A powerful message at a time we need it most

• A powerful message at a time we need it most - sm
  • this is the correct link - sorry - sm
    • Not as compelling as the economy. - Nice try.
      • I think you missed the point here. - sm
      • Our next President WILL be a huge factor - in this economy.....blind eye nm

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

The fact is, you don't understand Kyoto at all do you?  It's just another reason to hate Bush and it has to be so because someone says it is so.  Not only is Kyoto suicidal to any economy, the whole premise was based upon what amounts to pushing paranoid stupidity. I mean, how laughable is it to pretend that miniscule amounts of CO2 from human breath, from Dr.Peppers and Hummers give humanity more power over weather than the huge natural CO2 levels and the extreme effects of the sun? And to fight this myth, we need a price-doubling energy-banning treaty? Grrr. What a LOL!

Fact is, there's just no such thing as global warming. Today, over 40% of US states are in cooling trends. The 1930's US decade remains as warm as any since. And no US year is warmer than 1934. Even the 1922 world record for highest temperature is still held by Libya. So forget about the global myth.

Second, no weather chart in the world has ever been able to show a parallel relationship between increases in human CO2 and increases in the regional temperature. NONE. Even in Los Angeles, where large CO2 increases still produce 2004 temperatures 3.5 degrees cooler than the highs of the mid 1950's. So forget about linking man and the CO2 myth as well.

The only proven link between man and climate is in $green$ frauds, where most environmental claims are likely as corrupt as any UN oil-for-food scam.

Recently, it was revealed the UN's lead member used falsified data to hype his claim of the 1990's as the warmest in the last 1,000. As it turned out, this study, although frequently used by the media and UN to accuse human influence, was never peer-reviewed by anyone - until now.

And once it was, the study was rapidly debunked by at least 4 mainstream science publications for it's numerous errors and gross miscalulations that made his wild claims impossible to replicate. So the warmest and coolest years over the last 1,000, still remain the Medieval Warming Period(1000-1400) and the Little Ice Age(1500-1850).

So gt, be careful what you wish for. Bush was not the only President to not sign Kyoto.  For good reason.  You didn't give one cogent reason in your argument about the effects Kyoto would have on economy, especially our economy.  But then, maybe you were just looking for another reason to blame Bush when the economy was TRULY in the crapper. 

Link below:

Pat had better tell them to get their bankruptsy papers turned in before Oct. 17.

Once powerful Christian Coalition teeters on insolvency
By BILL SIZEMORE, The Virginian-Pilot
© October 8, 2005

The Christian Coalition, the onetime powerhouse of the religious right founded by Pat Robertson, is struggling to stay afloat.

The group’s annual revenue has shrunk to one- twentieth of what it was a decade ago – from a peak of $26 million in 1996 to $1.3 million in 2004 – and it has left a trail of unpaid bills from Texas to Virginia. Among the creditors who have sued the coalition for nonpayment are landlords, direct-mail companies, lawyers and at least one former employee seeking back pay.

It has even come to this: The company that moved the group out of its Washington headquarters in 2002 went to small-claims court Friday in Henrico County trying to collect $1,890 that remains unpaid on its three-year-old bill.

It is the latest in at least a dozen judicial collection actions brought against the coalition since 2001. The amounts sought by creditors total hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The reasons for the group’s decline are legion, say supporters, critics and experts who have followed its trajectory. Among them are the loss of key leaders, including Robertson, who resigned as president in 2001; alleged mismanagement by his successors; the cyclical nature of politics; and bitter infighting within the organization and with other political players on the religious right.

CHRISTIAN COALITION TIMELINE

1988 After Pat Robertson’s failed bid for the Republican presidential nomination, he turns to Ralph Reed – a shrewd political operative who became a highly visible spokesman for the religious right – for day-to-day operations of the coalition founded in 1989.

1997 Ralph Reed leaves the coalition and later sets up a political consulting business in Georgia, where he is now seeking the 2006 Republican nomination for lieutenant governor.

2000 The coalition, which had been based in Chesapeake through the 1990s, moves to an office on Capitol Hill in Washington.

