A Las Vegas Land Sale Even Though He Hadn't Personally Owned The Property For Three Years ... (John Solomon and Kathleen Hennessey, Reid Got $1 Million For Land He Hadn't Owned For 3 Years, The Associated Press, 10/11/06)
- Harry Reid, The Senate's Top Democrat, Makes Frequent Trips To His Home State Of Nevada. Over The Past Four Years, His Bills At Caesars Palace, Mandalay Bay And Other Las Vegas Establishments Have Totaled More Than $125,000 ... (Brody Mullins, Lawmakers Tap PAC Money To Pay Wide Array Of Bills, The Wall Street Journal, 11/2/06)
That would also be a good place to start.
and you agree with ever single thing Obama says
Knock yourself out--but I prefer to think for myself. I only pick the candidate I think is best--not perfect
Here is one thing dems and pubs can agree on
We're glad its over.
Okay - back to work for me, just thought of that.
I'll agree with you - not on the crow thing
But the disturbing fact that he is surrounding himself with the Clintonites. I thought the O kept running on the platform of Change. This is not change. This is the same ol same ol. The Clinton presidency was so nauseating and so much damage was done. Even though I didn't want the O to win I at least had hopes he would bring in new people. Not the same bumbling bubble heads.
Yeah, I agree about the rebellion thing....(sm)
I was talking about Sarah herself being the example, not her daughter. I think politicians should be held to a higher standard. Yeah, I know that Sarah wasn't the one that got pregnant, but in this day and age that doesn't matter too much. I think given the fact that the republican party was going to have a hard time winning the election anyway (considering the war, the economy, Bush, etc), it was just a bad choice to pick someone in that situation as a running mate. Having said that, I'm not sure just how much, if any, that situation actually hurt the ticket. If it did hurt the ticket then I would think that it hurt them more with pub votes more than with dems.
You did a wonderful thing, and I agree with your ultimatums, but....psm
Why do you, and many here, equate being a Democrat to be "weak, whiny, spendthrift, too soft," etc.? Personally, I agree with many of your points, and have always loved the proverb "Give a man a fish, he will eat for one day, teach him how to fish and he can feed himself all his life." But you are lumping together humanitarianism, altruism, etc., with being weak, stupid, socially backward, and perpetuating social ills, and that is not the case, or should I say, when government programs are working correctly with stringent oversight, this does not happen. I have voted Democrat because I believe in the party more than the alternative, but I am open to change, listen and watch and try to learn from each party, and am more Independent then anything. Being part of the Democratic party does not mean being a "bleeding heart liberal," and mmore than being a Republican means being totally cold, selfish, money-driven, fat cat, etc. This is all way too simplistic, and why the parties cannot communicate effectively or get anything done TOGETEHR. I am a Christian, I am very conservative on most social issues, but I am a human, humans are complex, and I am also socially conscious and aware, love the nation, love its people. Please, don't generalize quite so much, it is not good for the country to increase divisions.
I agree that a phased withdrawal would be a good thing...
after we have given the surge every opportunity to work and have given the Iraqis every opportunity to step up and take over security of their own country. We cannot afford to leave too quickly and allow AL Qaeda to take it over and use it as a base from which to attack us and I have no doubt they would do just that. As to Iran...I cannot see us invading Iran like we invaded Iraq, for a multitude of reasons. I believe the term surgical strikes would take on a whole new meaning if that became necessary. Honestly, I think if Ahmadinejad persists in this nuclear thing we will not have to do anything, because I believe Israel will handle it. I don't think Israel will stand by and let him get nukes. It would be suicide to do so...because if he attacked, that would be his first target, I would be willing to bet the farm. What I am really afraid of is he will put weapons grade nuc material in the hands of Al Qaeda for a dirty bomb to attack us with. That is why I don't want to abandon Iraq to become a base for such things. However, if the Iraqi govt does not step up...I would agree that we cannot stay there for life everlasting at the strength we are now. As you say, that does impair our safety at home. I think we need to concentrate on controlling our borders better.
On that note, I did see a somewhat encouraging report on illegals. Seems that more and more of them are moving on up to Canada because...get this...it is easier to get on programs if you are illegal and Canada pays more...LOL. Well more power to them I guess. Let Canada deal with them. I bet if we started a sweep to round up illegal aliens they would run north in droves. Which is okay too. Not great for Canada but better for us.
