my post above applies also to your comment..
Posted By: .- on 2009-05-27
In Reply to: The lady from Africa should go back there...... - sm
The flag outside the building shows enough patriotism, and I am sure that there are office policies.
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
FYI--I didn't post the comment above this.sm
I think this was a mistake. Is this you Observer?
P.S. If there is another person posting with the Democrat moniker let me know and I will change mines.
I did not post the original comment -
and I do not feel that way. I was on the fence myself about which way to go until McCain picked Palin. That toppled me right off...
or post a comment. With no audience
I think she might go away!
I wonder if this applies to....... sm
folks who live in mobile homes. I bought my doublewide almost 13 years ago not anticipating that I would shortly be a divorced mom with a mortgage along with all the bills previously paid on both our incomes. I could afford the house at the time, but it is getting harder with each passing day and it doesn't take much of an emergency for me to have to miss making a mortgage payment. I play catchup all the time and with the rising cost of utilities and groceries, I'm barely treading water.
this applies also to you...I do not care
if O received his Islamic teachings BEFORE or after he attended the CATHOLIC school hours!
Tolerance applies except to the Christian right
then the gloves are off. Christians are not to be tolerated unless they are willing to *embrace* not just *tolerate* other views and/or lifestyles.
Something interesting re Eliot Spitzer. It applies to now. sm
Eliot Spitzer wrote this editorial in the Washington Post 3 weeks before they politically assassinated him.
Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime
How the Bush Administration Stopped the States From Stepping In to Help Consumers
By Eliot Spitzer
Thursday, February 14, 2008; A25
Several years ago, state attorneys general and others involved in consumer protection began to notice a marked increase in a range of predatory lending practices by mortgage lenders. Some were misrepresenting the terms of loans, making loans without regard to consumers' ability to repay, making loans with deceptive "teaser" rates that later ballooned astronomically, packing loans with undisclosed charges and fees, or even paying illegal kickbacks. These and other practices, we noticed, were having a devastating effect on home buyers. In addition, the widespread nature of these practices, if left unchecked, threatened our financial markets.
Even though predatory lending was becoming a national problem, the Bush administration looked the other way and did nothing to protect American homeowners. In fact, the government chose instead to align itself with the banks that were victimizing consumers.
Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis. This threat was so clear that as New York attorney general, I joined with colleagues in the other 49 states in attempting to fill the void left by the federal government. Individually, and together, state attorneys general of both parties brought litigation or entered into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged in predatory lending practices. Several state legislatures, including New York's, enacted laws aimed at curbing such practices.
What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge? As Americans are now painfully aware, with hundreds of thousands of homeowners facing foreclosure and our markets reeling, the answer is a resounding no.
Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.
Let me explain: The administration accomplished this feat through an obscure federal agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The OCC has been in existence since the Civil War. Its mission is to ensure the fiscal soundness of national banks. For 140 years, the OCC examined the books of national banks to make sure they were balanced, an important but uncontroversial function. But a few years ago, for the first time in its history, the OCC was used as a tool against consumers.
In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.
But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation.
Throughout our battles with the OCC and the banks, the mantra of the banks and their defenders was that efforts to curb predatory lending would deny access to credit to the very consumers the states were trying to protect. But the curbs we sought on predatory and unfair lending would have in no way jeopardized access to the legitimate credit market for appropriately priced loans. Instead, they would have stopped the scourge of predatory lending practices that have resulted in countless thousands of consumers losing their homes and put our economy in a precarious position.
When history tells the story of the subprime lending crisis and recounts its devastating effects on the lives of so many innocent homeowners, the Bush administration will not be judged favorably. The tale is still unfolding, but when the dust settles, it will be judged as a willing accomplice to the lenders who went to any lengths in their quest for profits. So willing, in fact, that it used the power of the federal government in an unprecedented assault on state legislatures, as well as on state attorneys general and anyone else on the side of consumers.
The writer is governor of New York.
Must be not. Double standard applies. Crickets.
/
I don't think dual citizenship applies to your kids -
Not being ugly, my daughter was born in Germany too, but I never heard that she had dual citizenship. She was born on a military base and that made her an American.
Too bad the cap only applies to TARP funded CEOs.
ANY CEO should be making more salary than the POTUS and that any compensation beyond that amount should be directly related to the success of the company, i.e. commissions, profit percentage, stock dividends, etc. I also believe stockholders should have more control of their salaries, benefits, bonuses and any other perks.
