not what to want to read....tough!
Posted By: Toni on 2008-10-22
In Reply to: I hope you get what you want - gourdpainter
xxx
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 think this is a tough one
because some woman are obviously so put off by Palin it isn't funny and others think she is great. I personally find her to be well accomplished and quite capable of being the VP.
However, I did see a woman on TV a few days ago who is a democrat and a Hillary supporter who said she was currently undecided but felt that a recent Obama ad showing Palin at the end and winking was sexist. So....hopefully he ticked more feminists off who thought that was sexist. LOL!
Tough times
Notice what affilitation the top 6 are! - N wonder they don't care if we're in a recession.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/54838.html
That's tough to decide.
I like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Hate snow, afraid of volcanoes, and can't take heat anymore. Hubby has been wanting to move to Canada for years. He likes snow and mountains.
I also like Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia. They're cold but I like the sea.
Maybe I can find an nice island halfway between the extremes I posted? Any suggestions? LOL
I know this is tough to understand, but...
these are military prisoners who will not be undergoing a civil trial, it will be a military tribunal. They are not United States citizens and, therefore, are not guaranteed any rights by the United States Constitution. Honestly, they should be (and probably are) ecstatic that we area not cutting off their heads.
He already has answered tough questions and without a
teleprompter. Now it is about time they let Palin answer a few.
Tough. Still a free country. sm
I think people like Bill O'Lielly and Hannity, Limbaugh and Colter should be banned - but atlas - it is still a free country. Ha ha.
NO to torture. YES to tough interrogations!
nm
Cheney Fields Tough Questions
I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency. --Vice President Dick Cheney, on the Iraq insurgency, June 20, 2005
Hmmm, so I guess now we've progressed to the *FINAL* last throes ???
Associated Press
Update 1: Cheney Fields Tough Questions From Troops
12.18.2005, 03:18 PM
Facing tough questions from battle-weary troops, Vice President Dick Cheney on Sunday cited signs of progress in Iraq and signaled that force changes could come in 2006.
Cheney rode the wave of last week's parliamentary elections during a 10-hour surprise visit to Iraq that aimed to highlight progress at a time when Americans question the mission. Military commanders and top government officials offered glowing reports, but the rank-and-file troops Cheney met did not seem to share their enthusiasm.
From our perspective, we don't see much as far as gains, said Marine Cpl. Bradley Warren, the first to question Cheney in a round-table discussion with about 30 military members. We're looking at small-picture stuff, not many gains. I was wondering what it looks like from the big side of the mountain - how Iraq's looking.
Cheney replied that remarkable progress has been made in the last year and a half.
I think when we look back from 10 years hence, we'll see that the year '05 was in fact a watershed year here in Iraq, the vice president said. We're getting the job done. It's hard to tell that from watching the news. But I guess we don't pay that much attention to the news.
Another Marine, Cpl. R.P. Zapella, asked, Sir, what are the benefits of doing all this work to get Iraq on its feet?
Cheney said the result could be a democratically elected Iraq that is unified, capable of defending itself and no longer a base for terrorists or a threat to its neighbors. We believe all that's possible, he said.
Although he said that any decision about troop levels will be made by military commanders, Cheney told the troops, I think you will see changes in our deployment patterns probably within this next year.
About 160,000 troops are in Iraq. The administration has said that troop levels are expected to return to a baseline of 138,000 after the elections, but critics of the war have called for a significant drawdown.
More than 2,100 troops have died in Iraq since the U.S. invaded in March 2003.
The round-table with the vice president came after hundreds of troops had gathered in an aircraft hangar to hear from a mystery guest. When Cheney emerged at the podium, he drew laughs when he deadpanned, I'm not Jessica Simpson.
Shouts of hooah! from the audience interrupted Cheney a few times, but mostly the service members listened intently. When he delivered the applause line, We're in this fight to win. These colors don't run, the only sound was a lone whistle.
The skepticism that Cheney faced reflects opinions back home, where most Americans say they do not approve of President Bush's handling of the war. It was unique coming from a military audience, which typically receives administration officials more enthusiastically.
Cheney became the highest-ranking administration official to visit the country since Bush's trip on Thanksgiving Day 2003. It was his first visit to Iraq since March 1991, when he was defense secretary for President George H.W. Bush.
