Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

need to view the big picture

Posted By: dk on 2008-09-30
In Reply to: Is anyone actually in favor of the bail out? - cesspoolmagic0_0

Gut reaction is to say let the fail. I was not in favor of the bailout as proposed; however, common sense tells me that there has to be some plan. It isn't a question of stocks falling; it is a question of the economic structure of the US failing completely. I do want to save their "greedy banker butts" (to use your words) but you need to think of the bigger picture. You talk about a drop in stock, retirement, possible lower value of your home and no loan for college. How about drop in stock and savings and checking and everything to zero. How about losing your home, not having a job, not being able to afford food or clothing? Do you understand the consequence of no fix to this problem goes way beyond "bailing out their greedy banker butts." It is just not wall street here, it is the entire American economy.

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

sorry, picture did not take...
here is the link:
http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/politics/politico/main501563.shtml

It shows that the picture missing is the politico logo.

:-)
picture not there
but I have seen it elsewhere. speaks volumes, doesn't it? Everyone else on that podium had their hands on their hearts, his were at his side.
Get this picture
You are absolutely correct, I don't want anything shoved down my throat and nothing will be.  My question is when you see anything on the politics board that even remotely mentions religion, why not just click off of it and don't go about reading it much less posting a reply?  When our religious beliefs affect our political views, why on earth would we not be allowed to express those opinions? You certainly don't have to agree.   I certainly have no problem with atheists, agnostics or whatever posting their lack of religious views that affect their political views.  It seems to me that non-believers protest way too much about something they don't believe in.
OMG - thanks a lot, now that's all I have a picture of LOL
HA HA HA HA HA

Piper Laurie sure was good in that roll though.
The picture is even bigger than you think.

More smoke and mirrors from Bush.

Doctored picture? nm
nm
This is cute & I can picture him saying something like that...sm
Just reading thru some posts on here now. I guess I missed quite a bit. I have started on a new account and it is taking me 12 hours instead of 8 to get my lines.
what IS wrong with the picture?
I'm not watching TV and I don't know exactly what you are referring too, but is SP supposed to land in the midst of the hurricane, instead of Fairbanks, in order to be a good person?? 
you could ask for a picture ballot

so you don't get confused and vote for a horse or something.


 

You really need to look at the bigger picture
Of course you care about your interest rate on your home, but neither candidate is going to 'solve' this horrific crisis, because there is no ONE reason for it! It is very complicated but as Americans, its our responsibility to TRY to understand it better so that we can demand the right course of actioN from ALL parties involved.

ONE FACT: When wages are stagnant an economy cannot grow - and that DEFINITELY is playing into what is happening in the financial crisis. Ask yourself which candidate is for INCREASING wages and fighting for equal pay for women and men...

Don't depend on SAM or anyone else to help you decide, use the power of the internet to educate yourself.

IF you like war and bleeding the treasury to ensure we have more of it, and more enemies to boot, then McCain is your man.

Im not enamoured of Obama either, so I'm not selling him to you either. That said, he ALWAYS opposed Bush's fake war - which has cost us HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS. Gee, where could we have put that $ to better use? Remember IRAQ did not attack us in 2001; the majority of attackers came from SAUDI ARABIA.

Why? Because they demanded we remove our military bases from their lands and we did not comply. After they attacked us, we attacked Iraq and guess what? WE MOVED THE MILITARY BASES TO IRAQ to appease Saudi Arabia.

Think this has nothing to do with you getting a good rate on your new home?

THINK AGAIN. As long as Americans choose their leaders based on cute lines in debates, we are destined to be robbed again and again and again.

You must look at WHAT THEY WILL DELIVER based on their past record. MCCain will give you more of the last 8 years.

But again, that's my opinion. Please care enough to do your own research, which you will believe more than anything a stranger tells you anyway.


boy, this really paints the picture of
x
Did you see the picture of O at his ceremony?
Creeped me out.  I recall no president having a big picture of himself.  Reminded me of Hitler and Sadam Hussein times.
Lets look at the big picture

Seems like each time a president leaves office everyone "hems and haws" at the list of people they pardon (especially those who dislike whatever president is leaving office).  Every exiting president has had their list of people who should never have received pardons.  Some yes, like first time offenders, people arrested for mairjuana, or caught turning back odometers, etc). 


Maybe you should have also posted the list of people Clinton pardoned.  All you said was "he pardoned some nice ones too".  You make it sound  like GW is pardoning hardened criminal while BC only pardoned some people who did petty crimes.  Even though you didn't say that, by saying "he pardoned some nice ones too" it takes away from the seriousness of the people he did pardon.  But since you didn't post Clinton's pardons I will.  Now before anyone throws a fit because I know a lot of you think Clinton is the best thing since sliced bread, I'm just posting to show that he pardoned as many creeps as Bush is.  (BTW - I didn't, have never, and do not support Bush - can't stand the guy, but at let's try to keep it honest here).  Oh and my favorites are the money launderers, income tax evaders, bank fraud, conspiracy to defraud the government, issuing worthless checks, bank fraud, etc - all those things that helped to start bringing our economy down).  Those and Roger Clinton, Marc Rich, and Susan McDougal,  I did notice how he pardoned a lot of people who lied, but then again that was Clinton's whole 8 years in office - one lie after another, so doesn't surprise me he pardoned people who lied under oath. 


