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

A quote from Ronald Reagan that I thought was appropriate

Posted By: Kendra on 2008-10-28
In Reply to:

There are those in America today who have come to depend absolutely on government for their security. And when government fails they seek to rectify that failure in the form of granting government more power. So, as government has failed to control crime and violence with the means given it by the Constitution, they seek to give it more power at the expense of the Constitution. But in doing so, in their willingness to give up their arms in the name of safety, they are really giving up their protection from what has always been the chief source of despotism — government. Lord Acton said power corrupts. Surely then, if this is true, the more power we give the government the more corrupt it will become. And if we give it the power to confiscate our arms we also give up the ultimate means to combat that corrupt power. In doing so we can only assure that we will eventually be totally subject to it. When dictators come to power, the first thing they do is take away the people's weapons. It makes it so much easier for the secret police to operate, it makes it so much easier to force the will of the ruler upon the ruled.

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

and when Ronald Reagan was prez, NANCY was
So, Ronald Reagan is a black liberationist
The windfall profits tax was not actually a tax on profit. Please read up on it's history. It was an excise tax which was enacted April 2, 1980, during the last year of the Carter administration. Interesting to note that it was not repealed until August 23, 1988. It stayed in effect for 7 years, 4 months and 21 days under Ronald Reagan; in other words, for 92% of his entire time in office. So does that make Ronald Reagan a Marxist/socialist black liberationist too?
Another quote from that site, a wee bit more factual. and thought out......
Maybe it was the fruitless search for the weapons of mass destruction or the lack of any credible Al Qaeda ties to Saddam Hussein. As months dragged on, it became more and more evident that these would never be found. As these justifications for war dissipated, so did my own personal justifications for the death I had seen.

 

So, here I am. I'm left with pride in my own service and the men I served with, but the sickening feeling that it was avoidable. I would gladly lay down my life for our country. Like every other man who wears this uniform, our commitment is not at issue. Call it naivety, but it never occurred to me that my country was less committed to us than we are to it. Sending us in harm's way for a lie amounts to a betrayal that may prove to be criminal. It's unfortunate that on November 2nd 59,000,000 Americans failed to do their duty and hold the administration accountable for this betrayal of the troops. A dishonorable discharge was never more warranted.



 
Ron Reagan
Is great and tells it like it is.  Keep spreading the TRUTH, Ron.
Non-Reagan is an idiot. sm
He's a disgrace to his father's memory and to his living mother.  He knows nothing!  Come on people.  You can do better than this!  I would accept Alan Colmes or Dan Rather, but NON REAGAN????  Unbelievable!
And Reagan?..he armed
was fighting Iran. We were in bed with Saddam, when Reagan was president...have you forgotten that? What does that make us?
When your hero, Reagan,
he apparently made you blind. Remember this when more of our infrastructure (already started with levees in Louisiana) falls apart and you wonder why there are more pot holes and you can't afford basic necessities. Look around, it's already happening.

Poverty Increases as Incomes Decline Under Bush

September 21, 2005
By Gene C. Gerard

The day after Hurricane Katrina hit, exposing much of the public to the tragic conditions of poverty in America, the Census Bureau quietly released its annual report entitled, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States. In some respects, it provided a demonstrable backdrop to the pockets of poverty common to New Orleans and other cities. It also explained why, despite President Bush's assertion last month that, Americans have more money in their pockets, many people aren't faring as well as they once did.

The report indicates that in 2004 there was no increase in average annual household incomes for black, white, or Hispanic families. In fact, this marks the first time since the Census Bureau began keeping records that household incomes failed to increase for five consecutive years. Since President Bush took office, the average annual household family income has declined by $2,572, approximately 4.8 percent.

Black families had the lowest average income last year, at $30,134. By comparison, the average income for white families was $48,977. The average pretax family income for all racial groups combined was $44,389, which is the lowest it has been since 1997. The South had the lowest average family income in 2004.