Yes, freedom works for everyone, right to choose applies....sm
to individual doctors, nurses, and even pharmacists, as well as the woman; as you said, there are enough providers who will happily oblige and do the procedures for compensation and not have a problem with it. I used to be a surgical tech, I never had to assist in one, my docs were general surgeons, but I could never be in the room, myself, while an abortion was being performed, I would get sick. I am sorry, I believe in the freedom for others, but personally I could not be there, and would not want to be forced, could not! JMHO
Thou shall not kill applies to unborn babies. sm
They are alive, no matter how many pretty pictures you try to paint about it. They are life, God's life.
The no-political-stance rule applies both ways
this is not exclusive to just anti-war speakers. To remain non-profit pastors cannot endorse a political party or agenda, eventhough Reverends Jesse and Al do it all the time and they seem to get away with it. There is a church in my area who was threatened with having their non-profit status pulled due to the fact the pastor urged people to vote for Bush. Believe me this is not unilateral nor one sided.
Comment on Bush comment
I heard Bush this morning saying that no one predicted or knew that the New Orleans levees would give way. Well, that is not true. This was widely predicted by engineers and meteologists. The engineers predicted it for years if/when a major hurricaine hit, as well as engineers and meteorologists predicting this 1-2 days before Katrina. I even told my boyfriend last Sunday night that they were predicting some levees would break, that New Orleans would be in water the same depth as Lake Pontchartrain and that thousands could die. Gee, guess I should be a White House advisor.
My other gripe is that this federal response seems a bit slow. Like maybe Monday afternoon things should have been put into motion instead of......Thursday? But then, I'm sure not an expert.
too ignorant a comment to comment on...nm
nm
Comment
Why did you choose the Hilter comparison?
Here is what I saw in Hitler:
1. Megalomania - yes, possibly in Bush.
2. Skillful use of the propaganda of hate to unite a nation and incite a lust for war. Blaming of select ethnic group for Germany's woes -- yes, I see some similarity there, but Bush seems more like "oops, sorry I accidentlly killed you" to the Iraquis (Islam nations) rather than "I will place you in concentration camps until you are all exterminated."
3. Hitler was mentally ill but still capable of great, inspirational speeches and inspiring confidence in the masses -- Bush is kind of dopey and I'm not sure who he inspires, really, if much of anyone.
4. Hitler seemed to have an agenda to exterminate -- as mentioned, I don't see that in Bush.
Well, I had fun with this. WWII is an area that I know quite a bit about.
Comment
Did gt actually say there were NO socialist Jews? I took her to mean that Jews in general should not be categorized as socialists. There are probably socialist Irish, socialist Catholics, socialist African-Americans....but that doesn't mean you label the entire ethnic group as such. Common sense would dictate this. Just as I keep saying, you cannot label all liberals or all democrats as having the same ideals and belief systems. You seem to keep trying to put square pegs in round holes here....or, as also has been mentioned...thinking only in black and white when the world and all its people are shades of gray. It makes me very sad to see this and I end up feeling hopeless about the future of our country and of the world.
As far as Chomsky, I haven't read tons of his writing but what I did read a few years ago I very much liked. Could it be a case of you taking some things he wrote out of context? Or perhaps some things he wrote were more fiery or radical than you were comfortable with? Perhaps you didn't survey his writings as a whole and only picked out a few you didn't like. When you make an accusation as you did, please provide examples to back up your comments.
Your comment...
I think I do your understand your point....basically you are saying his comment was taken out of context? It did seem that what I read of this quote was more that he was careless in his comments - they touched a nerve, as I said. It seemed he was looking at a cultural problem from a tongue-in-cheek statistical line of reasoning, and perhaps spoke before thinking. At least, I HOPE that's all it was. I have not read this all that carefully, I must admit. I also admit I know NOTHING about him personally or his past.
Thanks for your intelligent commentary.
Comment
Obviously your beliefs bring you solace and comfort and that is a benefit that religion offers, in my opinion, and that is very good if it helps you.
However, perhaps you should not generalize. I was a hospice worker as well as watching my mother die from cancer. She was a life-long agnostic and I don't believe it ever even crossed her mind to call out to Jesus or Zeus or any other deity. She made the most graceful exit from this world I have ever seen and was at peace with that process.
I do agree though that in times of extreme stress many folks may want to enlist the aid of a higher power, but please don't assume that we all turn to Jesus.