You said something in regards to food stamps...look at #22 on Clintons list - Unauthorized use and transfer of food stamps.  I found an interesting article called "10 Heated Presidential Pardons" that goes back to George Washington.  I'll post the link.  All I'm saying here is that each president throughout our history has pardoned some pretty bad people that should not be pardoned.  GW is no different and no more worse than any of the previous.  Here's the article - an interesting read.


http://www.kitv.com/presidential-race/17578058/detail.html


Here's the list of Clinton's pardons


[edit] Pardons



  1. Verla Jean Allen (1990 false statements to an agency of the United States).[4]
  2. Nicholas M. Altiere (1983 importation of cocaine)
  3. Bernice Ruth Altschul (1992 money laundering conspiracy)
  4. Joe Anderson Jr. (1988 income tax evasion)
  5. William Sterling Anderson (1987 defraudment of a financial institution, false statements to a financial institution, wire fraud)
  6. Mansour Azizkhani (1984 false statements in bank loan applications)
  7. Cleveland Victor Babin Jr. (1987 using the U.S. mail service to defraud)
  8. Chris Harmon Bagley (1989 conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine)
  9. Scott Lynn Bane (Unlawful distribution of marijuana)
  10. Thomas Cleveland Barber (Issuing worthless checks)
  11. Peggy Ann Bargon (Violation of the Lacey Act, violation of the Bald Eagle Protection Act)
  12. David Roscoe Blampied (possess with intent to distribute cocaine)
  13. William Arthur Borders Jr. (Conspiracy to corruptly solicit and accept money in return for influencing the official acts of a federal district court judge (Alcee L. Hastings), and to defraud the United States in connection with the performance of lawful government functions; corruptly influencing, obstructing, impeding and endeavoring to influence, obstruct and impede the due administration of justice, and aiding and abetting therein; traveling interstate with intent to commit bribery)
  14. Arthur David Borel (Odometer Rollback)
  15. Douglas Charles Borel (Odometer Rollback)
  16. George Thomas Brabham (Making a false statement or report to a federally insured bank)
  17. Almon Glenn Braswell (1983 mail fraud and perjury)
  18. Leonard Browder (Illegal dispensing of controlled substance and Medicaid fraud)
  19. David Steven Brown (Securities fraud and mail fraud)
  20. Delores Caroylene Burleson, aka Delores Cox Burleson (Possession of Marijuana)
  21. John H. Bustamante (wire fraud)
  22. Mary Louise Campbell (Unauthorized use and transfer of food stamps)
  23. Eloida Candelaria (False information in registering to vote)
  24. Dennis Sobrevinas Capili (Filing false statements in alien registration)
  25. Donna Denise Chambers (Intent to distribute cocaine)
  26. Douglas Eugene Chapman (Bank fraud)
  27. Ronald Keith Chapman (Bank fraud)
  28. Francisco Larois Chavez (Aiding and abetting illegal entry of aliens)
  29. Henry Cisneros (former HUD Secretary)
  30. Roger Clinton, Jr. Cocaine charges(half-brother of President Bill Clinton)[3]
  31. Stuart Harris Cohn (Illegal sale of commodity options)
  32. David Marc Cooper (Conspiracy to defraud the government)
  33. Ernest Harley Cox Jr. (Defraud of federally insured savings and loan)
  34. John F. Cross Jr. (Embezzlement)
  35. Rickey Lee Cunningham (Intent to distribute marijuana)
  36. Richard Anthony DE Labio (Mail fraud)
  37. John Deutch (former Director of Central Intelligence Agency)
  38. Richard Douglas (False statements to a government agent)
  39. Edward Reynolds Downe (Wire fraud, false income tax returns and securities fraud)
  40. Marvin Dean Dudley (False statements)
  41. Larry Lee Duncan
  42. Galen R. Elmore (Convicted of cattle theft)
  43. Robert Clinton Fain
  44. Marcos Arcenio Fernandez
  45. Alvarez Ferrouillet
  46. Henry O. Flipper - guilty of "conduct unbecoming an officer" (1882)
  47. William Dennis Fugazy
  48. Lloyd Reid George
  49. Louis Goldstein
  50. Rubye Lee Gordon
  51. Pincus Green
  52. Robert Ivey Hamner
  53. Samuel Price Handley
  54. Woodie Randolph Handley
  55. Jay Houston Harmon
  56. Rick Hendrick
  57. John Hummingson
  58. David S. Herdlinger
  59. Debi Rae Huckleberry
  60. Warren C. Hultgren Jr.
  61. Donald Ray James
  62. Stanley Pruet Jobe
  63. Ruben H. Johnson
  64. Linda Jones
  65. James Howard Lake
  66. June Louise Lewis
  67. Salim Bonnor Lewis
  68. John Leighton Lodwick
  69. Hildebrando Lopez
  70. Jose Julio Luaces
  71. James Timothy Maness
  72. James Lowell Manning, (1982, aiding and assisting in the preparation of a false corporate income tax return)
  73. John Robert Martin
  74. Frank Ayala Martinez
  75. Silvia Leticia Beltran Martinez
  76. John Francis McCormick
  77. Susan H. McDougal
  78. Howard Mechanic
  79. Brook K. Mitchell Sr.
  80. Samuel Loring Morison
  81. Charles Wilfred Morgan III
  82. Richard Anthony Nazzaro
  83. Charlene Ann Nosenko
  84. Vernon Raymond Obermeier
  85. Miguelina Ogalde
  86. David C. Owen
  87. Robert W. Palmer
  88. Kelli Anne Perhosky
  89. Richard H. Pezzopane
  90. Orville Rex Phillips
  91. Vinson Stewart Poling Jr.
  92. James G. Powell
  93. Norman Lyle Prouse
  94. Willie H.H. Pruitt Jr.[5]
  95. Danny Martin Pursley Sr.
  96. Charles D. Ravenel
  97. William Clyde Ray
  98. Alfredo Luna Regalado
  99. Ildefonso Reynes Ricafort
  100. Marc Rich
  101. Howard Winfield Riddle
  102. Richard Wilson Riley Jr., Cocaine and marijuana charges, His father was Clinton's Education Secretary.[4]
  103. Samuel Lee Robbins
  104. Joel Gonzales Rodriguez
  105. Michael James Rogers
  106. Anna Louise Ross
  107. Dan Rostenkowski - Former Democratic Congressman convicted in the Congressional Post Office Scandal
  108. Gerald Glen Rust
  109. Jerri Ann Rust
  110. Bettye June Rutherford
  111. Gregory Lee Sands
  112. Adolph Schwimmer
  113. Albert A. Seretti Jr.
  114. Patricia Campbell Hearst Shaw
  115. Dennis Joseph Smith
  116. Gerald Owen Smith
  117. Stephen A. Smith
  118. Jimmie Lee Speake
  119. Charles Bernard Stewart
  120. Marlena Francisca Stewart-Rollins
  121. Fife Symington III - former Arizona governor
  122. Richard Lee Tannehill
  123. Nicholas C. Tenaglia
  124. Gary Allen Thomas
  125. Larry Weldon Todd
  126. Olga C. Trevino
  127. Ignatious Vamvouklis
  128. Patricia A. Van De Weerd
  129. Christopher V. Wade
  130. Bill Wayne Warmath
  131. Jack Kenneth Watson
  132. Donna Lynn Webb
  133. Donald William Wells
  134. Robert H. Wendt
  135. Jack L. Williams
  136. Kavin Arthur Williams
  137. Robert Michael Williams
  138. Jimmie Lee Wilson
  139. Thelma Louise Wingate
  140. Mitchell Couey Wood
  141. Warren Stannard Wood
  142. Dewey Worthey
  143. Rick Allen Yale
  144. Joseph A. Yasak
  145. William Stanley Yingling
  146. Phillip David Young
  147. Keith Sanders
  148. Darren Muci
  149. John Scott (not a full pardon)