Interestingly enough, as the Economic Policy Institute notes in their analysis of the Census Bureau's report, not all families did poorly last year. Although the portion of the total national income going to the bottom 60 percent of families did not increase last year, the portion going to the wealthiest five percent of families rose by 0.4 percent. And while the average inflation-adjusted family income of middle-class Americans declined by 0.7 percent in 2004, the wealthiest five percent of families enjoyed a 1.7 percent increase.

Earnings also declined last year. This is despite the fact that Americans are working harder. Since 2000, worker output per hour has increased by 15 percent. Yet for men working full-time, their annual incomes declined 2.3 percent in 2004, down to an average of $40,798. This decrease was the largest one-year decline in 14 years for men. Women saw their earnings decrease by 1 percent, with an average income of $31,223, the largest one-year decline for women in nine years.

Women earned only 77 cents for every dollar earned by men last year. Clearly, the gender gap remains real and pervasive. In all major industry sectors, women earned less than men. In the management of companies, women earned 54 cents for every dollar earned by men; 57 cents in finance and industry; and 60 cents in scientific and technical services.

Not surprisingly, the report revealed that poverty increased last year. There were 37 million (12.7 percent) people living in poverty, an increase of 1.1 million people since 2003. This was the fourth consecutive year in which poverty has increased. In fact, since President Bush took office, 5.4 million more people, including 1.4 million children, have found themselves living in poverty. There were 7.9 million families living below the poverty level in 2004, an increase of 300,000 families since 2003.

The average income last year for a poverty-stricken family of four was $19,307; for a family of three it was $15,067, and for a couple it was $12,334. The poverty rate increased for people 18 to 64 last year by 0.5 percent. The South experienced the highest poverty rate of all regions.

The Census Bureau report also demonstrated that health insurance coverage remains elusive for many Americans. Those covered by employer-sponsored health insurance declined from 60.4 percent in 2003 to 59.8 percent in 2004. Approximately 800,000 more workers found themselves without health insurance last year. The percentage of people covered by governmental health programs in 2004 rose to 27.2 percent, in part because as poverty increased, more Americans were forced to seek coverage through Medicaid. The percentage of the public with Medicaid coverage rose by 0.5 percent in 2004.

Last year was the fourth consecutive year in which employer-sponsored health insurance coverage declined. A total of 45.8 million Americans are now without health insurance. The uninsured rate in 2004 was 11.3 percent for whites, 19.7 percent for blacks, and 32.7 percent for Hispanics. Not surprisingly, the South had the highest portion of the uninsured population, at 18.3 percent.

Although we haven't heard President Bush say it much lately, he came into office as a self-professed compassionate conservative. But as the report by the Census Bureau suggests, which was sadly symbolized by the plight of many poor residents of New Orleans, the country hasn't seen much of that compassion in the last five years.

Many Americans are working harder, earning less, and without the benefit of health insurance. It's easy to understand why the report was released a day after the largest natural disaster in a century, when much of the country was distracted.
Bush and Reagan....
Each had one known accusation...the woman who accused Bush had definite mental problems (see below) and the accusation against Reagan was in the 50's...one accusation. Clinton has had several of all kinds of sexual allegations made against him. Like I said, I know Juanita Broaddrick. Bottom line, Reagan and Bush had one isolated allegation against them...see below for the one against Bush. Not hardly the same thing at all. I did not say Clinton was morally bankrupt because he was a Democrat...he is a Democrat who happens to be morally bankrupt. Was and still is.

George W. Bush Rape Allegation

In 2002, Margie Schoedinger of Missouri City, Texas, a writer of Christian books, filed a pro se lawsuit against George W. Bush alleging that Bush had raped her in October 2000.[9]. The complaint also claims that she had been harassed, that she had been drugged and sexually assaulted numerous times by Bush and two other men purporting to be FBI agents, that her bank account had been interfered with, and that she had been threatened and beaten. There was no substantiating evidence for any of her claims. The suit also claimed Bush raped her husband, Christopher. Christopher allegedly served a year in prison after pleading no contest to assault charges against his wife. He later filed for divorce.