The tour came on the same day that President Bush was giving a prime-time Oval Office address on Iraq. Cheney's aides said the timing was a coincidence, yet the two events combined in a public-relations blitz aimed at capitalizing on the elections to rebuild support for the unpopular war.
The daylong tour of Iraq was so shrouded in secrecy that even Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari and President Jalal Talabani were kept in the dark. The prime minister said he was surprised when he showed up for what he thought was a meeting with the U.S. ambassador and saw Cheney.
Talabani, his finger still stained purple as proof that he had voted three days earlier, was clearly delighted. He thanked Cheney profusely for coming and called him one of the heroes of liberating Iraq.
Cheney had an hourlong briefing on the election from Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, top U.S. commander Gen. George Casey and Gen. John Abizaid, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq. He emerged saying he was encouraged by preliminary results showing high turnout about Sunni Muslims, who make up the backbone of the insurgency.
His next visit was to Taji Air Base, where he saw tanks that Iraqis had rebuilt and watched while they practiced a vehicle sweep at a security checkpoint.
U.S. forces guarded Cheney with weapons at the ready while Iraqi soldiers, who had no weapons, held their arms out as if they were carrying imaginary guns.
The Syrian border is back under Iraq control now, U.S. Lt. Gen. Marty Dempsey told the vice president, pointing to a map of Iraqi troop locations. When people say, 'When will Iraq take control of its own security?' the answer truly is it already has.
Cheney lunched on lamb kebobs, hummus and rice with raisins along with U.S. and Iraqi soldiers who helped secure polling sites. Then he headed to his third and final stop in Iraq at al-Asad.
Cheney flew over Baghdad in a pack of eight fast-moving Blackhawk helicopters, following the airport road that has been the site of so many insurgent attacks and passing the courthouse where Saddam Hussein is being tried.
The unannounced stops in Iraq came at the beginning of a five-day tour aimed at strengthening support for the war on terror. Stops include Oman, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
Cheney's staff kept the Iraq portion secret from reporters, waiting to reveal the plans when Air Force Two was preparing to refuel in the United Kingdom. Once on the ground, the entourage transferred from his conspicuous white and blue 757 to an unmarked C-17 cargo plane that would fly overnight to Baghdad International Airport.
I'm a tough cookie and don't get offended easily
Well I guess you could call it a conflict with myself. On one hand I'd like to believe what they say (that they want a better America and to do good things for Americans and that their plans would be good for the country), but Bill's whole presidency really put a bad taste in my mouth and I was so relieved to have him out of the office. Mind you I'm no fan of Bush, but I was terrified to get Gore in there to continue on with more of the same. Anyway....Gore is a whole nother issue I won't go into.
I was against Hillary's campaign from the beginning. I never have liked her. I did like her while he was campaigning and for about the first two years of him being president, then started reading and learning things about her (her position at Rose Law firm, what she did to get where she's at, her literally having to be pulled off of Bill by the secret service, the foul language she used towards people, the way she would talk to the secret service, the mysterious deaths, her trying to socialize the health care system, the way she represented the US when she would go over to another country and was presented with a gift and she would turn to Chelsea and make a comment that she thought nobody heard but was picked up on the cameras as her telling Chelsea it was a piece of s@@t and she was not going to wear it, etc, etc. She also said another time to Chelsea that she was tired of doing stuff and having to talk to people (other leaders wives) her were below her "class". This was caught on camera so it's not made up.
I was turned off by her campaign tactics from the beginning. The lies, her little crying episode when she felt it served it's purpose. The "shame on you Barack" speech she gave all the while she had been putting out lies about him and his plans. It was the kettle calling the otherside black (or whatever that saying is). The real cincher was when she said she was staying in because we have to remember that "Kennedy was assissinated in June, right?" She never once apologized for anything and she blamed it all on the other side. She doesn't and has never taken responsibility for anything she says. She will say something and blame the other side. But it doesn't surprise me because Bill is the same exact way. A lot of what she did I believe was probably at the direction of the campaign advisers (Terry McAuliffe and others), but she is a grown woman and knows better and she could have said no. She inflated herself like when talking about how she is experienced in dangerous situations because she flew into Bosnia when it was under fire and she has answered the "red phone". Those were outright lies and she knew it. Then everyone says, oh she just couldn't remember. Well I was in the Army - believe me you know when your being fired at. Also claiming what Bill accomplished in the white house as if they were her accomplishments. When caught in her lies she laughs it off and says it was a "minor" mistake.