2001 Robertson resigns as president, turning over the reins to Roberta Combs, right, who, within a year, closes the Washington office and moves the group to South Carolina. Since its move to South Carolina, the coalition has been pursued by a variety of creditors, including suppliers of services for its 2002 “Road to Victory” rally in Washington.

2004 In a fiscal report to South Carolina, the coalition claims revenue of $1.3 million and expenses of $1.5 million, leaving a $200,000 deficit.

“Their future is really bleak,” said Mark J. Rozell, a professor of public policy at George Mason University who has followed the Christian conservative movement for years. “The Christian Coalition is a shell of its former self.”

In one sense, the group is a victim of its own success, Rozell said. It is widely credited with helping Republicans seize control of Congress in 1994 and the White House in 2000, but with those goals achieved, it has lost much of its reason for being.

“These types of opposition groups tend to do really well when the other party is in power – especially, for a religious right group, when the folks in power are Bill and Hillary Clinton,” Rozell said. “But when Bush is in the White House and the Republicans control Congress, the need for a Christian Coalition as a counterweight to established power just isn’t that great.”

Coalition officials insist everything’s fine. As if to underline the point, last month they announced the hiring of a new executive director, Jason T. Christy, the 34-year-old publisher of The Church Report, a national news and business journal for pastors and Christian leaders.

“The Christian Coalition is going to be around for a long time,” said Roberta Combs, the group’s president. “I really believe that with all my heart.”

The coalition arose from the ashes of a failed 1988 bid for the Republican presidential nomination by Robertson, the Virginia Beach-based founder of the Christian Broadcasting Network.

To run the group’s day-to-day affairs, Robertson brought in Ralph Reed – a shrewd political operative who became a highly visible spokesman for the religious right.

The coalition mobilized millions of conservative Christians with its voter guides – pocket-sized candidate scorecards distributed in churches.

Reed left the coalition in 1997 and set up a political consulting business in Georgia, where he is now seeking the 2006 Republican nomination for lieutenant governor. He has also become a central figure in the American Indian casino gambling scandal surrounding indicted Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

The coalition hit its zenith in 1996, when it pulled in a record $26 million in revenue. By contrast, in its 2004 annual report to the South Carolina secretary of state, the group reported $1.3 million in revenue and $1.5 million in expenses, leaving a $200,000 deficit.

Based in Chesapeake through the 1990s, the coalition moved to an office on Capitol Hill in Washington in 2000. Its Chesapeake landlord sued the group in 2001 for $76,546 in back rent, in a case that is still open in Chesapeake Circuit Court.

Within months of the move to Washington, 10 black employees filed a racial discrimination lawsuit alleging that they were forced to enter the office by the back door and eat in a segregated area. The coalition settled the suit in December 2001 for about $300,000, according to several published reports.

That same month, Robertson announced his resignation as president, saying he wanted to spend more time on his broadcast ministry and Regent University, the Christian school he founded next door in Virginia Beach. He was succeeded as president by Combs, head of the coalition’s South Carolina chapter, who closed the Capitol Hill headquarters in November 2002 and now runs the group from an office in Charleston, S.C.

On its Web site, the coalition still lists a Washington post office box as its mailing address, but it no longer has an office in the capital. It employs a lobbyist who works out of his home.

It was the move from Capitol Hill that left an unpaid bill resulting in the claim against the coalition Friday in Henrico County. The coalition is contesting the claim.

Since its move to South Carolina, the coalition has been pursued by a variety of creditors, including the mailing companies Pitney-Bowes and Federal Express. The group has also been sued by suppliers of audio, lighting, exhibit construction and other services for its 2002 “Road to Victory” rally in Washington, which featured a star-studded lineup of speakers, including Robertson and now-indicted House leader Tom DeLay.

Even the coalition’s longtime Virginia Beach law firm, Huff, Poole & Mahoney, has joined the chase. The firm secured a $63,958 judgment for back legal bills in 2003 that resulted in a garnishment of the group’s bank account and a partial payment of $21,136. The firm has retained a South Carolina attorney to try to collect the rest.

One of the coalition’s most costly legal battles was a 2002 blowup with Focus Direct Inc., a San Antonio direct-mail company that sued the group over a major fundraising campaign that went sour. The case dragged on for two years. Combs said it was settled for $200,000.