Many believed Schoedinger suffered from mental disorders. Among American newspapers, Schoedinger's ordeal was covered only by the local Fort Bend Star, whose editor is said to have off-handedly opined, I had heard she was a nut case. [10]

This lady later committed suicide.
no--Reagan was generalizing
it just applied to Obama. We can learn from things that people have said in the past.
If you can't spell REAGAN, I don't want you to have a gun nm
nm
man, I left out Reagan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHXq8TRejow&feature=related
Former Reagan official: Is another 9/11 is in the works?

(There is NOTHING this administration could do that would surprise me. )












March 16, 2006


Is Another 9/11 in the Works?


by Paul Craig Roberts


If you were President George W. Bush with all available US troops tied down by the Iraqi resistance, and you were unable to control Iraq or political developments in the country, would you also start a war with Iran?


Yes, you would.


Bush’s determination to spread Middle East conflict by striking at Iran does not make sense.


First of all, Bush lacks the troops to do the job. If the US military cannot successfully occupy Iraq, there is no way that the US can occupy Iran, a country approximately three times the size in area and population.


Second, Iran can respond to a conventional air attack with missiles targeted on American ships and bases, and on oil facilities located throughout the Middle East.


Third, Iran has human assets, including the Shi'ite majority population in Iraq, that it can activate to cause chaos throughout the Middle East.


Fourth, polls of US troops in Iraq indicate that a vast majority do not believe in their mission and wish to be withdrawn. Unlike the yellow ribbon folks at home, the troops are unlikely to be enthusiastic about being trapped in an Iranian quagmire in addition to the Iraqi quagmire.


Fifth, Bush’s polls are down to 34 percent, with a majority of Americans believing that Bush’s invasion of Iraq was a mistake.


If you were being whipped in one fight, would you start a second fight with a bigger and stronger person?


That’s what Bush is doing.


Opinion polls indicate that the Bush regime has succeeded in its plan to make Americans fear Iran as the greatest threat America faces.


The Bush regime has created a major dispute with Iran over that country’s nuclear energy program and then blocked every effort to bring the dispute to a peaceful end.


In order to gain a pretext for attacking Iran, the Bush regime is using bribery and coercion in its effort to have Iran referred to the UN Security Council for sanctions.


In recent statements President Bush and Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld blamed Iran for the Iraqi resistance, claiming that the roadside bombs used by the resistance are being supplied by Iran.


It is obvious that Bush intends to attack Iran and that he will use every means to bring war about.


Yet, Bush has no conventional means of waging war with Iran. His bloodthirsty neoconservatives have prepared plans for nuking Iran. However, an unprovoked nuclear attack on Iran would leave the US, already regarded as a pariah nation, totally isolated.


Readers, whose thinking runs ahead of that of most of us, tell me that another 9/11 event will prepare the ground for a nuclear attack on Iran. Some readers say that Bush, or Israel as in Israel’s highly provocative attack on the Jericho jail and kidnapping of prisoners with American complicity, will provoke a second attack on the US. Others say that Bush or the neoconservatives working with some black ops group will orchestrate the attack.


One of the more extraordinary suggestions is that a low yield, perhaps tactical, nuclear weapon will be exploded some distance out from a US port. Death and destruction will be minimized, but fear and hysteria will be maximized. Americans will be told that the ship bearing the weapon was discovered and intercepted just in time, thanks to Bush’s illegal spying program, and that Iran is to blame. A more powerful wave of fear and outrage will again bind the American people to Bush, and the US media will not report the rest of the world’s doubts of the explanation.


Reads like a Michael Crichton plot, doesn’t it?


Fantasy? Let’s hope so.