I do think she could unite the party, but she is choosing to divide it. She says in public she wants a party that is united, but yet she's not telling her supporters that they need to back the nominee. She's telling them that if they march to the convention they have another chance that she could be put on the ticket. She should be telling them that she is not the candidate and she is proud of how far she got but she'll just have to try another time. She is the person who could calm them but she is deciding not too.
I think I do have a lot of fear with McCain. I do not see much of a difference between Hillary and McCain. They have voted the same way in the senate. So the thought of those two are quite frightening for me. I just hope Obama picks the right VP choice. I do hope Clintons supporters do not march to the convention like they say they are going to. I need to read up on history but believe the last time that happened it was horrible and the party lost. Which brings me to the next point which is I have heard that that is Hillary's plan. She wants McCain to win so that way in four years she can run again and therefore she will do everything she can to make sure Obama loses.
I read that she is co-chair of the Senate India Caucus and that she and Bill accepted over 360K (she 60K from them and B 300K) and this is a group that is responsible for taking jobs away from Americans and giving them to other countries (India for one) - this means jobs like yours and mine.
B&H are pushing for a one-world government. They have been trying to get Canada, America & Mexico to become one country with one currency (similar to the Euro), and Hillary wants to be the world leader over it all. This is nothing I heard from any right-wing conspiracy group. This is some document I read somewhere but I can't quote it at this time (would take some research).
What I don't like about B&H ... Vince Foster (suicide?) and removal of documents from his office, Gennifer Flowers, Monica Lewinski (lies and cover ups), Travelgate, Castle Grande (sham transactions), Cattle futures, Waco, Elian Gonzales, mysterious deaths of James McDougal, Mary Mahoney, Ron Brown, Ed & Kathleen Willey, Jerry Parks, James Bunch, James Wilson, Kathy Ferguson. There at least 35 others but won't list them all. Them accepting illegal funds, destroying the white house before they left and air force one, Hillary saying that she was going to think of the cleaning lady in her office building as a human being. I did get sick of when there was a tragedy and he would be there in front of the camera he had his "sad pouty face" on, but as soon as he thought the camera was off of him he'd go into a laughing state and be quite jovial, then he'd see a camera and back was that sad face again. His lies that he belonged to all these black churches throughout his life. There are other things I can't remember right now.
When Bill was campaigning for president I heard about all the promises he made, lower the budget, cut in taxes, beter health care for Americans, this, that, and other promises. He never once held good on his promises (but in all fairness the same has happened with other politicians). During Clinton presidency jobs were lost to overseas, and about 3 weeks after he became president our military was cut back so much that America was not safe from it's enemies. Mind you at this time I still thought he was okay, but little by little that was being eroded away.
One thing about your statement that got me thinking about my opinions about his policies. I may be in the wrong about some of my feelings and its' been so long that I really need to read up about what he did in there. I just disliked him so much that I usually turned him off. I'd hear things here and there (and now I do have to admit I listened to Rush Limbaugh and Fox News a lot at that time) and I do realize that its not fair to judge them on things I heard from them.
Anyway...you have some very good issues you brought up and to tell the truth I do have to do a bit more research. I think overall is my basic disgust of the lies they have told throughout their careers. The way their "fan base" will not listen to truth and claim that Bill and Hillary are so innocent and never did anything wrong, it was all a conspiracy against them.
I never did have anything against Bill's affairs. It is not my busness whether he sleeps with other people and I don't find that as disgusting as a lot of people do. Nobody knows what was going on in their lives that brought him to that position and if I had a wife like Hillary I'd probably sleep with someone else too, but all I say is tell the truth. It was the lies and coverup that I had a problem with. I didn't care that he couldn't keep his boys behind closed doors, but be a man and admit it.
So to sum it up my biggest problem with them is they lie, they manipulate, when caught they say they never said it and when told its on film he comes out and says I'm not going to play that game instead of something like well if its on tape I must have said that and lets talk about that further at another time. I just really lost respect with them. In all fairness for them though I do have to say they are not the only politicians like that.
One more note is I liked your post. It was long but had some very good points and really is making me think twice about some things. I don't think I've answered all your questions, but you have given me a lot to think about. It hasn't changed my opinion since I first posted but is getting me to think and do some research. Tx.
you substitute the "f" in if with an "s" and make it "is". I know, it's tough,
x
Cool. Sounds like he's gonna be tough.