One of the coalition’s co-defendants, Northern Virginia fundraiser William G. Sidebottom, declared bankruptcy as a result. His attorney, Kevin M. Young of San Antonio, said it was a messy case.

“My father was a preacher, and I became aware of an old saying: 'There’s no politics like church politics,’” Young said. “This is an example of that. On the outside, everybody’s making a happy face, but behind the curtain, it was pretty unseemly.”

And then there’s family politics.

Combs hired her daughter Michele as communications director and Michele’s husband, Tracy Ammons, as a Capitol Hill lobbyist. When their marriage dissolved into a nasty divorce and child-custody battle, Ammons was fired.

He then sued the coalition for $130,000 in unpaid salary, accusing his mother-in-law of “personal animosity and malice” arising out of a desire to break up the marriage.

Explaining in an affidavit how he went months without a paycheck, Ammons said: “I believed that … I could trust my own mother-in-law.”

In another affidavit filed in the Ammons case, Tammy Farmer, who worked at the coalition as a bookkeeper in 2001, said she found the group’s financial affairs in disarray.

“I witnessed a very consistent and chronic pattern of Roberta Combs intentionally refusing to pay valid debts, salaries and accounts for no discernible reason,” Farmer said.

As the overdue bills piled up, Farmer said, telephone service would be cut off occasionally and vendors would refuse to do further business with the coalition.

Farmer said Combs frequently told her, “Don’t pay … they’ll never sue.”

Debt is nothing new for the coalition, Combs said Friday.

“In 1999, when I came into the national organization, it had debt,” she said. “I had to do a lot of creative things. It has less debt now than it had then.”

The Ammons case is in arbitration, but fallout from it continues. Arlington County Circuit Judge Joanne F. Alper imposed $83,141 in sanctions against Ammons and his attorney, Jonathon Moseley, for improper and frivolous pleadings. Both declared bankruptcy as a result.

The coalition’s attorney, Brad D. Weiss, moved last month to withdraw from the Ammons case, citing an “irreconcilable conflict” among himself, the coalition leadership and its board.

Meanwhile, two other attorneys, H. Jason Gold and Alexander M. Laughlin, who had been representing the coalition in the Ammons bankruptcy proceedings, moved to withdraw as well. Their reason: The coalition had failed to pay them.

News researcher Jakon Hays contributed to this story.

I live in a rural area, have three dogs and do weight training also!!!

Actually it is said by the experts that if you are inexperienced with a gun you're better off not having one.  It's kind of complex, but check out the info if you're interested. 

I used to have military mace (actually from when I lived in a big city) - not sure if it's available to the public - probably easier to use than a gun and just as effective.  Otherwise, not sure who we're supposed to be afraid of here.....I generally am not afraid of intruders and I don't have any weapons in my house other than my dogs and my mouth!!!

I can't wait to see what Fitzgerald's investigation unfolds.

Libby and Rove both were sources for the leak of Plame's occupation.

This was after Joe Wilson made public that Bush's claim that Saddam Hussein was purchasing uranium to make nukes was FALSE.  The administration KNEW it was false, yet Bush used this fake threat of nukes in his State of the Union address to scare the heebie-jeebies out of the American public so they would support this bogus war.

That's how Bushies handle people who cross them.  Don't DARE tell the truth or expose the administration for what it truly is.  If you do, they'll not only put the life of a CIA agent in danger, but every single person she worked with around the globe pertaining to WMD.  Why isn't this treason?  It's the Bush way of doing things, and Karl Rove is an expert and accomplished thug.

I hope this goes beyond Rove and Libby and goes straight to Bush and Cheney.  This is definitely an illegal war, brought on totally false premises, and Bush and Cheney should be personally held accountable for all the deaths (American and Iraqi) that have resulted from their lies.

It's truly sad when the only man on earth who can make Saddam look not so bad is GEORGE W. BUSH.  I'm very ashamed of my government.

I'm writing to my Congressman and Senator and see if this is true, express my objection and see if they can BOUNCE the *blank check* they gave him regarding Iraq and require Congressional approval for air strikes.