Just a comment
Does this apply to anyone who helps a specific region? That would certainly limit a lot of programs that target specific groups of the poor. So when President Johnson launched his War on Poverty targeting Appalachia he should have been required to live there? I am just so happy to see interest and help provided for the most downtrodden sectors of our society (as well as worldwide) that I can see no good reason to require that the folks contributing have to change their place of residence.
Had to comment
The story about your prescriptions rings so true! My insurance company sends me these little papers after every x-ray, lab test, etc. that outlines what I paid, what they paid, and whether or not the price was reduced. I had blood tests that I was initially told cost $1,150. (I almost passed out!) After a few months of arguing with the insurance company and the lab, I get one of these little papers that says my $1,150 bill was knocked down to $150 - without my insurance paying anything. The lab went ahead and reduced the price since my insurance was obviously not going to pay for it. I've had this done with hospital bills, too. I just love looking at those numbers. Someone is making a HUGE profit somewhere for them to be able to cut the price down that much. Kinda like when I worked in retail and I got to see the difference between what the store paid to the manufacturer and what the price tag said. Sometimes I'd almost rather not know...
Just another comment
I've been watching all stations of the news. I'm not voting for Obama. I don't trust him. I also don't trust McCain and not voting for him. I'm sure I will write in someone's name. With that said I have seen no "love fest" with Obama (watch CNN, MSNBC, and FOX). I'm not seeing this "love fest", however it was so obvious with Clinton. It was so obvious and so nauseating that I always had a bucket nearby to retch in.
As for McCain..who is saying that he is supposed to "hide" the fact that he was tortured. I've never heard that on any station. However, McCain keeps playing it over and over and over. This is not the Vietnam war and I don't care what anyone says...just because he was tortured doesn't make him qualified to be President. What makes some qualified is having your "faculties" together. Know what country you are talking about and know what's going on with the countries. DH and I were looking at each other funny when he's talking about Iran and says the Israeli people and vice versa. He doesn't know where the Taliban are, and for sure he has no idea or plans to get this country back on its feet. He is a war mongerer and that's all he's planning for. If its not one country he'll start up a war somewhere else. It's what he thrives on.
As for September 11th - the truth will come out one day and people will be shocked and in denial.
First of all, i appreciate very much your comment...
about her daughter.
That being said...there are women in high places who have young children. I do not think that precludes Sarah Palin from serving. She has been managing as governor, including firing the state chef because she wanted to cook for her own kids.
JFK had young children. Both John and Caroline were very young. Jackie did a fine job raising them. They were/are fine young people.
the difference is that Sarah is VP, not president, and her husband will be taking a larger role. There are a lot of husbands who stay at home more to take care of children because of the wife's career. I don't remember how old amy carter was...13 maybe?
At any rate, that is not an issue for me. Those children seem happy and well adjusted after their mom being a mayor and then a governor, and I have no reason to believe they will suffer if she is VP.
I think that just brings her closer to understanding career women, who can have both without excluding the other. I think that makes her closer to mothers, period. She understands.
But that is just my opinion...and you are certainly entitled to yours.
Just a comment
Having offspring is not the only reason to get married as your post suggests (not saying it says that, just saying it "suggests" that). You said "If same-gender marriage was to be then where would there be offspring". There are a lot of man/women couples who cannot have children (like me), should that have stopped us from getting married? Loving a person and wanting to spend the rest of your life with them and share the same rights every other human being get to have should be the basis for a marriage. Just leave the offspring to couples who can have kids. The world will still be fruitful and multiple.
Well, my comment on that is ---
If you don't believe in abortion and you don't believe in gay marriage, then don't get an abortion and don't get married to a gay person, and you will still get to pay less taxes!
Thanks for your comment..nm
nm
Comment
(Basically, Russia wants to be able to trust the USA again but is deploying "short-range missiles near Poland to counter U.S. military plans in Eastern Europe" in response to Bush's missile placement in Poland and the Czech Republic.)
From:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081105/ap_on_re_eu/eu_russia_medvedev
After the speech, the Kremlin announced Medvedev had congratulated Obama for winning the U.S. presidency, saying in a telegram he was "counting on a constructive dialogue with you on the basis of trust and taking each other's interests into account."
So, no comment on JTP?
x
I think we both know better so why should your comment
))
Thanks. I appreciate this comment.
I was beginning to think I was hallucinating hate speech after hours and hours of defending the other side of the coin. Guess that means I should pack it in for the night. After all, the Israelis will still be attacking Gaza in the morning and I guess it wouldn't hurt to say a few prayers, begging for mercy and hoping the gound invasion will not take place.
