And just what claims are those prey tell.....-see message
Posted By: IMHO on 2009-04-13
In Reply to: Obama Haters will hate this post. - They don't WANT him to succeed.
That we want the country to succeed? That we want the constitution enforced? That we don't want to be taxed so that we can no longer afford to live? That we don't want the spending of money that hasn't been printed yet, or printing so much money that inflation hits? That we want him to keep his campaign promises (that he hasn't yet)? That we want equality for all people? That we want the WA thugs to pay taxes like we have to? That we don't want him lining his pockets or those of the 1% wealthiest (his friends) while the rest of us pay for it? That we don't like viewing his @ss while he bows to our enemies? And also that we don't like him lying to us about it? That we don't want him giving our jobs to overseas companies? That we don't want our children drafted? If those are ridiculous to you, and if you call turning our country into a socialist/communist state, then I do believe you would find a better home in Cuba.
Rush said -
"This notion that I want the president to fail, this shows you the problem we've got. This is nothing more than common sense and to not be able to say it? Why in the world would I want what we just described: rampant government growth, wealth that is not being created yet is being spent? What is in this, what is possibly in this that any of us want to succeed? Did the Democrats want the war of Iraq to fail? They certainly did. And they not only wanted the war in Iraq to fail they proclaimed it a failure.... They hoped George Bush failed. So what is so strange about being honest and saying I want Barack Obama to fail if his mission is to restructure and reform this country so that capitalism and individual liberty are not its foundation?"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/28/rush-limbaugh-at-cpac-dou_n_170792.html
Seeing as you purposely distorted the truth it needed to be posted.
So you are allowed to say you want Bush to fail, but people can't say they want Obama to fail? Double standards - nice...NOT.
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
They don't *prey.*
This isn't news, per se, just an example of what Bush really meant when he said "No child left behind." He wants them ALL to die in Iraq.
I also read somewhere else that the military also has access to these kids' email addresses. (Can't find that article now, so I'm sure someone will call me a liar.)
Published on Friday, December 6, 2002 by CommonDreams.org |
No Child Left Alone By Military Recruiters |
by Leah C Wells |
|
The No Child Left Behind Act which went into effect last week has some surprising implications for high school students. Buried deep within the funding benefits is Section 9528 which grants the Pentagon access to directories with students names, addresses and phone numbers so that they may be more easily contacted and recruited for military service. Prior to this provision, one-third of the nation’s high schools refused recruiters’ requests for students’ names or access to campus because they believed it was inappropriate for educational institutions to promote military service.
This portion of the Department of Education’s initiative to create better readers, testers and homework-doers is a departure from the previously federally guaranteed privacy protections students have traditionally known. Until now, schools have been explicitly instructed to protect the integrity of students’ information - even to guard students’ private information from college recruiters. Students must consent to releasing their personal data when they take college entrance exams.
However, since September 11th , educational institutions have slid down the slippery slope in doling out student information when solicited by the FBI and now the Pentagon. Only one university - Earlham in Indiana - declined to release student data when approached after the terrorist attacks last fall.
The No Child Left Behind act paves the way for the military to have unimpeded access to underage students who are ripe for solicitation for the military. This blatant contradiction of prior federal law is not only an invasion of students’ privacy but an assault on their educational opportunities as well. Too many students are lulled by the siren songs of military service cooing promises of funding for higher education. Too many students have fallen between the cracks due to underfunded educational programs, underresourced schools and underpaid teachers. They are penalized in their educational opportunities for the systemic failure to put our money where our priorities ought to be: in schools.
It is critical that students, schools and school districts have accurate information regarding this No Child Left Behind Act in preparation for the forthcoming military solicitation. First, the Local Educational Agency (LEA), not individual schools, may grant dissemination of student information. When recruiters approach individual schools, the administration should refer them to the school district office where they are supposed to visit in the first place.
In some cases, the recruiters on site have coerced employees at individual schools to sign previously prepared documents stating that in refusing to release student information, they are not in compliance with the No Child Left Behind Act and risk losing federal funding. All requests for student information should be referred to the school district’s office and not left to the discretion of individual school employees. School boards, Parent-Teacher Organizations and Student Council/ASB groups can mobilize to support the administrations who are not willing to distribute private student information.