Be well, DW!
For Pete's sake, I agree. Let me say, CARE PACKAGES ARE A GREAT THING TO DO!
Let's all send care packages. I will check out the web site you provided and if it's legit my heart and pocketbook will lead me. Trust me, to your surprise I'm not a stingy old witch sitting here not willing to give a dime to the troops but yet preach about how much I love them. Don't believe that, well then it only rains under your cloud.
Where the disconnect is, is that you think that people are not allowed to be against this war, against this administration, and still be for the troops. When you come here and tell us what the troops are asking for in the form of care packages, it ticks me off even more with this administration for putting them in this situation, but you have reminded me that they are with needs and wishes and for their sacrifice we all should give to them.
In discussing this, our conversation can not be limited to care packages. Let me applaud you in all sincerity for being proactive and on top of sending the packages you have put together. I know you will make someone in Iraq's day brighter, a big hats off to you! I just happen to think they shouldn't be in this predicament anyway and on that we may never see eye to eye and that's fine.
But valuing over the price of a dollar is a right thing wing thing, so you are on the wrong board. n
x
I never said it's a bad thing, it is a good thing....nm
nm
I agree, that goes for both sides. I don't agree with those starting trouble over...sm
on your board either, but then some of you come and take it out on the people who only post here and we have nothing to do with the fights over there.
I enjoy communicating with liberals and occasionally do learn something from conservative posters, so I refuse to let the driveby, no moniker, one-sided finger pointers, self-indulging posters drive me off.
Rush is right. I agree. Somebody's gotta agree.
....in many of his policies in his attempt to completely socialize America.
I hope he fails.
I hope he succeeds, however, in the office of president, and doing the right thing, and moves to the center.
However, it's not looking good. He's left of left so far, isn't he. Showing who he truly is, in his first acts as president.
one other thing though....
Agree with everything you stated, but I am profoundly disgusted also with Rove being able to expose a CIA agent, and nothing is going to be done about it in that I feel he committed treason, as Reagan did with Iran-Contra... Treasonous acts that are let to slide...no big deal huh? Who knows if someone is getting hurt because of his mouth, and yet, nothing... The silence is very annoying...as our country drops into a stinking sea of muck.
One more thing, gt. sm
Of all the people on these boards, YOUR opinion of me is the one I value the least.
Oh, and one more thing, gt. sm
Clnton signed Kyoto in 1997, only because he knew that the Senate would not ratify it. He was right. They voted 95-0 AGAINST Kyoto. Why? Because it would have required signatory nations to significantly cut greenhouse gases resulting from the burning of fosil fuels. Because ratifying the treaty would have required a large reduction in the use of fossil fuels that we use to our our economy. Until there is an alternative fuel source that is better than gold old fashioned coal and oil, restricting our economy's ability to burn these fuels would CRIPPLE US AS A NATION. You are not seeing the total picture here, you simply cannot be seeing it. I know the left's hatred for capitalism has blinded them to the fact that without our economy, we collapse. It really is that simple. We would be reduced to a third world nation in a very short period of time and you and I would not be sitting here writing on our computers because our world as we know it would change. Yes, it really is all about oil. But not the way you think.
and another thing
we aren't controlling anybody. There are several countries in this world where you are controlled, but this ain't one of them.
One more thing:
I apologize for the length of my post, but so far, I still have freedom of speech.
Guess I just feel the need to get it all out before that freedom suddenly disappears, as well. The majority of Americans don't agree with Bush, and we all know how he/his thugs handle people who dare to disagree with him. If you don't believe me, just ask John McCain and/or Valerie Plame.
I'd like to add one more thing.
If these alleged WMDs are so widespread and so easily accessible in Iraq, why aren't any of them being used on our soldiers?
Honestly, that's one of the very first fears I had when I heard we were going to war with Iraq (when I still believed the reasons given by the president and supported the invasion based on those reasons). I had visions of massive troop deaths at the hands of Iraqis and these WMDs.
Did that happen? 