The article you posted included the following: 

After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the former official said, he was told that Bush felt that “God put me here” to deal with the war on terror. The President’s belief was fortified by the Republican sweep in the 2002 congressional elections; Bush saw the victory as a purposeful message from God that “he’s the man,” the former official said. Publicly, Bush depicted his reëlection as a referendum on the war; privately, he spoke of it as another manifestation of divine purpose.

Someone needs to tell Bush that God thinks Bush is too engulfed in his own ego to fully understand God's REAL message to him, and that's why God gave us POLLS.

I don't believe religious symbols of ANY kind belong in schools (unless they're religious schools) or government buildings.  If Walmart or Target wish to be inclusive to all religious beliefs, more power to them.  Private businesses should be free to do as they wish.  If they want to limit it to the religious Christmas and exclude the secular *Christmas,* some people might not want to shop in that kind of *exclusive* shop.  You can bet their profit margin is the bottom line for them.

For every religion out there, there are buildings:  churches, mosques, temples, etc. where like-minded people gather to worship.  Trying to control the very WORDS people say isn't going to work unless and until you guys figure out a way to implant a chip in every American that will force them to speak, think, believe and worship just like you do.  Maybe some of us think you'd do that if you had the ability, and maybe THAT'S the underlying thing that people are fighting.

That mental image HURTS.

I am so SICK of this man's lies.  Bush needs to get them straight.  When he said the following in 2004, he was clearly lying and KNEW IT, as we now all know.  I just wonder if there's ever been just ONE TIME in the last 5 years when he's actually told the truth.  Have you seen this?

Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order, he said on April 20, 2004 in Buffalo, New York.

Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so, he added.

On April 19, 2004, Bush said the Patriot Act enabled law-enforcement officials to use roving wiretaps, which are not fixed to a particular telephone, against terrorism, as they had been against organized crime.

You see, what that meant is if you got a wiretap by court order -- and by the way, everything you hear about requires court order, requires there to be permission from a FISA court, for example, he said in Hershey, Pennsylvania.

I totally agree this absolutely reaches across the board.  This monster repeatedly raped this child for 3 years, but the damage he's done to her is going to affect her entire life.  How about putting him in jail FOREVER so he can't hurt anyone else???  I also wouldn't have a problem with the death penalty for animals such as this.

I've recently seen this judge on TV, actually defending his actions, as if there is a defense for them.  Thank God for Bill O'Reilly (I don't usually care for him) and Joe Scarborough and Dan Abrams (and others, I'm sure) who are publicizing this.  Hopefully, this judge will be removed soon so maybe more children won't suffer.  This judge, in my opinion, is just as guilty as the molester himself.

I sat here, trying to put myself in the parents' shoes, and I wonder how many parents will begin to feel that taking the law into their own hands and killing these rabid animals is the only way to keep their children safe in lieu of a judge that cares more about the criminals than their victims.  If and when that happens, I'm not sure I could blame them.

I've written to Vermont's governor, as well.  I'm glad so many people are writing and publicizing this issue.  It's the only way things will change.

Number one, despite what is so *obvious* to you, I do not hate my country.  In fact, I miss it very much.  And I don't hate Bush because I don't *hate* anyone.  When he took over the Presidency, I began my impressions of him on an even keel.  Slowly, bit by bit, he has corroded any good impressions I ever may have had of him with his constant lying, dirty tricks, contempt for the Constitution, total and complete refusal to admit that he is NOT PERFECT, blatant disregard for the security of our borders, presiding over an econmy where people can barely afford gas but oil company executives get richer and richer, etc., etc.  I truly and sincerely believe he poses a HUGE threat to the security of every American citizen.

Regardless of what the Iranian President (his name is Ahmadinejad, by the way) claims to have, they don't have the capacity to nuke anyone, but the USA does, and Bush has a ZERO record when it comes to diplomacy.  Again, both Bush and Ahmadinejad are whack jobs, and neither can be reasoned with.  I believe this is a very dangerous combination of two out-of-control egos, and the end of humanity could very well be imminent.  I'm not going to apologize for caring if my grandchildren might not have the opportunity to reach voting age in this country because of a president who doesn't care about his legacy because, when asked, he said Who cares?  We'll all be dead, anyway.  That statement, combined with his love of war, I find to be quite chilling.