[edit] Commutations



  1. Ronald Henderson Blackley
  2. Bert Wayne Bolan
  3. Gloria Libia Camargo
  4. Charles F. Campbell
  5. David Ronald Chandler - federal death row inmate[1].
  6. Lau Ching Chin
  7. Donald R. Clark
  8. Loreta De-Ann Coffman
  9. Derrick Curry
  10. Velinda Desalus
  11. Jacob Elbaum
  12. Linda Sue Evans
  13. Loretta Sharon Fish
  14. Antoinette M. Frink
  15. David Goldstein
  16. Gerard A. Greenfield
  17. Bob F. Griffin, former Speaker of the Missouri House of Representatives, who was serving two years on bribery charges[3]
  18. Jodie E. Israel
  19. Kimberly Johnson
  20. Billy Thornton Langston Jr.
  21. Belinda Lynn Lumpkin
  22. Peter MacDonald - Navajo Chairman (sentence for 14 years in 1993 for fraud and racketeering convictions.)
  23. Kellie Ann Mann
  24. Peter Ninemire
  25. Hugh Ricardo Padmore
  26. Arnold Paul Prosperi Florida attorney, tax fraud. managed Clinton's 1967 campaign for student-council president.[2]
  27. Melvin J. Reynolds - Democratic Congressman from Illinois - bank fraud and obstruction of justice
  28. Pedro Miguel Riveiro
  29. Dorothy Rivers - lead official in Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, plead guilty to theft of 1.2 million dollars in federal grant money
  30. Susan Rosenberg
  31. Kalmen Stern
  32. Cory Stringfellow
  33. Carlos Anibal Vignali - convicted of cocaine trafficking
  34. Thomas Wilson Waddell III
  35. Harvey Weinig
  36. Kim Allen Willis
  37. Kemba Smith
  38. Antonio Camacho Negron - FALN militant
I don't think he asked for that picture -
In fact, I read that he was already wishing he had a little bit more privacy during that vacation trip and thought it was a bit ridiculous that people wanted to see pictures like that of him...

I don't think there was a thing wrong with him going shirtless on a beach in Hawaii and I don't understand how could that equate to not having dignity?
I don't think he asked for that picture -
In fact, I read that he was already wishing he had a little bit more privacy during that vacation trip and thought it was a bit ridiculous that people wanted to see pictures like that of him...