OK. Here's the thing...sm
Because we've been through this before and I feel a repeat coming on. I'm respectful and nice to everyone on these boards 99% of the time. People come over to the liberal board and pretend they are moderates or just want to *debate.* When all the time they are anti-everything liberal and have no intention of seeing the liberal point of view. In the end, they end up *insulted* off of the board and run to the other board and have a sling fest. Yawn. They have revelations over there contrary to the beliefs they portrayed on this board. So really I'm skeptical about debating with the like. You may be 100% different worldfan, but from your posts on the Conservative and News boards it would appear you would be more at home on the conservative board giving them a high five about what's going on over here. Just my observation.
I used to post on the conservative board but I left because they were getting too extreme for my liking. It's that simple. There are some topics over there that I would reply too, but I don't b/c of past comments made over there, which have made me stick to the liberal page. However, on quite a few issues I am far from liberal like abortion and fiscal spending.
I hope you get my points. If not, we don't have anything more to discuss.
Sorry. Here's the whole thing.
I was trying to avoid this but the link is not working for some reason.
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Tuesday, July 04, 2006 |
|
|
Headlines |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Britons Tire of Cruel, Vulgar US: Poll |
|
|
People in Britain view the United States as a vulgar, crime-ridden society obsessed with money and led by an incompetent president whose Iraq policy is failing, according to a newspaper poll.
The United States is no longer a symbol of hope to Britain and the British no longer have confidence in their transatlantic cousins to lead global affairs, according to the poll published in The Daily Telegraph.
...a majority of the Britons described Americans as uncaring, divided by class, awash in violent crime, vulgar, preoccupied with money, ignorant of the outside world, racially divided, uncultured and in the most overwhelming result (90 percent of respondents) dominated by big business. ![src=http://www.commondreams.org/images/endquote.gif]()
|
|
The YouGov poll found that 77 percent of respondents disagreed with the statement that the US is a beacon of hope for the world.
As Americans prepared to celebrate the 230th anniversary of their independence on Tuesday, the poll found that only 12 percent of Britons trust them to act wisely on the global stage. This is half the number who had faith in the Vietnam-scarred White House of 1975.
A massive 83 percent of those questioned said that the United States doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks.
With much of the worst criticism aimed at the US adminstration, the poll showed that 70 percent of Britons like Americans a lot or a little.
US President George W. Bush fared significantly worse, with just one percent rating him a great leader against 77 percent who deemed him a pretty poor or terrible leader.
More than two-thirds who offered an opinion said America is essentially an imperial power seeking world domination. And 81 per cent of those who took a view said President George W Bush hypocritically championed democracy as a cover for the pursuit of American self-interests.
US policy in Iraq was similarly derided, with only 24 percent saying they felt that the US military action there was helping to bring democracy to the country.
A spokesman for the American embassy said that the poll's findings were contradicted by its own surveys.
We question the judgment of anyone who asserts the world would be a better place with Saddam still terrorizing his own nation and threatening people well beyond Iraq's borders, the paper quoted the unnamed spokesman as saying.
With respect to the poll's assertions about American society, we bear some of the blame for not successfully communicating America's extraordinary dynamism.
But frankly, so do you (the British press).
In answer to other questions, a majority of the Britons questions described Americans as uncaring, divided by class, awash in violent crime, vulgar, preoccupied with money, ignorant of the outside world, racially divided, uncultured and in the most overwhelming result (90 percent of respondents) dominated by big business.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse
### |
 Printer Friendly Version  E-Mail This Article |
|
|
|
FAIR USE NOTICE |
|
|
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would like to know the same thing.nm
12
The thing that got me was this...sm
This totally counts out everyday Joes. And those with a couple million to run. A half a billion dollars is a lot of money.
One last thing.....
Your argument might hold more water if I thought for one minute liberals understood that it was Michael Moore's OPINION and not the truth (but why should they, because he frames as the truth). I think, if you truly understand that, you are in the minority.
One more thing...