As far as being *lost in my world,* I can see very clearly a President who is losing more and more credibility, not on a daily basis any more but on an HOURLY basis.  I have ZERO faith or trust in this man.  Again, contrary to your implied intimate knowledge of me, my brain, my heart and my soul, these aren't because of any preconceived notions I might have about Bush.  These are because the actions of Bush himself.  As polls are evidencing more and more each day, I'm not alone in my skepticism of him.

Regarding where I got the quotes, if you are genuinely interested, I would suggest you Google them.  You've already indicated an inclination to not believe them, so I'm not going to waste my time by going back to the multiple sources I found, simply to provide you with a link that you've already decided not to believe.  If your interest is sincere, you'll look it up. 

Regarding your response to my *shopping spree* statement, I'm sorry, but it didn't come across as a joke to me.  It sounded like a negative character judgment regarding someone who doesn't agree with you, which is a common Neocon MO from Bush and his cronies all the way down to the lowest peon on the totem pole who is convinced Bush is on his or her side. 

Likewise, you can't possibly know the extent of my intelligence since you don't know me, have never met me and aren't qualified to offer such an opinion.  Inherent in your assessment that I'm *not that stupid* is the notion that you feel I do possess a certain degree of stupidity, which leads me to your comment that I feel I have to *label everyone who disagrees* with me as *uninformed and unthinking.*  I respectfully point out that these *labels* are YOUR words, not mine, and I would challenge you to point to those words in my above post to you. 

Have a very pleasant day.

I try to get my information from a variety of sources.  These days, it's hard to find a completely neutral source.

The main thing I'm interested in is finding the truth, and it seems that the party with the most to hide is the least likely to provide it.

When Clinton was President, I listened to a lot of right-leaning news sources for the very same reason.  I thought the lack of respect Clinton showed in the Oval Office was terrible, and I was actually in favor of impeaching him for that.  I didn't buy into and agree with the notion that what he did in his private life was his business.  In my opinion, the Oval Office doesn't belong to the President; it belongs to every American tax-paying citizen. 

I voted for Ronald Reagan, and to this day, I still think of him as a wonderful President.  Historians may disagree with me on that point, and they may be right, because I'm obviously no expert in that field.  I even voted for George Herbert Walker Bush, so I'm not some hardline lefty who hates the United States, is godless and has no moral values.

(I just wanted to share a thumbprint of who I really am because some people want to crucify me on this board simply because they see my name and couldn't care less what I have to say.  You, on the other hand, have been posting here in a very respectful, intelligent manner, and I'm very appreciative of that and hope you continue to do so.  I'm beginning to look forward to reading your posts after the last day or so.)

I believe that many people were looking for a big change in the White House when they voted for George W. Bush.  I believe they wanted some sense of decency and honor restored to it.  I was one of those people.

When I look back at the thing Clinton did that I thought was so terrible, and I look at what Bush has done, I guess the only thing I can say to sum it up is what Jay Leno said in his monologue the other night:  At least Clinton only screwed one American at a time (I'm paraphrasing, but that's the gist of it).

What amazes me the most about (what seems like) blind loyalty to Bush is that I wonder what they thought they were voting for, compared to what they got.  I thought Republicans (conservatives) were supposed to beiin favor of less spending, smaller federal government and fiscal responsibility.  After really disliking President Clinton, I actually feel that when it came to things important to the everyday lives of Americans, Clinton was a far better President.

I feel no sense of trust for President Bush.  I don't feel he is on the side of the average American.  I truly believe he wants to get rid of the middle class altogether, so the only ones left are the rich (who he referred to as his *base*) and the poor.

Whether he made the pejorative comment about the Constitution or not, he ACTS like he has no respect for it (as was also mentioned in the article).  There is truly no need any more for Congress, regardless of whether it's a Republican or Democratic Congress because it doesn't matter what laws they write, if Bush doesn't like it, he will simply issue a *signing statement* expressing that he will do what he wants, anyway.

We have a system of checks and balances for a reason, and he seems to totally disregard it.  To me, it's ironic that he seeks to search and destroy all dictatorships -- except the one that is of his own creation here in the United States.