 


 

I agree too. Former Reagan Republican here.sm
I agree with what you are saying. I voted for Bush the first time, sorry I did. 16 years of corrupt politics, lies, and scandals is hard to deal with. Clinton turned the White House into a ho house and Bush is turning it into the Reichstag. Think the country would be better off if Larry the Cable Guy was President.
Actually most of those laws were NOT done by liberals but in the REAGAN ERA sm
in an effort to cut and gut "big government". Don't blame us liberals, baby - blame your "great communicator".
Reagan's Socialist Legacy

An interesting article that expounds on several decades.......for a complete review, here's the link:  http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090323/scheer


 


Reagan's Socialist Legacy


by:  Robert Scheer


Although gan's we still have a way to go to catch up with the good parts of the European system, including universal healthcare, high-quality public education and decent working conditions, we do have a system that is now as socialist in budget size as Europe's. That part I get when I listen to the right-wingers on Fox News bemoaning the reversal of the Reagan Revolution. But what I don't understand is how in the world they can blame this startling turn of events on Barack Obama.



The vast majority of money allocated so far on President Obama's watch is an extension of Bush's banking bailout, which has committed trillions to failed Wall Street conglomerates. I certainly don't want to defend the bailout and personally think the banks and stockbrokers deserve to go belly up, but what does that mess have to do with Obama, who was in college when the Reagan Revolution launched the deregulation that allowed Wall Street to run wild?

Never heard of rape charges against Reagan or GW. sm
Also, Kaye Summersby, Ike's *supposed* mistress said that they were very close but never consummated anything. 
Actual entry in Reagan's diary
Beneath is an actual quote that Reagan wrote about George "W" in his
diaries, recently edited by author Doug Brinkley and published by Harper
Collins
 
"A moment I've been dreading. George brought his n'er-do-well son around
this morning and asked me to find the kid a job. Not the political one 
who lives in Florida; the one who hangs around here all the time looking
shiftless. This so-called kid is already almost 40 and has never had a
real job. Maybe I'll call Kinsley over at The New Republic and see if they'll
hire him as a contributing Editor or something. That looks like easy
work."
 
From the REAGAN DIARIES------entry dated May 17, 1986.

 

Noonan (reagan speech writer) on

caught with microphone still on.  Speaking with Mike Murphy, a repub talking head about SP's qualifications.


 


http://www.newsday.com/services/newspaper/printedition/thursday/nation/ny-usnoon045828642sep04,0,1097812.story

Ronnie Reagan, the man who cut all the programs for mentally ill and sm
that is when you started seeing all the homeless people on the streets. During his reign of terror. A horrible president.
Obama apolgizes to Nancy Reagan

We all know Obama has a sense of humor.  He's likeable and funny and I enjoy hearing him speak.  But he really should think before he speaks, and not try to make jokes.  Americans are needing issues to be solved, not seeing how funny our President elect is.  This is a very serious and grave time for America and we need some reassurance that he will do what he promised on his campaign trail.  He spoke of Hope through his campaign.  Now we need to see the hope turn into reality.  I had read a lot of articles from both liberal and conservative sources that he doesn't do well with "off the cuff" comments and I think he should stick to the speeches that are written for him. 


Like I said - I like Obama.  He's a good speaker.  But his comment about Nancy Reagan whether you like her or not was indeed making fun of her and unecessary.  He should have just said, "I've talked to the past presidents" and left it at that.  By him having to state they were alive??? The public is not so stup!d that we wouldn't know he didn't mean the "dead" Presidents.  I hope that's not what he thought.  I'm just glad he called her to apologize.


On another note I watched the press conference he gave and I would have like to have heard a little more about what he's going to do once he gets in the white house, who he is picking for his cabinet, and what are the first things he is going to do to help Americans and what promises he gave to us that he will be able to keep and work on first.  Not what kind of dog he is going to get or where his kids go to school.  That does not affect American and I like many of my friends don't care.  We care about issues that affect us.

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
"There you go." A Reagan-esque pearl of wisdom.
I just thought it might be nice to hear an original thought. sm
I guess I was reaching.
Thought this was good so I thought I'd share

Down the drain?  Beware of Obama's plan to 'spread the wealth around'


By Betsy Newmark
High School History and Government Teacher/Blogger


If the McCain campaign can’t use this Obama quote to raise doubts about his attitude towards wealth and success, then they deserve the shellacking they seem headed for.


“Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn’t it?” the plumber asked, complaining that he was being taxed “more and more for fulfilling the American dream.”


“It’s not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance for success too,” Obama responded. “My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody … I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”


Plumbers of the country, unite! Forget about the work and effort you put into building up a business or the scummy work that you do that many of us don’t know or don’t want to do. If you have succeeded, you should be willing to give up more of what you earn to help those who haven’t had the great good luck that you have had to be a successful plumber. Remember how Obama is going to give 95% of all of us a tax cut even though over 30% of the population doesn’t pay taxes?



He might call it a tax credit, but what he’s really doing is his vision of “spreading the wealth around.” It sounds a lot like Huey Long’s 1935 plan to “Share the Wealth.” And when he finds that he can’t tax the top 5% of the population to gain enough wealth to spread to the 95% of the rest of us, do you really think that he’ll stop with that 5%?


Remember…This is the guy who said in the ABC debate during the primary season that his approach to raising tax on capital gains is not based on whether it would provide more revenue but on his idea of what is fair:


GIBSON: All right. You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, “I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton,” which was 28 percent. It’s now 15 percent. That’s almost a doubling, if you went to 28 percent.


But actually, Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.


OBAMA: Right.


GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.


OBAMA: Right.


GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.


So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?


OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.


Just what we need in these fragile economic times — a guy who wants to raise taxes because he thinks it’s a matter of “fairness” and time to “spread the wealth around.”


That will be some incentive for other plumbers who want to work hard and build up a successful business.


But don’t worry - according to Joe Biden, it’s the patriotic thing to do.

Haha! I thought I was the only one who thought he looked
Bush inherited Powell from Clinton who inherited him from Reagan.
Bush wouldn't have had the sense to pick Powell all by himself. Have you heard the latest on Condi? She's been palling around with senior Hamas leaders, sending them thank you notes and such.

Here's how that other thing works. When the fringers stop lying, dems stop denying. It's not that complicated.
That's not the whole quote.
Quote of the Day

The only difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is that the Democrats allow the poor to be corrupt, too. ~Oscar Levant

Quote of the Day

A vote is like a rifle: its usefulness depends upon the character of the user. ~ Theodore Roosevelt

Quote of the Day

If the person you are trying to diagnose politically is some sort of intellectual, the chances are two to one he is a Democrat. ~Vance Packard

Quote of the Day

If you can't convince them, confuse them. ~ Harry S. Truman

Quote of the Day
Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession.  I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.  ~Ronald Reagan
Quote of the Day

Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear. ~ Harry S. Truman

Quote of the Day

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. ~ John F. Kennedy

Quote of the Day

Too bad that all the people who really know how to run the country are busy driving taxi cabs and cutting hair. ~ George Burns

Quote of the Day

When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross ~ Sinclair Lewis

Quote of the Day
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves ~ Edward R. Morrow
Exactly where did you get this quote from me?
  Tally, add 1 nasty for the republicans.
Your Quote from Joe

"The media's worried about whether I've paid my taxes, they're worried about any number of silly things that have nothing to do with America," Wurzelbacher told the former Republican presidential hopeful on his show, "Huckabee."

And your quote:"This is what is so funny.  In Joe's eyes "taxes" are silly things."

If you notice, he did not say taxes were silly things. He said they're worried about any number of silly things. He didn't specifically say taxes are silly things.


This whole election is out of hand. The media is whipping everyone into a frenzy over a bunch of stupid crap that has no place in the election.  I have never seen such garbage spewing from everyone, every newspaper, and you-name-it.


People have to be level-headed and think and decide for themselves and stop the name-calling just because others don't agree!!!!!

I would also like to add this quote.

I posted this below but will post it again.


"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases." -- Thomas Jefferson

there was a lot more to that quote
"my muslim faith" If you listen to it in context, he is not saying he is a muslim, he is refering to people talking about his muslim faith, which he doesn't have.
quote
"Our democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who



are willing to work and give to those who would not."