Hope he doesn't put more goofballs in though. When a party turns on it's own candidates, there's definitely something wrong with it.
Another tough Biden interview...scrubbed from the Internet...
Marxism at its best, once again, what we will be able to expect from an Obama white house
Try putting the following in google, and the interview has been scrubbed clean off the Internet. It's hard to even find a transcript of the interview, and could only find parts of it.
Like Orlando, Obama - Biden Bans Philadelphia Station CBS3 After Tough Biden Interview
Your opinion of torture is your opinion. Tough
nm
This looks interesting. A long read, so will read it when I get home from work. nm
nm
Obviously u didnt read, I said NONE of them are moral. Read the post before spouting off.
I read on CNN (yes, I do read liberal stuff too..hehe)...sm
...that Karl Rove was actually very disappointed in the McCain campaign for airing negative type ads against Obama.
So I would say that Rove is definitely not in the hip pocket of the McCain campaign.
Good research sam - but a lot to read right now so gotta read it later
I've been goofing off too much from work. I appreciate what you wrote and will read when I'm done with work here.
sorry, should read I did not read post that way.
,
All you have to do is read up on Marxism, read up on...
black liberation theology, and look at what Obama is proposing. All of it a matter of public record, most of it from his own mouth. Your denial of it does not change the facts. If you support socialism, vote for him. Certainly your right. You are already wanting to squelch any kind of dissent...what's up with that? If you seriously consider calling someone a socialist a smear, you really need to read up on your candidate. I did not post a smear, I posted a fact. Redistribution of wealth is socialist and he already said he was going to do it...I heard him say it and it is now a campaign commercial. Sigh.
Some on this board can only read what they want to read (nm)
x
READ THE ARTICLE-READ OTHER
READERS COMMENTS!!!
Nan please read what I have to say
I've read your latest posts. You fit the decription of a troll at times, but I don't really care about that. DOesn't matter. What I do notice is that you incite other posters with calculated insults, condescension and twisted and sometimes cruel logic. Then when the object of your insults becomes angry and lashes back you pretend to be an unfairly accused innocent and the object of someone else's crazy, uncalled-for rage.
This is compatible with borderline personality disorder. My mother had it, a brother-in-law battles it and I am all too familiar with it.
I did read it.
Not posting the whole article puts the quote out of context. It's not really a way to do things on a chat forum, but then maybe you don't post in a lot of other forums. Those I frequent always post the whole article or at least a link. It would give you a lot more credibility. Take it for what it's worth.
Read this...
Pandora's Box
September 22, 2005
By Ken Sanders
You have to hand it to the Bush administration. No matter how bad things might be in Iraq, and no matter how dim the prospects are for Iraq's future, Bush & Co. still manage to look the public straight in the eye, smirk, and insist that the decision to invade Iraq was a good one. Call them determined, even stubborn. Call them dishonest, perhaps delusional. Regardless, the fact is that by invading Iraq, the Bush administration opened a Pandora's Box with global consequences.
Bush and his apologists have frequently promised that the invasion of Iraq will spread democracy and stability throughout the entire Middle East. That naive declaration could not be farther from the truth. Not only is Iraq itself in the clutches of a civil war, the U.S.-led invasion threatens to destabilize the whole of the Middle East, if not the world. It may have irrevocably done so already.
By most definitions and standards, Iraq is already in the throes of civil war. Whether defined as an internal conflict resulting in at least 1,000 combat-related fatalities, five percent of which are sustained by government and rebel forces; or as organized violence designed to change the governance of a country; or as a systematic and coordinated sectarian-based conflict; the requirements of civil war have long since been satisfied.
While our television screens are saturated by images of chaos and death in Iraq, the stories beneath the images are even more disturbing. Purely sectarian attacks, largely between Iraq's Sunni and Shiite populations, have been rising dramatically for months. According to Iraqi government statistics, such targeted attacks have doubled over the past twelve months. Police in Iraq are finding scores of bodies littering the streets, bodies of people who were blindfolded or handcuffed, shot or beheaded. The Baghdad morgue is constantly overwhelmed by bodies showing tell-tale signs of torture and gradual, drawn-out, agonizing death.