There's a growing history of how he treats those who either tell the truth or simply don't agree with his policies.  He *Swiftboats* them.

There are many stories out there about the Diebold machines being rigged so that a certain political party wins.  I have a friend who voted on a Diebold machine that produced a paper receipt.  Sure enough, it reflected that she voted for the other party, when, in fact, she did NOT.

I'm completely against his views on immigration.  I believe we should have immediately tightened and secured ALL our borders after 9/11 and, at least for the time being, not allow ANYONE in.  Instead, we used that money to go to war with Iraq, not because Saddam Hussein was a threat but because Bush needed a war to insure a *successful Presidency.*  Did you know that the President's itinery was found by an ex-con in a trash can last week?  Why was that allowed to happen?

Did you know that part of his Iraq war spending includes a comphrehensive healthcare plan for every Iraqi?  Look at the healthcare system in the United States.  Shouldn't the healthcare for Americans take precedence over the healthcare of Iraqis?

Do I want our troops to come home?  You bet I do.  I believe the best way we can support them is to get them out of there. 

Having said that, I also believe we simply cannot *cut and run.*  We simply cannot go into a country and completely destroy and then leave without fixing what we broke.  I believe we morally owe it to the people of Iraq to leave their country in a better place than when we found it.  I wish democracy would have worked in Iraq INSTANTLY.  Then maybe Bush would have hopefully begun to worry about fixing the massive problems in his own country.  Having said that, I have serious doubts that a long-lasting democracy will survive in that region.  I believe that many of them view us as being evil and having no morals.  (I can't really disagree with this view, considering some of the things that go on in this country.)  I think Joe Biden had an excellent idea of dividing Iraq into three provinces (which is supported in the Iraqi Constitution). 

Instead, I believe this war was a whim, based on his own personal goals, without regard for one single soldier he sent to die.  To me, that is unforgiveable.

Should he be allowed to spy on innocent Americans during wartime?  I guess that depends on the definition of *innocent.*  I sure don't know any terrorists.  Heck, I don't even know my own neighbors.  But I have repeatedly expressed my disagreement with his policies, and I've read how innocent Americans whose only *sin* is disagreeing with this President, so I have no reason to believe that I won't find myself being *investigated* by some agency eventually, maybe even the IRS in the form of an audit or some other intimidating tactic that this President is so fond of using.

As far as the Democrats are concerned, I personally can't stand Hillary Clinton and would never vote for her (even if I DID live in a country where my vote actually counted).  I'm as disgusted with the Democrats as I am with the President. 

I'm not some Godless heathen without morals simply because I don't agree with Bush.  I very much believe in God.  In fact, I believe God has been sending Bush a series of *signs* that he has chosen to ignore.  What I don't believe is pushing my religion down everyone else's throats.  What I believe in most of all is tolerance and respect for everyone, regardless of their religious beliefs.  When one religion acts as if it is superior to all others, that concerns me and automatically forces me further to the left.  Freedom of religion in this country is a wonderful thing, and nobody's religion is better than someone else's (including those who simply don't believe at all).  Yet, the fallacy that all Democrats (or anyone else who doesn't believe in Bush) are godless heathens is alive and well.  Ann Coulter, who can't seem to remember her address and is under investigation for voter fraud (see http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002807.htm, complete with the complaining document) plans on releasing a book outlining evil devils (such as myself and other millions of Americans she's never met) on none other than 6/6/06.  I believe that one particular religion has no place in government.  Do I have a problem with *In God We Trust* on our money?  Of course not.  When the word *God* is used in a generic term, it's INCLUSIVE, not EXCLUSIVE.  But whether or not I can read it as I purchase a newspaper is irrelevant to what I feel in my soul and my heart.  I can assure you my morals are very high, and it truly hurts (thus turning to anger) when certain conservatives accuse people like me of being evil and Godless.  They say that most anger is the result of fear.  The times I'm most angry is truly when I'm the most frightened.  It's really hard to carry on a dialogue with someone who has labeled you so negatively, a sense of self-defense kicks in, and often arguments and more name-calling ensues, none of which is productive and all of which is hurtful and fruitless.