I don't think there was a thing wrong with him going shirtless on a beach in Hawaii and I don't understand how could that equate to not having dignity?
What is wrong with this picture?????
*It's a very complicated bill. People in congress obviously don't even understand it.*???? People in congress WROTE this bill, how can they not understand it? How in the world can they vote for it? How can you ask someone to accept it when you are saying the very people who wrote it do not know what is in it, let alone understand it???
WE do get the big picture, which is why we care about
x
Looking at a smaller picture...
While the government money is going to bail out AIG and for pork programs, here in Pennsylvania, Philadelphia is closing libraries and pools, cutting firefighters and police. And they are still looking a huge deficit and intend to raise property taxes 18% this year. Low and lower middle class people who are already struggling, who are looking at the grim possibility of losing their jobs, are now being hit with that. And whether they own or rent makes no difference; if the taxes go up, their rent will go up.

But, oh boy, it's much more important to keep AIG going and to invest in "green programs" for clean energy. What good is any of that going to do for the soon-to-be-homeless people of Philadelphia?
link to picture I posted

Sorry it didnt come through, guys..it was information about Laura's manslaughter and had a few good pictures..I wanted to share but they didnt come through..anyway, here is the link..check it out..


http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=434

The picture is obviously symbolic & it's apparent to me why they did it. sm
This was an event so emotional that it seems to have welded shut the minds of many Americans. People have shut off their natural curiosity to know what really happened on that fateful day. Have you seen The Matrix? It's a red pill - blue pill choice. Take the blue pill and wake up in the morning and everything is the same as its always been- comfortable. Take the red pill and you see how deep the rabbit hole goes. Many Americans have chosen the blue pill- they don't want to know the truth, just feed them info that confirms what they've already been told and that's good enough.

So, I think the picture is a little more than someone with a little too much time on their hands.
I saw the picture, Kaydie...the B is backwards!
The police have serious doubts about her story, as well. You are very gullible!
What I will never understand is why the Clintons are even still in the picture
Fox news refreshed my memory this weekend about Bill Clinton. I cannot understand why this man is still welcomed with open arms. He disgraced his office and his family. He should have just faded into the sunset. Kind of tells you something about the morals in this country.
He has got to paint as dark a picture as
pretty good job of it, so when just a glimmer of light shines through, he can tell you, Yes, I Did!

But, I sure hate to bust your bubble, we are noncombustible, we are not going extinct, we ain't going anywhere! We just here praying for our country.
Wow, why don't you post your picture so we can judge you, too?
xx
I don't think he sent the picture to the magazine to be placed on the cover -
My goodness, ya'll would blame him no matter what. He does not decide what picture goes on the cover of a magazine - the Editor of the magazine decides.

And, I do not think that being President of the United States means you cannot go to the beach anymore or have a vacation with your family without covering yourself and if someone wants to take a picture of him in that way, then what can he do?

You want freedom of the press, freedom of speech, no censorship, etc., but then you are wanting to censor this magazine!
The picture that you make up whatever scenario you want?
And try to pass it off as truth.

Seems to me that you and most of the Republicans on here are the whiners. Get over it. We have another 7-1/2 years with this president. There are a HUGE MAJORITY of us who LIKE him. So sorry your party is in tatters and doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hades of ever getting elected in my lifetime.
I'm assuming that was supposed to be a picture sm

of an angry mob, but I was unable to view it, but I get it!!  That's hilarious.  But I will say the comment about "first they laughed and then they died" will haunt my nightmares -- not so funny.


JTBB, I have to admire your tenacity dealing with these people.  Tell me, what is it like being a pariah?  I know this won't jive with your atheist beliefs, but you know that Jesus was the most famous pariah, so your're in good company!!   LOL

This is excellent and paints a very accurate picture!

This is so true.  All these people are so ready and eager to kill other people's children.


I didn't notice the name of a very decorated, true war hero on that list, though:  Colin Powell, the only honest, honorable member of Bush's "team."  He's a Republican, very intelligent, reasonable, has seen the ravages of war firsthand, and didn't seem to fit in with all the other boys on Bush's team who were obviously deprived of "GI Joe" playtime hours when they were 5 years old and are trying to make up for lost time.


 

The picture was taken in California at an ANSWER convention. SM

You may remember the incident when the war first started and a soldier threw a grenade into a tent killing several other soldiers, including, I believe an officer.  This lovely show of support for the soldiers was on display at that convention. 

HA HA HA - had to laught at the picture that brought to mind
ya know people there sure is a lot more to a relationship than just sex. Companionship, trust, admiration, being happy every single day of your life, going out and doing things together that you both enjoy doing, the list goes on and on and on. My belief is that the creator put a man and woman togther to have a child (but luckily now a days childless couples whether it be man/woman, woman/woman or man/man can have a child). I'll take someone I can relate to, laugh with, cry with, work with, etc no matter what gender they are. So if you want to have kids by all means the number #1 way to go is sex, but if you want to spend the rest of your life together no matter what gender you are I believe in marriage.
A picture is worth a thousand words! (nm)
:)
There is a picture of her in a bathing suit holding
a gun...does that count?
It's a fake photoshopped hit job picture (no pun intended)...nm
Blatent lie is the only thing wrong with this picture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Children's_Health_Insurance_Program

Question. What does the first S in SCHIPS stand for? STATE. OK. So here we have federal funding provided TO STATES for administration under very broad federal guidelines. Age is defined as birth to 18. Income guidelines define chideren in families living between poverty level and up to 200% of poverty level. Beyond that, it is up to the STATES to determine their own guidelines and eligibility criteria.