 

Thomas Jefferson
quote

"Love your neighbor as yourself and your country more than yourself."


—Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Jefferson Smith, February 21, 1825

If you are going to quote me............ sm
please at least do it in context.  "Obama is flying on the premise that he is innocent until proven guilty and the hope that his puppeteers have enough money to keep his guilt from being discovered, which they very well may have."

Our Constitution does provide for presumed innocence until gult is actually proven.  That much I agree with.  HOWEVER, what I was saying here in the context of my message is that Obama is betting that he has enough financial backing that will grease the palms of those who are in charge of the decision-making process, as they have done in the past to get him to this level, that he will not be found guilty.  Money runs politics, Marmann, and I think you would agree with me on that.  You don't see very many poor people in national politics. 

Once this issue is laid to rest by the SC, then I will let it go.  I may not like their decision, but I will let it go because, as the highest court in the land, their word is law and we must abide by it.  It would not be the first time that I would disagree with their judgment and probably not the last, but as an American I have, at least for the time being, the right to disagree with them. 

As to what other issues may arise that I would voice disagreement with and "pound him into the ground" on, that remains to be seen.  I am watching several issues right now very closely, and if his decision on said issues disagrees with mine, then you can bet I will be on here screaming.  If he proves me wrong about him and brings this country back from the brink of total destruction, then I will cook up a pot of crow for me and anyone else who wants to join me.  If we don't have enough crow to go around, I have quite a few old hats around here that could supplement the meal. 
Quote of the Day.....

The late Dr. Adrian Rogers (1931-2005) offered the following observation several years ago and it bears poignant significance today:


"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the rich out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply the wealth by dividing it. "

Yeah right. Served under Reagan, Bush I and Bush II
x
Quote from this site. sm

“heatherb” a Soldier from OK, submitted 9-6-04:


“You cannot tell me that we are not doing the right thing when you watch little kids run, literally run from their one room mud hut a mile away from the road come running as your convoy is passing just to wave, not to beg for food or water, just to wave. Or to be a woman and invited to sit amoung the Iraqi men and share their Chai with them and listen as they share their stories of the days when their country was oppressed. To have shared such time with the people of tha t country and to have learned about their culture and that they are such a powerful proud people. And to know that I was a part of liberating that, makes me proud to have gone over there to give those kids that run up to us all those times the chance to never have tell the stories that the men sharing tea told, but listen to them as I did. We are doing the right thing regardless of the disillusion of our politicians. Be proud of what you've done. I am."


God Bless them.
quote from 1946

As true today as it was when spoken in 1946.


Why of course the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship ... voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.


Hermann Goering April 18, 1946 - Nuremberg trial Taken from "Nuremberg Diary" by G.M. Gilbert
Read quote

Rush Limbaugh quoting excerpt from article by Rick Moran:


But even a victory by 'The Laughing Goat' ( La Cabra que Ríe) couldn’t possibly gladden the hearts and warm the cockles of liberals like the prospect of celebrating…what? Well, there’s that drop in the President’s poll numbers. And then there’s…let’s see. Oh! Did I mention the drop in the President’s poll numbers? Yes, these are heady days for our left wing friends. The fact that their celebrations are taking place as a direct result of the distress, suffering, anguish and death of tens of thousands of their fellow citizens seems to not be of much concern to our morally superior betters. In fact, it has emboldened them to advance every crack pot theory on race and class that has poisoned American politics for going on forty years. One could say the left is dancing on the graves of black people, celebrating the exploitation of a political opening brought about by the incompetence of relief efforts in the largely black neighborhoods of New Orleans. Except for one thing: most of those graves are empty at the moment because the future les habitants haven’t even been plucked from the floodwaters yet.

quote above from Voltaire
I never heard that quote before. sm
Please provide a link.  I would like to read the entire article. 
© Copyright 2001-09 MTStars.com All Rights Reserved