Second, students or their parents may opt themselves out of this recruitment campaign. So as not to be in violation of the previous federal law which restricts disclosure of student information, the LEA must notify parents of the change in federal policy through an addendum to the student handbook or individual letters sent to students’ homes. Parents and students can notify their school administration and district in writing of their desire to have their records kept secret.
The San Francisco School District has maintained a policy of non-recruitment by the military and is leading the nation in their efforts to educate parents and students on their right to privacy. As advocates for their students, the district is sending home individual letters to parents outlining their options for protecting their child’s information.
At the heart of this argument over students’ records and privacy is the true purpose and meaning of education. Is the goal of education to provide a fertile field of students ripe for the picking by the military which will send them to the front lines of battle, potentially never to return? Is the essence of education to dichotomize the availability of quality education between those with ample finances and those with no financial mobility?
Or is education meant to develop students’ minds, hearts and talents through self-discovery and academic exploration? Does education aim to promote critical thinking skills, empathy for others, understanding of individual roles in community service, and a sense of global connectedness? Was education designed to be an equitable opportunity for all students?
A newspaper from the U.K., The Scotsman, recently interviewed a young American woman on an aircraft carrier in the Middle East. Eighteen-year-old Karen de la Rosa said, “I have no idea what is happening. I just hear the planes launching above my head and pray that no one is going to get killed. I keep telling myself I’m serving my country.”
But is her country serving her?
The relationship between militarism and education is evident. The current Department of Education budget proposal for 2003 is $56.5 billion. The recently-approved Department of Defense budget is $396 billion, nearly seven times what is allocated for education, and more than three times the combined military budgets of Russia, China, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya, Cuba, Sudan and Syria. An escalated war in Iraq could add more than $200 billion to the defense budget as well.
Students are continually guilted into shouldering the burden of responsibility when they do not succeed in school and all too often accept as inevitable their fate of being sucked into military service. The Leave No Child Behind Act is a wake up call to students to reclaim their privacy, to reinvest their energy into demanding quality education and to remind their leaders that stealing money from education to pay for military is unacceptable.
Leah C. Wells serves as the Peace Education Coordinator for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. December 10th, Human Rights Day, serves as the platform to challenge the No Child Left Behind Act. NAPF encourages students to get informed and become active in asserting their right to privacy and to quality education. For more information, visit http://www.wagingpeace.org/new/getinvolved/index.htm or email Ms. Wells at education@napf.org .
### |
They not only *prey* on young people
but they are so desperate to find kids to die in Iraq that they even take kids on drugs and teach these kids how to pass a drug test so they can get in the military.
Recruiters *prey* on young people. sm
You do realize recruiters are part of the military you scream so loudly that you support. Recruiters have always come to high schools. I happen to think that the military is a fine career. No one is twisting anyone's arm. Military has been a part of our existence since we settled here and had the calvary. You are suggesting that high school students have no free will. That isn't logical in the least.
everyone claims to have
abandoned this place and return monthly just to see if the posts have changed. Did all y'all coordinate to arrive on this date to check it?
Dodd claims he did not put that in there -
at least, I read that he said the date he had included was changed so that those bonuses would still be paid. He said his date would not have allowed those bonuses to be paid. ???
Validation on your claims
Okay, name all these supposed lies that Fox is telling. What exactly is the "garbage" you keep referring to. Do tell me. Then, tell me all the great things that MSNBC, CNN, and Huffington Post and other liberal rags are saying that is supposedly the truth.