In Baghdad, Sunni neighborhoods live in fear of Shiite death squads like the Iranian-backed Badr Brigade of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), Iraq's leading Shiite governing coalition. Such death squads operate openly, in full uniform, and with the deliberate ignorance, if not outright sanction, of the Iraqi government. On a single day in August, the bodies of 36 Sunni Arabs were found blindfolded, handcuffed, tortured and executed in a dry riverbed in the Shiite-dominated Wasit province.
At the other end, Shiites face each day burdened by the terror and trauma of being the targets of constant suicide bombings. The army and police recruits killed by suicide bombs are predominantly Shia. In Ramadi, a Sunni stronghold, Shiites are fleeing their homes, driven out by murder and intimidation. On August 17, 43 Shiites were killed by bombings at a bus stop and then at the hospital where the casualties were to be treated.
There are less-violent examples of the deepening rifts between Iraq's Sunnis and Shiites since the U.S.-led invasion. By some estimates, nearly half of the weddings performed in Baghdad before the invasion were of mixed Sunni/Shiite couples. Since the invasion and its resulting instability and strife, such mixed weddings are all but extinct. This new-found reluctance of Sunnis and Shiites to marry each other is just another indication of the increasing isolation and animosity between the two populations.
The recently finalized Iraqi constitution does little to bridge Iraq's growing sectarian divides. The culmination of sectarian feuds passing for political debates, Iraq's constitution only ratifies the sectarian divisions of the nation. In the north are the Kurds who long ago abandoned their Iraqi identity, refusing to even fly the Iraqi flag. In the south is a burgeoning Shiite Islamic state, patterned after and influenced by Iran. Both groups have divvied up Iraq's oil reserves amongst themselves. Left in the nation's oil-free center are the Sunni Arabs, dismissed as obstructionist by the Kurds and Shiites. So unconcerned are the Kurds and Shiites with a unified Iraq that they both maintain their own large and heavily-armed militias.
Of course, the constitution still has to be ratified. If it is ratified, it will likely be by a Shiite/Kurdish minority, effectively maintaining the status quo that motivates, in part, the Sunni-led insurgency. If, on the other hand, the constitution is defeated, there's little reason not to believe that the three major factions in Iraq won't resort to forcibly taking what they want. Either way, in the words of one Iraqi civilian, God help us.
The discord in Iraq is not limited to fighting between Shiites and Sunnis. In Basra, for instance, rival Shiite militia groups constantly fight each other. The notorious Badr Brigade, backed by SCIRI, have repeatedly clashed with dissident cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi militia. The Badr Brigade frequently works in conjunction with Basra police and are suspected of recently kidnapping and killing two journalists. Suspecting that the Basra police have been infiltrated by both the Badr and Mehdi militias, the British military sent in two undercover operatives to make arrests. The British operatives were themselves arrested by the Basra police. When the British went to liberate their men, they found themselves exchanging fire with the Basra police, their heretofore allies, and smashing through the prison walls with armored vehicles.
Iraqis aren't merely growing increasingly alienated from each other, as well as progressively opposed to coalition forces. Iraq's estrangement from the rest of the Middle East and the Arab world is widening as well. Seen more and more as a proxy of the Iranian government, the Shiite/Kurd dominated Iraq finds itself at odds with the Sunni-dominated Middle East. For instance, since the U.S.-led invasion, not a single Middle East nation has sent an ambassador to Baghdad. And, despite promises to do so, the Arab League (of which Iraq was a founder) has yet to open a Baghdad office.
There are, clearly, many reasons other than sectarianism for Iraq's estrangement from the Middle East and Arab nations, security being the foremost. However, Iraqi diplomacy, or lack thereof, is also to blame. From chiding Qatar for sending aid to Katrina victims but not to Iraq, to arguing with Kuwait over border issues, to blaming Syria for the insurgency, Iraq's fledgling government seems to have taken diplomacy lessons from the Bush administration. In fact, with the exception of Iran, Iraq has butted heads recently with nearly every Middle East nation.
Iraq's constitution hasn't won it any friends in the Arab world, either. For instance, Iraq drew strong condemnation from the Arab world when a draft of its constitution read that just its Arab people are part of the Arab nation. Only after the outcry from the Arab League and numerous Arab nations, did Iraq change its constitution's offending language. (The argument by Bush's apologists that the Iraqi constitution's alleged enshrinement of democratic principles threatens neighboring countries is unconvincing. Syria and Egypt both have constitutions that guarantee political and individual freedoms. In practice, however, such guarantees have proven meaningless. Why, then, should they feel threatened?)