My comment is to anyone
who lived that carefree, don't worry about tomorrow attitude that got them in the situation they are in now. Who in their right mind would agree to an interest-only mortgage, an ARM, or any other harebrained idea to own a home. I am more irritated with the ones who knew they made $50,000 a year and bought a $300,000 home and can now plead stupid and irresponsible and the gov't will bend over backwards to help them out. I am sick and tired of my money going to those who have no clue as to how to manage money, can't better themselves without the gov't helping out, and just plain expect someone else to pay for their mistakes. Believe me, I am tender hearted, feel for the children, etc, I don't want to see anyone lose their home but for cryin' out loud, take some responsibility and quit blaming the lenders; they did not FORCE people to buy homes. Sure, they made an attractive offer, but that does not preclude common sense going right out the window just because you want something. Shelter is a right; owning a home is a privilege when you can afford it.
no comment.....nm
nm
I'll take the ignorant comment
as a compliment....believe or not I do read a lot and from different perspectives. What people like you can't stand is that some people don't take the same perspective as you. If you want to live in a doom and gloom and defeatest mindset go ahead...you are certainly free to do so, but calling me ignorant for my perspective on the whole situation shows that you cannot accept other's views on the whole subject. Again, where's the tolerance and understanding? 
Dont comment, please
A Xtian, if he/she does not want to look like a fool, should not comment on Israel.
Okay, one last comment (for the time being)
When I spoke of hijacked I meant:
1. I have been banned at times from the Conservative board for comments I've made which seemed pretty tame in retrospect. How many of you conservatives have been banned on the liberal board? I'll bet none, but hope I'm wrong.
2. The conservative board have reminded the liberals posting on it REPEATEDLY that it is their board, no bashing allowed and to go back to their own board - often in a very nasty fashion. Fair enough, but the same rules are NOT followed by the conservatives posting on the liberal board and that is definitely not playing fair and creates a double-standard.
3. It does make me happy to see conservatives posting on this board but I do not enjoy the bashing and the double-standard (see point #2) that I see going on. Worst of all, it turns me into a basher at times, too, out of frustration!!
That's it, didn't mean to start a civil war or anything.
I have learned SO much from both conservative and liberal posts and hope it continues.
Additional comment on this.
Open the website listed and take a look at ALL THE OFFERS. It is WONDERFUL. Some groups are accepting over 1000 people. It will make you feel like people really do CARE and they are all over the country.
Oh yeah, and what about the *pot* comment at the very end
Thought you didn't smoke pot gt? You were all up in arms about that last week So which is it, you do or you don't?
Nuevo California state motto---what grows in Nuevo California stays in California! 
Here is the comment I was talking about....
it was NOT a skit. She has done this twice. The time I am talking about, she said this: ...Rock bottom came when [Randi Rhodes] compared Bush and his family to the Corleones in the “Godfather” saga. “Like Fredo, somebody ought to take him out fishing and phuw,” she said, imitating the sound of gunfire.
THIS is the one she apologized for: The announcer said: “A spoiled child is telling us our Social Security isn’t safe anymore, so he is going to fix it for us. Well, here’s your answer, you ungrateful whelp: [audio sound of four gunshots being fired.] Just try it, you little bastard. [audio of gun being cocked].”
Anyone who wants to complain about Ann Coulter should try a little Randi.
If she did it twice, I have no doubt of her intent, no matter how many times she *apologizes.
Just to keep it REAL.
I guess my comment to that would be
Not everyone CHOOSES not to have insurance. Take my father for example - He worked in construction. He had a heart attack this past year. This past month, he was laid off. He will not be able to get private health insurance because of his heart attack. Not all people do not have insurance because they don't want to. Some cannot afford it. Others have it, but it is dependent on their full-time employment. People are getting laid off left and right down here. Those people will now be without insurance until they can find another full-time job. Yes, I do realize that there is Cobra, but the premiums for that are astronomical. How is a person without a job supposed to pay $800 a month for health insurance (for just one person)?
The other issue, is the one I bring up for my situation. I have a pre-existing condition. I cannot get private heatlh insurance. I HAVE to work full-time to keep this insurance. I have only two options - work full time or not work at all and get Medicaid. And yes, I had insurance when I was initially diagnosed, but I was covered under my mother's health insurance because I was in school and under 25. At that point, I got very sick and was not able to get a full-time job to cover the gap in coverage. When I tried to apply, I was denied. When I finally was able to work full-time, I had to pay for 12 months of insurance during which time NOTHING was covered. So, not only did I pay the $300 insurance premiums, but I still have a few thousand dollars in medical bills.