Claims and Facts: The War in Iraq
Rep. John Murtha (from Huffington Post)
Saddam-Al Qaeda Connection
CLAIM: There's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government. I am very confident that there was an established relationship there. -- Vice President Cheney, 1/22/04
CLAIM: The regime of Saddam Hussein cultivated ties to terror while it built weapons of mass destruction. -- President Bush's UN speech, 9/23/03
FACT: Sec. of State Colin Powell conceded Thursday that despite his assertions to the United Nations last year, he had no 'smoking gun' proof of a link between the government of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and terrorists of al-Qaeda.' I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection,' Powell said. [NY Times, 1/9/04]
FACT: Three former Bush Administration officials who worked on intelligence and national security issues said the prewar evidence tying al Qaeda was tenuous, exaggerated and often at odds with the conclusions of key intelligence agencies. [National Journal, 8/9/03]
Weapons of Mass Destruction
CLAIM: We found the weapons of mass destruction. -- President Bush, 5/29/03
CLAIM: We know where the WMDs are. - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/30/03
CLAIM: The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. - President Bush, 1/28/03
CLAIM: Evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program...Iraq could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. - President Bush, 10/7/02
CLAIM: There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more...Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets. - Secretary of State Colin Powell, 2/5/03
FACT: A draft report on the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq provides no solid evidence that Iraq had such arms when the United States invaded the country in March and none have materialized since. [Reuters 9/15/03]
FACT: On 7/8/03, the Washington Post reported the Administration admitted the Iraq-Nuclear allegation was false. Revelations by officials at the CIA, the State Department, the UN, in Congress and elsewhere made clear that the White House knew the claim was false before making the allegation. In fact, CIA Director George Tenet successfully intervened with White House officials to have the reference removed from a Bush speech in Oct. of 2002. [W. Post, 7/13/03]
FACT: Iraq did not have a large, ongoing, centrally controlled chemical weapons program after 1991... Iraq's large-scale capability to develop, produce, and fill new chemical weapon munitions was reduced - if not entirely destroyed - during Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of UN sanctions and UN inspections. - Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay, 10/2/03
War on Terror/Bush Doctrine
CLAIM: All governments that support terror are complicit in a war against civilization. - President Bush's UN speech, 9/23/03
FACT: The Administration continues its close ties with the Saudis even though the LA Times reported on 8/2/03 that the bipartisan commission investigating 9/11 found the Saudi government not only provided significant money and aid to the suicide hijackers but also allowed potentially hundreds of millions of dollars to flow to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups through suspect charities and other fronts.
Pre-War Cost Estimates
CLAIM: Iraq will be an affordable endeavor that will not require sustained aid and will be in the range of $50 billion to $60 billion. -Budget Director Mitch Daniels [Forbes 4/11/03, W. Post 3/28/03, NY Times 1/2/03, respectively]
CLAIM: In terms of the American taxpayers contribution, [$1.7 billion] is it for the US. The rest of the rebuilding of Iraq will be done by other countries and Iraqi oil revenues...The American part of this will be 1.7 billion. We have no plans for any further-on funding for this. -- USAID Director Andrew Natsios, 4/23/03
FACT: The Bush Administration has received over $200 billion for operations in Iraq, despite firing top economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey for suggesting (accurately) before the war that a war in Iraq would cost at least $100 to $200 billion of dollars.
FACT: The Bush Administration has requested more than $20 billion for reconstruction in Iraq -- despite the pledge that the U.S. would only fund $1.7 billion.
Pre-War Oil Revenue Estimates
CLAIM: I think has been fairly significant success in terms of putting Iraq back together again...and certainly wouldn't lead me to suggest or think that the strategy is flawed or needs to be changed. -- Vice President Cheney, [9/14/03]
FACT: International Oil Daily reported on 9/23/03 that Paul Bremer said that current and future oil revenues will be insufficient for rebuilding Iraq -- despite the Administration's pre-war promises.
Post-War Planning
CLAIM: I think has been fairly significant success in terms of putting Iraq back together again...and certainly wouldn't lead me to suggest or think that the strategy is flawed or needs to be changed. -- Vice President Cheney, [9/14/03]
FACT: A secret report for the Joint Chiefs of Staff blames setbacks in Iraq on a flawed and rushed war-planning process in which officials, conceded in recent weeks that the Bush administration failed to predict the guerrilla war against American troops in Iraq. [Wash. Times, 9/3/03]
Length of Military Operations
CLAIM: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. -- President Bush, 5/1/03
CLAIM: The war could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months. -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld [2/7/03]
FACT: The war in Iraq is still going on, and more American troops have been killed after major combat operations supposedly ended than before.