Iraq's varied relationships with Middle Eastern nations will be immeasurably significant should Iraq descend further into civil war. For example, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Jordan would most likely come to the support of Iraq's Sunnis. (There are already signs that the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq has impacted Saudi Arabia's Sunni population. According to a recent study, the invasion of Iraq has radicalized previously non-militant Saudis, sickened by the occupation of an Arab nation by non-Arabs.) Iran would only increase its already staunch support for Iraq's Shiites. Turkey would also likely be drawn in, hoping to prevent any Kurdish success in Iraq from spilling across its border. Moreover, Iraq's violent Sunni-Shiite discord could easily spark similar strife in Middle East countries like Bahrain, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia.
In such a worst-case scenario, Iraq's instability would spread and infect an already unstable region. If the Gulf region were to further destabilize, so too would the global economy as oil prices would skyrocket, plunging the U.S. and so many others into recession.
Put another way, Bush's illegal, ill-conceived, short-sighted, and naive venture in Iraq could reasonably result in total chaos in not just Iraq and the Middle East, but the world over.
A Pandora's Box, if there ever was one.
Sorry, but can you read?
pizza. Don't you think they've thought of moving? It isn't always practical to simply uproot. In this case, there is an elderly family member and children. Again, from the throne passing judgement.
This makes no sense: I'm talking about a certain segment of our society who refuse to learn, refuse to work, and who YOU wish to bring up to an equal place as the rest of society who works hard and earns what they have. Huh? You still missed the point...good grief.
I read that. And then MT goes on
to criticize you for suggesting that posters visit eXtremely Political and is aghast at the post that calls for shooting someone who doesn't agree...... she just FAILS to mention that it's a NEOCON who wants to shoot LIBERALS!!!
This is what she wrote:
Sorry, had to answer this one. There have a Whine to Management option. That is PERFECT for gt. Talking about shooting other posters, atheism and porno. Yeah, that's a great place alright. And now they have THE gt as a member. Does it get any better than that. Although, my thoughts are they won't suffer her long. Those people are pirrhanas.
Well, if that ain't the pirrhana calling the shark hungry!
Perhaps you need to read
No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor... otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief... All men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of religion, and... the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities. --Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. ME 2:302, Papers 2:546
Our civil rights have no dependence upon our religious opinions more than our opinions in physics or geometry. --Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. ME 2:301, Papers 2:545
We have no right to prejudice another in his civil enjoyments because he is of another church. --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776. Papers 1:546
I am for freedom of religion, and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendency of one sect over another. --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799. ME 10:78
Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved. I have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle. --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Rush, 1813.
I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance or admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others. --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Dowse, 1803. ME 10:378
Our particular principles of religion are a subject of accountability to God alone. I inquire after no man's, and trouble none with mine. --Thomas Jefferson to Miles King, 1814. ME 14:198
and many more: http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm
You need to read that again.
Yes, it is US law, according to the Constitution.
The United States signed the UN Charter -- which is a treaty. Let me repeat:
Article VI of the U.S. Constitution makes treaties into which the U.S. has entered the supreme Law of the Land.
In other words, we made a treaty with a bunch of other countries to abide by certain rules, including the use of force. Since we entered into this treaty with the UN, that makes it the supreme Law of the Land -- US Law.
Sure, you can say, So what? Nobody's going to take us to court. We can do anything we want. But if we as a country aren't going to respect our agreements with other countries and our own laws, why should anybody else? Nobody is above the law, right?
By the way, I think we were fully justified in invading Afghanistan.
I have read this...
So what. At one point you say he was involved with AIM and had a lackey break someone's arm. Now you are providing us with an article that disavows any connection with AIM at all. Which is it? Could it be that some folks who were involved with AIM in the late 60s early 70s are no longer involved, or are dead or have had major disagreements along the way about what should be done. Banks, Russell Means and Peltier don't even speak to each other any more. That is sad, in my opinion. Trudell, on the other hand, is still around. (I had the pleasure of meeting him last Saturday in Hollywood Florida at the Native American Music Awards) and still fights the good fight although his wife and children were burned to death in an FBI arson. There is a video, called simply Trudell. It has aired on PBS stations. It is also available from Trudell's web site. It you get a chance, see it. There is so much information out there that no one seems to care much about as regards the American Indian from Columbus to today. The history is always written by the victor and the American Indian history is distorted.