I'm sorry this is so long, but as I said, I enjoy reading your posts.  Although I don't know you or your political beliefs, you seem to be conservative.  You also seem to be intelligent and respectful and don't resort to personal attacks on posters, which is very refreshing on these boards.  I was just trying to give you some insight into who I am and the reason I don't like Bush.  In fact, I'm very frightened of him.

As I've said before, if I felt my President was honest, trustworthy, ethical and truly had the interests of ALL Americans foremost in his mind, I would have no problem at all with his obtaining lists of my telephone calls because I truly have nothing to hide, and if it saved one life, to me, it would be worth it.  I just don't trust him to do the right thing, and that isn't based on anything I've heard or read from any left-leaning media.  It's based solely on his own actions in the last six years.

I'm no far left-leaning whacko.  In fact, I'm truly a middle-of-the road kind of thinker.  I think there are a lot of us out there.  Speaking personally, it's just that the *righter* he goes, the *lefter* I automatically wind up, not because I voluntarily choose to, but because in order to maintain my original thoughts, that's where he pushes me.

I don't expect you to agree with me.  In fact, I fully expect you not to agree with me, and I hope you respond because I am very interested in hearing your views.  Again, I thank you for being respectful and not resorting to name calling.  You have opened the door to serious, honest and intelligent debate, and for that, I thank you.

I hope you have a wonderful weekend.

I hope you had an opportunity to read the article I posted before it was censored.  It certainly explains the few bad apples in an otherwise wonderful military and also answers the question you raised regarding the recruiting tactics. 

I have decided to lock this thread.  I do not believe the OP had bad intentions, but I do not like the direction in which this thread is going.

Moderator

Please watch your comments.  This is the second post of yours I have edited based on inappropriate remarks.  Let this serve as a warning to you.

Moderator

Your comments about race were inappropriate.  They were bound to offend, and it is best to leave those kind of remarks off this site.

Moderator

Thanks - its such a breath of fresh air to hear more people feel the same way I do. I'm am sick to death of her people trying to push her in the VP slot (which just is not going to happen) but seems thats all that's on the news just can't wait for it to end. If it does happen well they can be assured that McCain will definitely win. The Clintons should not be allowed anywhere near the white house. Don't people remember what they did the last time they were in there? I listen to the people who support her and think...why? there is not one good quality about that woman. People are saying she's a good role model for their children??? People think that someone who is a liar, cheater, thief, bribes people, gives people false hope, walks all over people not caring who she steps on just as long as she is on top, is a sore loser, not humble, has a foul mouth to match her attitude, is just downright nasty to people when she doesn't get her way, etc, etc, well I then question their character. Never mind all the people whose lives and careers have been destroyed because they went against the Clintons. And another thing they talk about the Clinton Dynasty or Clinton Legacy? I always thought a Dynasty was if you have a long line of people in the family who have been in politics (like the Kennedys). It is only the two of them. Nobody in their family is in politics or is decent. These two came out of nowhere and they've only done harm to the democrat party. They are tearing the party apart for their own personal gain and they don't care.

The portion that I edited were not statements made by Hillary Clinton.  Those statements were made by you.  They were aggressive and strange, to say the least, and those kind of comments have no place on this site.

Moderator

Well, it worked just as well for me during this occasion.  I think different people react differently, depending on the dosage, their tolerance, and how tired they might be.  It might work differently for you than it does for me.  Heck, it might (and does) work differently for ME, depending on the above.  I have an illness which may (and usually does) awaken me in the middle of the night.  If it's not too bad, I can take a pain pill and actually even be able to work a little.  (If it's hospital-worthy, then I slap on a Fentanyl patch, and once that enters my system, I'm usually out like a light for a couple days.  If that doesn't work, then it's back to the hospital again, which I try to avoid.)  However, when this stuff happens, I wind up in a backwards sleep cycle and wind up being awake all night.  This is what happened to me Friday/Saturday, and if you'll note, I began the post by stating I had been up most of the night. 

Secondly, it was not a two-hour nap.  Please read the post again and note the difference between 10:26 a.m. and 7:14 P.M. 

 If you can't stand the heat....Get out of the kitchen!

no soup.

Arf.