I asked the last poster to bring me one example of a Democrat who, when caught in wrongdoing, has resigned. Just one. She has not come back with one, even though I named several who should have. As I stated, the only Democrat I know of who resigned from anything resigned because he was coming out of the closet, and I find that ludicrous. The man should not have resigned because he was gay. For felony perjury, yes. For obstruction of justice, yes. Remember please the congressman who actually had a homosexual affair with an underage page (male). No Democratic outrage. He stood right up and said he was an adult and it was consensual and that had nothing to do with his job as a Congressman. No Democratic outrage. In fact, he was re-elected. Yes, that was several years ago, but all that proves is that the Democratic moral compass went wonky several years ago. It is not a recent thing, it is just getting worse and worse and worse. Stop please dancing around the subject, and please to bring forth one or two Democrats who have actually resigned and admitted wrongdoing? And while you are at it, Republicans who were caught and still hold office? I would be very willing to read and re-assess. Try for one minute to take off the liberal hat and look at it objectively. It is case after case after case...Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Alcee Hastings, William Jefferson, and on and on the list goes....in fact, Alcee Hastings was removed as a Federal Judge for bribery and perjury..see below.
In 1988, the Democratic-controlled U.S. House of Representatives took up the case, and Hastings was impeached for bribery and perjury by a vote of 413-3. Voters to impeach included Reps. Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, John Conyers and Charles Rangel. He was then convicted in 1989 by the United States Senate, becoming only the sixth federal judge in the history of the United States to be removed from office by the Senate. The Senate had the option to forbid Hastings from ever seeking federal office again, but did not do so. Alleged co-conspirator William Borders went to jail again for refusing to testify in the impeachment proceedings, but was later given a full pardon by Bill Clinton on his last day in office.
Ain't that special?? And just proves the point.
How did I get into this thing..
I have not said anything about regime change for months, years. I said Iraq was on the table before 9/11 solely to illuminate the fact that 9/11 set the stage for what some had been wanting to do for a long time. My intent was to emphasize that this administration used 9/11 as a way to garner support from Congress and the American people for the switch from Afghanistan to Iraq. If 9/11 had not happened, there would never have been support for a preemptive war in Iraq nor do I believe we would have supported going after bin Laden. It took something monumental for the American people to be willing to go to war.
How do you know Clinton is my favorite president?? I think he was a good president and I was doing a lot better when he was in office but you assume much here. In my lifetime I think maybe JFK was my favorite president (I was about 10 years old and I remember him as bigger than life) and one of the reasons for that was that he inspired us. I don't think anyone has really done that since, made us think and feel like we could do anything. It really has been downhill since Watergate.
I will cease and desist from regime change rhetoric if I never have to hear the words spew or ooze again.
How did I get in this thing....
I have not said anything about regime change for months, years. I said Iraq was on the table before 9/11 solely to illuminate the fact that 9/11 set the stage for what some had been wanting to do for a long time.
My point was that it is not only *this* administration. Clinton felt strongly enough about Iraq and regime change, as did the Congress at that time, to enact a LAW calling for regime change. So Iraq was on the table then. The articles posted would lead you to believe that liberals/Democrats never called for regime change. They are the instigating part of the *some* you speak of. And if you will read Clinton's speech at the time, if you did not know he gave it, you would think Bush might have, because the content is eerily similar. It is just odd to me that liberals were on board for WMD, on board for regime change, on board for force, on board for ALL of it when Clinton was calling for it. How do liberals manage that massive flip flop? I remember Clinton's speech well. It was one of the few times that I agreed with what he was doing and saying.
My intent was to emphasize that this administration used 9/11 as a way to garner support from Congress and the American people for the switch from Afghanistan to Iraq. If 9/11 had not happened, there would never have been support for a preemptive war in Iraq nor do I believe we would have supported going after bin Laden. It took something monumental for the American people to be willing to go to war. Okay. I get it. 3000 people dying here was not enough to make liberals willing to go to war. What, in the name of the Almighty, is, I am wondering.
How do you know Clinton is my favorite president?? I think he was a good president and I was doing a lot better when he was in office but you assume much here. I was being facetious...he seems to be the posterboy for liberals. I apologize. I will not refer to him as YOUR favorite President anymore. Glad though that you validated what I have said on numerous occasions, that liberals are about what is good for them individually...I am glad you personally were doing better when he was President.