You can read whatever you want...
into what people say. Some are not very tactful and some, like our president, just can't get a syntax together to save their souls. I still think the sentiment was not that these Americans do not want democracy. I still think they thought we **deserved** to be surprised because we have ignored Middle East history, the British colonization, the politics, the culture, the nature of Islam when, in reality, bearing in mind our support for Israel and our dismissal of the Arab states, it should not have been a surprise. This has been brewing for quite some time. That is not the same thing. I really don't know what those 2 had in their hearts but I truly believe that one saying the US has treated the Arab states badly in the past does not make one a **terrorist** or a communist or a democracy hater. These people attempt to see all sides of things, in all colors, not just black and white. Those are the people who will ultimately garner peace if it is at all possible. It will not come at the barrel of a gun, no matter what has happened in the past.
Yep, I know, I can read. NM
Well, I don't read the
leftist blogs or any other blogs for that matter, too much like talk radio. I also don't need to plagerize anything; I can think for myself, thank you very much.
I have read this one over and over...s/m
What has happened in this country over the years? Why the almost blind acceptance of things, almost anything that is done? Where are the idealistic youth? Their future is at stake, so many, many issues, yet, where are they? Why the banket of almost deafening silence? It scares me.
have you read...
anything written by Michelle Obama? she is truly a racist. Your remarks about her scare me. Make sure you are truly informed. John McCain is a down-to-earth person who would do well in office, but the reality is no president can make the changes outlined above. It takes all the members of the house and senate to begin to make change, not just one man.
Where can we read about this? TIA - nm
can't read and can't
recognize inappropriate behavior in temprament. Oy.
Read it before....
....Opinion section can state anything they want to, and so can you.
So can I.
Seems to me, though, are those three tiny words by Gov. Palin, that are given very little credence here:
"Hold me accountable."
I kinda have the feeling that she doesn't have much to hide here, having read other parts of this story before too.
So bring it on.
I have the feeling that Gov. Palin will come out on top.
And you believe everything you read on the net?
XO
Have you read it? nm
nm
We both must have read something different....sm
Quotes from the first article:
Charity's Political Divide
Republicans give a bigger share of their incomes to charity, says a prominent economist
In Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism (Basic Books), Arthur C. Brooks finds that religious conservatives are far more charitable than secular liberals, and that those who support the idea that government should redistribute income are among the least likely to dig into their own wallets to help others.
Mr. Brooks agreed that he needed to tackle politics. He writes that households headed by a conservative give roughly 30 percent more to charity each year than households headed by a liberal, despite the fact that the liberal families on average earn slightly more.
Most of the difference in giving among conservatives and liberals gets back to religion. Religious liberals give nearly as much as religious conservatives, Mr. Brooks found. And secular conservatives are even less generous than secular liberals.
Well if you read, why do we have to? nm
nm
Then you don't read enough.
nm
Should read 8 above - nm
x
when I read the first one
I was flying to Arizona to visit my daughter. In the book the setting is on an airplane (one of the main characters is the pilot). Suddenly half the people on the plane are gone and all that is left is a little pile of their clothing on the seat when they had been sitting before being raptured. I had to take a quick look around to make sure all the passengers were still on board! But do try to read at least some of it. I think there are now like 10 books in the series but within the first couple you will know when I am talking about. I believe they have a web site and I know the first 2 were made into movies.
Not what I said. Read it again. am
I said/meant collectively, the hardworking/undereducated/less intelligent/mentally or physically disabled/, any of the above, the poor and middle class.
Did you even read what I said?
A. Lincoln: " It is better to be silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt."
Is there anybody here that can't read?
nm
not if you read it all
maybe it appears to be contradicting because you haven't opened your heart when you read...... that is a big book... if you just read a couple things here and there, it may appear to be contradicting itself... if you actually read and study what it's telling you... no contradictions....
Read it again
and see you weren't happy with the email your friend sent. Therefore, my other comment is for all those who feel the way she does; and, to my huge surprise, there seem to be many on here. I don't see how so many people actually do ... but it certainly seems to be the case!
And I don't see how you can read it
and assume it is the truth.
okay - what I just read said -
It said that Richardson did say that, but that clearly he just misspoke because earlier in a radio talk he gave he stated the plan correctly.
|