Care to post a source for your information that disputes this info?
special assistant to reagan sees the picture clearly
Federal Failure in New Orleans
by Doug Bandow 
_Doug Bandow_ (http://www.cato.org/people/bandow.html) , a former special
assistant to  president Ronald Reagan
Is George W. Bush a serious person? It's not a  question to ask lightly of a
decent man who holds the US presidency, an office  worthy of respect. But it
must be asked. 
No one anticipated the breach of the levees due to Hurricane  Katrina, he
said, after being criticised for his administration's dilatory  response to the
suffering in the city of New Orleans. A day later he told his  director of
the Federal Emergency Management Administration, Michael Brown:  Brownie,
you're doing a heck of a job. 
Is Bush a serious person? 
The most important duty at the moment obviously is to respond to  the human
calamity, not engage in endless recriminations. But it is not clear  that this
President and this administration are capable of doing what is  necessary.
They must not be allowed to avoid responsibility for the catastrophe  that has
occurred on their watch. 
Take the President's remarkable assessment of his Government's  performance.
As Katrina advanced on the Gulf coast, private analysts and  government
officials warned about possible destruction of the levees and damage  to the pumps.
A year ago, with Hurricane Ivan on the move - before veering away  from the
Big Easy - city officials warned that thousands could die if the levees  gave
way. 
Afterwards the Natural Hazards Centre noted that a direct strike  would have
caused the levees between the lake and city to overtop and fill the  city
'bowl' with water. In 2001, Bush's FEMA cited a hurricane hit on New  Orleans as
one of the three top possible disasters facing the US. No wonder that  the
New Orleans Times-Picayune, its presses under water, editorialised: No one  can
say they didn't see it coming. 
Similarly, consider the President's belief that his appointee,  Brown, has
been doing a great job. Brown declared on Thursday - the fourth day  of flooding
in New Orleans - that the federal Government did not even know  about the
convention centre people until today. Apparently people around the  world knew
more than Brown. Does the head of FEMA not watch television, read a 
newspaper, talk to an aide, check a website, or have any contact with anyone in  the
real world? Which resident of New Orleans or Biloxi believes that Brown is 
doing a heck of a job? Which person, in the US or elsewhere, watching the 
horror on TV, is impressed with the administration's performance? 
Indeed, in the midst of the firestorm of criticism, including by  members of
his own party, the President allowed that the results are not  acceptable.
But no one has been held accountable for anything. The  administration set this
pattern long ago: it is constantly surprised and never  accountable. 
The point is not that Bush is to blame for everything. The Kyoto  accord has
nothing to do with Katrina: Kyoto would have a negligible impact on  global
temperatures even if the Europeans complied with it. 
Nor have hurricanes become stronger and more frequent in recent  decades.
Whether extra funding for the Army Corps of Engineers would have  preserved the
levees is hardly certain and impossible to prove. Nor can the city  and state
escape responsibility for inaction if they believed the system to be  unsafe. 
Excessive deployment of National Guard units in the  administration's
unnecessary Iraq war limited the flexibility of the hardest-hit  states and imposed
an extra burden on guard members who've recently returned  from serving
overseas. But sufficient numbers of troops remained available  elsewhere across the
US. 
The real question is: Why did Washington take so long to  mobilise them? The
administration underestimated the problem, failed to plan for  the predictable
aftermath and refused to accept responsibility for its actions.  Just as when
the President took the US and many of its allies into the Iraq war  based on
false and distorted intelligence. Then the administration failed to  prepare
for violent resistance in Iraq. The Pentagon did not provide American  soldiers
with adequate quantities of body armour, armoured vehicles and other 
equipment. 
Contrary to administration expectations, new terrorist  affiliates sprang up,
new terrorist recruits flooded Iraq and new terrorist  attacks were launched
across the world, including against several friends of the  US. In none of
these cases has anyone taken responsibility for anything. 
Now Hurricane Katrina surprised a woefully ill-prepared  administration.
President Bush and his officials failed in their most basic  responsibility: to
maintain the peaceful social framework within which Americans  normally live and
work together. 
Bush initially responded to 9/11 with personal empathy and  political
sensitivity. But his failures now overwhelm his successes. The  administration's
continuing lack of accountability leaves it ill-equipped to  meet equally serious
future challenges sure to face the US and the rest of the  world.
This article originally appeared in the Australian on Sept. 5,  2005
Picture of Sarah Palin in March 2008 sm

 


http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/v-gallery/story/345168.html?/news/alas...


Sure looks great for 8 months along! 

A voter in front of me was asked to show a picture ID.....sm
I was not and the voter in front of her was not. I think that, even in a small place where the election judges know most of the population, picture ID should be required. The guy behind me was the one I mentioned in my other post that apparently was not on the list. Maybe, in our democratic process, every other voter gets some kind of hassle? lol
Oh, I can beat that. A picture of liberal tolerance and love for the troops. SM
My view.
I really don't think the slander/libel has anything to do with how the public is perceiving this.   I do think it plays a part in how the women feel, as well it should.  I have been saying all along that we have free will to read or not read what we wish.   I agree with you totally on that.  However, I feel the handling of this incident is definitely along political lines and I also feel that what Ward Churchill said was a lot worse.  Ward says he does not regret what he said and he probably doesn't.  But his career has certainly been affected.   Thank you for addressing the issue and not making a personal attack. That's refreshing.
Sam we don't always have the same view but
you are welcome to post under mine at any time. We have debated a few issues without resorting to crude, name-calling and I have enjoyed that. I too am an independent, leaning more toward Dem., and I am glad you aren't going to lump all Dems together, because not all, and none I know, would do anything that you are seeing on TV or say even a tenth of the crap that is being said here.