In my lifetime I think maybe JFK was my favorite president (I was about 10 years old and I remember him as bigger than life) and one of the reasons for that was that he inspired us. I don't think anyone has really done that since, made us think and feel like we could do anything. It really has been downhill since Watergate. Maybe it has gone downhill for you since watergate. Personally I think it started downhill then, and made a huge massive slide with Monicagate and a sitting President committing felony perjury. However, I do not hold the country responsible for that as you seem to. I hold the individuals...Nixon and Clinton...responsible. At least Nixon had a modicum of grace to say he was wrong and resign when caught. Clinton has done neither and his party has not expected him to and has in fact defended him. You will never hear me defend either of them.
I will cease and desist from regime change rhetoric if I never have to hear the words spew or ooze again. I believe it was one on the liberal board who started the *spew* and *ooze* and the only time I have used those words was again, being facetious, in reply to the ones who used them. I personally did not start the use of those. In fact, I think her words were *spew venom* (ick). As to cease and desist, go ahead with the regime change rhetoric if you like. We know it did not originate with Bush, not opinion, matter of law. No spin, hard fact.
Have a good day.
The right thing to do is...
allow everyone to vote. No one needs to step down. And I do not support either of them. I supported Ron Paul when he was in the race.
One more thing
He keeps flashing a pic of himself when he was a young guy in the military. Almost every commercial of him shows him when he was younger, and in fact one of his ads on this website shows him a young guy in the military. He's now old and he should have a current picture. What's next, Barack putting up adds with his high school senior pic? How about Hillary running with a picture of her in grade school. The guy is old and if he's so confident in himself he should have a current pic of him. He's no longer younger and he doesn't have the mind of someone younger.
You did no such thing since he never said that.
I did do my research and so did the author of "comparative drug use." above. FYI: Crack/free-base cocaine and cocaine hydrochloride are not the same. One is pure, the other a compound. The addition of hydrochloride gives the intranasal compound a completely different chemical make-up that does not have the same effect. It is slower on the uptake and clears the system much faster than the cocaine base (giving it less of an addictive potential) . The pure free base/crack cocaine DOES NOT WORK when it is snorted, since the absorption is obstructed when it is attacked by enzymes via the nasal route. Method of delivery does matter, in terms of drug effect, absorption, drug life and addiction potential. If you are an MT, you know where to go to verify this information.
I am aware of what he said and did not say in his book. I have nothing to add to the "comparative drug use" post in that regard. Furthermore, there is nothing inaccurate in my original post. There is a pervert on a right-wing fringe blog who made these unsubstantiated claims about his witnessed account of "sharing" cocaine with Obama and having homosexual sex with him. He has also been discredited and has a wrap sheet a mile long. Does not seem like a credible observation from a credible source. That's all I said. I did not deny, nor did I acknowledge whether or not Obama used cocaine. My comments referred to how information is extracted from legitimate sources (in this case, straight from the horse's mouth), twisted and manipulated by perverts and right-wing blogsters in desperate efforts to smear somebody's character when they are unable to engage themselves directly in legitimate policy issues. The "character" card, whether played by one party or the other, is really a lame strategy that prevents productive, progressive approaches to issues and solutions to problems of dire importance to us AS A NATION, not as party affiliates.
That is the best thing you
can come up with? Let us forget Obama's association with Ayers or his 20-year membership to a church that preached hate messages......let's just focus on McCain calling his wife a C unt shall we. Sheesh......If he thought so little of women, he would never have chose one to run as his VP.
In all seriousness though, why is c unt such an offensive word? Who dictates words and which ones are bad? Who decided that the F bomb was bad? Who determined what words were considered swear words? If I called someone a poop head and then called someone a c unt, they are both supposed to insult...are they not.....so why is one worse than the other and who determined that?
At least she is doing the right thing
She is going to have the baby and not kill it
well, the one thing that the VP has is...
the deciding vote if there is a tie in Congress, and with a majority dem congress that is not a bad thing.. :)
Yep, I agree with the "gimme" attitude. I call it being all about me, me, me. Don't get me wrong, I believe some social programs are necessary because there are people who, through no fault of their own whether mental disability or physical disability, cannot work. And I think we should take care of our fellow man to that extent. However, those who are fully capable of working and choose not to, and we have to subsidize their housing, their groceries, and give them a check every month...that needs to stop.
Have a wonderful day!
|