My main point was that the poster above mentioned free enterprise and letting insurance companies have free reign. I was just trying to explain why that is a horrible idea because insurance companies are a business and they only care about $. They of course will choose not to cover someone with an illness. SOME government control over the situation I feel is necessary.
Just had one comment to make...
I agree that we should have stuck with Bin Laden until we caught him, but here is the thing. Bin Laden isn't doing the fighting. He is sending his people to do all the ugly work while he hides and is well protected. The only way for us to win the war on terrorism is if the people in these countries fight themselves against the terrorists. If they stand up and say....I've had enough.....it will be a lot harder for the terrorists to do what they are doing. JMO though. We can't make them stand up to them though and I can't really blame them because I'd be terrified if I were them too, but that is the only way it will stop.
I think what she meant by the last comment - sm
was that now McCain has nothing to say about Obama's lack of experience because Palin doesn't have much either. I didn't take it necessarily as a bash.
How can someone be pro-life and pro-death penalty? A life is a life right? Most of the pro-lifers I know, have listened to have made comments about God's the only one who can take a life, well if that is someone's stand how can you be pro-death penalty. I'm not saying that that is her reasoning, God, but just a question.
I'm all for cleaning up gov't too, including your party, but isn't what she is under investigation for a bit of gov't corruption too with the whole ex-BIL incident. I read that somewhere too about firing the guy because he wouldn't fire her sister's ex.
I don't know if this is a good comment or not
Am confused. If its good, thank you. Still don't know what it means.
If its bad I guess I don't care then because I still don't know what it means.
obama's comment
He was asked about press inquiries into candidate's pasts. He chuckled and said that this has been happening to him over 18 months and repubs are complaining after only 4 days.
I agreed with your comment....sm
about thinking that the people that are responsible for all this, should pay for it. Like all the people who walked away with millions from these institutions, as well as running them into the ground. But how could they do that?
I hate the fact that the taxpayers will have to pay for it. Did you hear that Nancy Pelosi and the democrats have added something like a 50 million dollar social package to this bill? So their little socialist agenda will be met, and make us pay even more.
I just don't get it sometimes....it goes on and on and on.....
Thanks for the link. I'll go read it later on my break.
see inside for the comment:
“You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
That is an elitist statement. Like he has any clue what the "flyover" Americans think or feel. It was condescending and elitist and he was playing to the condescending and elitist crowd he was talking to in San Francisco.
I did not say he was an elitist, but he certainly made an elitist comment. That would lead one to believe either he is an elitist and believes what he said (which I tend to think is true) or he does not real feel that way and just lied through his teeth playing to his audience. Either way is not flattering.
Oh come on....that wet t-shirt comment was bad....
she is a sitting governor. She does have executive experience. The economy in Alaska is booming and she has an 85% approval rating. Neither Obama nor Biden have that kind of approval rating. You give her absolutely no credit, and that is not real open-minded of you, now is it?
Put this in perspective. Obama has been running for President, in the spotlight, for 18 months. She has been doing it what, a month now, if that? Obama just this month sat down with a reporter who is not in the tank for him (O'Reilly). He would not talk to Fox before that. You KNOW that the mainstream press does not ask him the hard questions, about Ayers, socialism, etc. He has only sat down with "friendlies." He has steadfastedly refused to join McCain at town hall meetings where the questions can't be screened. He is running for the #1 spot and he is just as shielded as the #2 on the other ticket.
Come on....let's be fair about this.
Not a Baptist, so can't comment with any....
authority....other than I do know several folks who are Baptists and they drink beer. What I do know is there are several different types of Baptists...which type do you think won't like that description?
Of course. Were I addressing the comment
for starters, we wouldn't be buried under the slimey mud discussing "anal" We'd be informed and legitimate discourse on pertinent issues.
sorry, this goes under the palin SNL comment.nm
hate it when that happens
Not sure if I understand your comment of ....sm
"not looking good for her."
Only those that hate her and McCain think things are not looking good for her.
The rest of us could care less what SNL does, as well as the media that trashes her still, on a constant, daily basis, no matter what she says or does.
If they won't comment on her RNC financed
they probably won't feel obliged to explain tagalong trips for 5 kids on AL taxpayer dime. They'll just keep on doing that they have been doing. They'll refuse to respond and hope it will all go away.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14805.html
|