So Sam, please debate away!
and what about JOY ON THE VIEW?
and Barbara is just about as bad.
My view............sm
based on my studies of Revelation over a period of time, are that there are 2 beasts referred to in Revelation 13. The first Beast who arises out of the sea (could be interpreted to mean a sea or mass of people or, in Obama's case, that hew was born on an island - Hawaii) and the Antichrist are one and the same. Why? Because the Beast will usher in a one-world religion that will demand he be worshiped, thereby making him the Antichrist. The 2nd beast will arise out of the earth. I believe this is likely the religious figure who will point to the first beast and build him up as one to be worshiped. Farrakhan has already said "the messiah has spoken" so could this be him? I don't know, but I do know that Obama has said that should the political winds blow in an ugly direction he would side with the Muslims and Farrakhan has very strong roots in the Islam faith.

All this remains to be seen, of course, and I'm certain that, if these conclusions are correct, it won't matter who we vote for because God will cause the events in Revelation to come to pass, whether now or at some point in the future.
God does not view us
as homosexual or heterosexual. He sees us as humans he created. We are not to be lukewarm or sit on the fence when it comes to sin. You need to either heat up the water or fall off the fence. Hopefully, it will be on the right side. ;-)
Another point of view...

Thinking About Iraq on King Day
By Star Parker
Monday, January 15, 2007


The characteristic of greatness - whether we are talking about a great man or great art - is that it transcends time and place. It dips into that which is universally and eternally true and applies those truths to a particular moment and a particular place.

Re-reading, after many reads, Dr. Martin Luther King's words of Aug. 28, 1963, the famous I Have a Dream speech, his greatness rings clearer than ever.

Because King did indeed touch the heavens on that day and pull down kernels of eternal truths about freedom and the condition of man, those words of 40-plus years ago have relevance to our struggles today. They can serve as guidance in these difficult times.

Am I saying that King's message from 1963 can guide us in today's conundrums _ about our embroilment in Iraq, about the Middle East, about America's role in the world? Yes, I am saying this.

The power of King's message, the unquestionable reason that the movement he led was successful, was his appeal to the truth of freedom and its universal applicability to all men.

By identifying and appealing to the freedom of man as a universal and eternal truth, and going on to make clear that this truth defined what this great country is about, then King's conclusion _ the intolerability of conditions that denied any American full participation in this freedom _ could not be denied.

Beyond this central message, King made other very important points in this speech.

One of key importance was that responsibility for solving a problem does not necessarily imply direct responsibility in having caused that problem.

Although the responsibility clearly was in the hands of those Americans with power, overwhelmingly white Americans, to fix the problems in the country that limited the availability of freedom to all, this did not mean that all those same Americans were racists or had caused the problem to begin with.

The responsibility for fixing these problems came, rather, with being the beneficiaries of a country whose destiny and identity was fundamentally linked with the enterprise of freedom.

In King's words, white Americans have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny and they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom.

He appealed to blacks not to allow suffering to translate into bitterness nor into categorical hate of white Americans. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.

Instead, King exhorted black Americans to Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive.

So Dr. King accomplished a lot of business that August day in 1963.

He recognized the universal truth of human liberty. He recognized our country as a unique vessel of that truth. He appealed to Americans with power to assume their responsibilities as the beneficiaries of liberty to make this a better and freer country. And he appealed to black Americans to assume a different kind of responsibility _ to not allow themselves to be destroyed by unearned suffering but to be redeemed by it.

The prophet is a lonely man because he brings a message that people do not want to hear.

Dr. King's activism was not welcomed by most whites and a good many blacks.

There is natural appeal in the inertia of the status quo. Change and assumption of new responsibilities and challenges are welcomed by few.

Turmoil tells us that something is wrong and we have no choice but to open our eyes and ears and assume the responsibilities that are cast upon us.

I am, of course, not a military tactician and am in no position to speculate about how best to use American troops to midwife a portion of the world that clearly needs help in becoming more modern, more civil and freer.

However, I can say, that I am in complete sympathy with our president who senses that America has a unique and special role to play in this world. We cannot shirk responsibilities that are clearly ours.

I cannot help but think that it is not an accident that the United States stands so alone, despite many other nations that claim to have similar commitments to and stakes in civility and liberty. The way they act makes clear that they don't.

The truths that Dr. King articulated in so crystal clear a way in 1963 continue to resound today. Freedom is what this country is about. We have no choice. It is our heritage. We thrive and prosper from it. And we cannot avoid the responsibilities that come with it in our engagement with the rest of the world.

I understand your view, but
Yes, you don't like government control at all. However, if insurance companies have full control -which they pretty much do - then they have the full power to deny or insure whomever they choose. What do you say then to the people who have cancer that have been denied coverage by the insurance company? I have posted a few times regarding this issue and I never get a response. I am really curious, for those who want government hands out of health care altogether, what do you say to the people that insurance has denied due to an illness? Too bad?
Just a little opposing view...
Journalistsf Tell Howard Kurtz Why Good News from Iraq Shouldnft Get Reported (updated w/video)
By Noel Sheppard | October 7, 2007 - 13:35 ET
As CNN's Howard Kurtz accurately pointed out on Sunday's "Reliable Sources," few media outlets seemed at all interested in giving much attention to the great news out of Iraq last week regarding September's sharp decline in casualties.

To Kurtz's obvious frustration, his guests - Robin Wright of the Washington Post and Barbara Starr of CNN - both supported the press burying this extremely positive announcement.

I kid you not.

*****Update: Wright responds to reader e-mail message at end of post.

After introducing the subject, Kurtz asked, "Robin Wright, should that decline in Iraq casualties have gotten more media attention?"

This was Wright's amazing answer (video available here):

Story Continues Below Ad «
Not necessarily. The fact is we're at the beginning of a trend -- and it's not even sure that it is a trend yet. There is also an enormous dispute over how to count the numbers. There are different kinds of deaths in Iraq.

There are combat deaths. There are sectarian deaths. And there are the deaths of criminal -- from criminal acts. There are also a lot of numbers that the U.S. frankly is not counting. For example, in southern Iraq, there is Shiite upon Shiite violence, which is not sectarian in the Shiite versus Sunni. And the U.S. also doesn't have much of a capability in the south.

So the numbers themselves are tricky.

Wow. Numbers shouldn't be reported because they're "tricky," "at the beginning of a trend," and there's "enormous dispute over how to count" them?

No such moral conundrum existed last month when media predicted a looming recession after the Labor Department announced a surprising decline in non-farm payrolls that ended up being revised up four weeks later to show an increase.

And, in the middle of a three and a half-year bull run in stocks, such "journalists" have no quandary predicting a bear market every time the Dow Jones Industrial Average falls a few hundred points.

Yet, when good news regarding military casualties comes from the Defense Department, these same people show uncharacteristic restraint in not wanting to report what could end up being an a anomaly.

Isn't that special?

Alas, not seeing the stupidity in this position, Starr, with a straight-face nonetheless, agreed with Wright:

But that's the problem, we don't know whether it is a trend about specifically the decline in the number of U.S. troops being killed in Iraq. This is not enduring progress. This is a very positive step on that potential road to progress.

Hmmm. So, I guess a "very positive step on that potential road to progress" isn't newsworthy, huh Barbara? Even Kurtz recognized the hypocrisy here, which led to the following:

KURTZ: But let's say that the figures had shown that casualties were going up for U.S. soldiers and going up for Iraqi civilians. I think that would have made some front pages.

STARR: Oh, I think inevitably it would have. I mean, that's certainly -- that, by any definition, is news. Look, nobody more than a Pentagon correspondent would like to stop reporting the number of deaths, interviewing grieving families, talking to soldiers who have lost their arms and their legs in the war. But, is this really enduring progress?

We've had five years of the Pentagon telling us there is progress, there is progress. Forgive me for being skeptical, I need to see a little bit more than one month before I get too excited about all of this.

Hmmm. So, a shocking increase in deaths would have "certainly" been newsworthy. However, for a decrease to be reported, skeptical journalists have to be more convinced that it's a lasting improvement.

Sadly, this is what makes today's reporters more like sports fans than real journalists.

After all, it shouldn't be their position to decide when a comeback, rally, or winning streak is real enough for them to jump on the bandwagon and get excited about. News - be it good or bad - is to be reported.

That's their job.

And when folks like this make dissemination decisions to not share information on something as important as American casualties of war due to their own personal skepticism, they have indeed abdicated their solemn responsibility to the public whose interest they regularly claim to serve.

What follows is a partial transcript of this segment.

HOWARD KURTZ, HOST: The news from Iraq has been consistently depressing for several years now, a continuous tableau of death and destruction. But when the administration released more positive casualty figures this week, the media paid little attention. A couple of sentences on the "CBS EVENING NEWS" and NBC "NIGHTLY NEWS," The New York Times ran it on page 10, The Washington Post," page 14, USA Today page 16. The L.A. Times, a couple of paragraphs at the bottom of a page 4 story.

One exception was Charlie Gibson, who made it the lead story on ABC's "WORLD NEWS."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHARLES GIBSON, ABC ANCHOR: The U.S. military reports the fourth straight month of decline in troop deaths, 66 American troops died in September, each a terrible tragedy for a family, but the number far less than those who died in August. And the Iraqi government says civilian deaths across Iraq fell by half last month.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KURTZ: Joining us now to put this into perspective, Robin Wright, who covers national security for The Washington Post. And CNN Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr.

Robin Wright, should that decline in Iraq casualties have gotten more media attention?

ROBIN WRIGHT, THE WASHINGTON POST: Not necessarily. The fact is we're at the beginning of a trend -- and it's not even sure that it is a trend yet. There is also an enormous dispute over how to count the numbers. There are different kinds of deaths in Iraq.

There are combat deaths. There are sectarian deaths. And there are the deaths of criminal -- from criminal acts. There are also a lot of numbers that the U.S. frankly is not counting. For example, in southern Iraq, there is Shiite upon Shiite violence, which is not sectarian in the Shiite versus Sunni. And the U.S. also doesn't have much of a capability in the south.

So the numbers themselves are tricky. Long-term, General Odierno, who was in town this week, said he is looking for irreversible momentum, and that, after two months, has not yet been reached.

KURTZ: Barbara Starr, CNN did mostly quick reads by anchors of these numbers. There was a taped report on "LOU DOBBS TONIGHT." Do you think this story deserved more attention? We don't know whether it is a trend or not but those are intriguing numbers.

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: But that's the problem, we don't know whether it is a trend about specifically the decline in the number of U.S. troops being killed in Iraq. This is not enduring progress. This is a very positive step on that potential road to progress.

KURTZ: But let's say that the figures had shown that casualties were going up for U.S. soldiers and going up for Iraqi civilians. I think that would have made some front pages.

STARR: Oh, I think inevitably it would have. I mean, that's certainly -- that, by any definition, is news. Look, nobody more than a Pentagon correspondent would like to stop reporting the number of deaths, interviewing grieving families, talking to soldiers who have lost their arms and their legs in the war. But, is this really enduring progress?

We've had five years of the Pentagon telling us there is progress, there is progress. Forgive me for being skeptical, I need to see a little bit more than one month before I get too excited about all of this.

*****Update: Susan Duclos of Wake up America sent an e-mail message to Robin Wright concerning this matter. Here was Wright's response:

Ms. Duclos -
Thanks for your comments. The point I was trying to make on CNN is that two months do not make a permanent trend. As Gen. Odierno said last week, when he came to the Post, the numbers have been good the last couple of months but the US military has not yet reached the point of "irreversible momentum." When they do, it will certainly mean a different kind of reporting about the war in general. Unfortunately, all it will take is one or two really bad incidents and the numbers will start going up again. The numbers aren't the whole story either. The progress in Anbar has been widely covered in the US media -- and that in many ways tells us far more about both the war and the future than the death tolls.
I also think we're all a little nervous about declaring victories before we're fully confident that they represent a long-term and enduring trend and are not just a favorable blip on the screen.
With regards,
Robin Wright


Diplomatic Correspondent
The Washington Post
Telephone: 202 334-7443
Email: wrightr@washpost.com
Fax: 202 496-3883

Looks like anything good is being censored on this side by most of the major outlets here. Not surprising.
my view on experience is...
I don't think experience is that big of an issue - nobody has "experience" at being the President of the United States until they get elected - and I don't think that the experience that Hillary claims is any real experience anyway.

I am excited at the prospect of having somebody in office who has no "experience" - maybe they will really want to "change" the way the "experienced" people have been doing things!
I appreciate your point of view, Just Me....
and I will be the first to admit, as I admitted right up front to GT/GW/BW/FPJ who knows what else, she pushed my buttons and took great joy in doing so. She attributed things to me I never said, condemned an entire political party en masse and had the nerve to call me a bigot and that was the nicest thing she called me. If you followed the posts you know that most of the name calling from my end was just repeating back to her what I had been called. The same kinds of exchanges happen on political talk shows every night. Have you ever watched Chris Matthews or Keith Olbermann?
Her parting shot...Time to take out the trash.

In deference to your request, I will say this...I believe that GW believes with every fiber of her being that she is right and is passionate about her beliefs, and I certainly understand that. I think she is probably a nice person to those who share her views, loves her family like the rest of us and would like to fix all the perceived injustices in the world, just like the rest of us would. But you can't move forward if you don't let go of the hate and the blame game. There is plenty of blame to go around, on both sides of the aisle. No law, no program, no nothing can be passed in this country without both Republicans and Democrats voting for it, fact. We can't blame it all on the left and we can't blame it all on the right or the middle or whoever. In fact, we shouldn't be blaming at all, just trying to fix. But...as I am sure you well know, Just Me...the radical side of BOTH parties don't see the middle road.

The irony of the whole thing is that I am not a registered Republican...registered Independent. Only register Republican in primary years because I can't vote if I don't register Republican or Democrat...that's the law. Yet I was thrown right in and condemned right along with every other "pub."

Just Me, sometimes you just have to stand for what you believe, and not let a bully pigeon hole you and call you things you are not. And sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. That is just a part of life. I apologize if you were offended by witnessing it. I truly do. I apologize to anyone who was.

Just to clarify: I don't hate immigrants or immigration. That is how this country was born. Save Native Americans, we ALL descend from immigrants. I just feel immigration should be legal, and that immigrants should become tax-paying citizens before they get the benefits of citizenship. That's it. Real simple. And not bigoted.

And for the record, I don't hate all Democrats or blame them for all the ills in the world. Like I said...plenty of blame to go around on both sides. My parents were Democrats (old school Democrats). There have been Democrats I greatly admired...John Kennedy...Zell Miller. Great Americans in my opinion.

Afraid to view it are you?
And it is the least of my worries what you consider trash...:)
By all means....don't view it. You might actually have to really know...
what you support. Can't have that, can you?
Perhaps not everyone shares your view....as to the
downward course of the nation. Just like you did not allow us to rain on your parade...you ain't gonna rain on this one. So happpeeee this morning, not even you can dampen it, try though you will. :) You have a great day, valuevoter! It is a GOOD day!!
© Copyright 2001-09 MTStars.com All Rights Reserved