Troop Deployment Needs
CLAIM: What is, I think, reasonably certain is the idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces I think is far from the mark. -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld 2/27/03
CLAIM: The notion that it would take several hundred thousand American troops just seems outlandish. -- Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, 3/4/03
FACT: The CBO reported on 9/3/03 that The Army does not have enough active-duty component forces to do what is required in Iraq -- meaning the U.S. needs to increase its deployment above the 135,000 currently in Iraq. That confirms General Eric Shinseki's estimate that it would take several hundred thousand troops.
FACT: 32 of the original 33 brigade combat teams (BCTs) have been in OIF/OEF at least once.
FACT: 15 NGB BCTs have deployed to OIF/OEF using up availability under current Partial Mobilization authority; most others have deployed to GTMO, KFOR, SFOR, and Sinai.
FACT: Army continues to accept risk in OPLAN 5026.
Insurgency Strength
CLAIM: The Iraq insurgency is in its last throes. -- Vice President Cheney, 5/30/05
CLAIM: Mr. Cheney, speaking on CNN, said that the Iraqis were well on their way to establishing a democratically elected government in Iraq. When we do, that will be the end of the insurgency. [Wall Street Journal 6/24/05]
FACT: Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, General Abizaid said that, actually, the insurgency has not grown weaker over the last six months and the number of foreign terrorists infiltrating Iraq has increased. [Newsweek 7/4/05]
FACT: Secretary Rumsfeld said, We're not going to win against the insurgency. The Iraqi people are going to win against the insurgency. That insurgency could go on for any number of years. [Philadelphia Inquirer 6/27/05]
Troop Withdrawal
CLAIM: Indeed, if you think about it, last June or July there were no Iraqi security forces, and today, in February of 2004, there are over 210,000 Iraqis serving in the security forces ... And there are a number of thousands more that are currently in training. - Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, 2/23/04
CLAIM: Mr. Bush gave no timetables for American withdrawal other than an assurance that as the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down. [NY Times, 6/29/05]
CLAIM: Gen Abizaid said that the Iraqi forces could begin taking a lead role by next spring or summer, and that U.S. force reductions would probably come a year after that. [International Herald Tribune 6/27/05]
FACT: Gen. Peter Pace, then Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said that only a small number of Iraqi security forces are taking on the insurgents and terrorists by themselves which means we have a long way to go. [Washington Post 7/22/05]
Situation on the Ground
CLAIM: Over the past several months, Administration officials have argued that the situation in Iraq was improving. Recently, General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, noted on Meet the Press [Sunday, March 5, 2006] that the situation in Iraq was going very, very well.
FACT: Since the last week in February 2006, sectarian violence and death has reached new heights. In the past few weeks alone, over a thousand Iraqi civilians have been killed in the violence.
FACT: Electricity production remains below pre-war levels. Baghdad received an average of 6.4 hours of electricity per day. Oil production was at 1.77 million barrels per day, some 30% below pre-war production rates. [Iraq Weekly Status Report of March 1, 2006 from the U.S. State Department]
FACT: The number of incidents per week have tripled since one year ago [summary of classified information provided by the Central Intelligence Agency]
FACT: Unemployment ranges from 30-60% nation-wide. In Anbar Province -- the epicenter of the insurgency -- unemployment reaches 90%. [summary of estimates by the State Department and U.S. intelligence agencies]
What part of you have to back up your own claims
Otherwise, the claim is discredited. That's the way it works.
I would be fruitless. He claims to be all-knowing
Hate to burst anyone's bubble, but a very large portion of what you read on the internet is skewed, inaccurate, erroneous, and flat-out false.
Dubious claims? Are you a crackpot?
Or just on crack?
WND same source that claims Mohamar Ghadaffi is
rasberries
Oh, sure. The left always claims election are stolen,
nm
White House denies Bush God claims (name of article)
White House denies Bush God claims
James Sturcke
Friday October 7, 2005
A senior White House official has denied that the US president, George Bush, said God ordered him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq.
A spokesman for Mr Bush, Scott McClellan, said the claims, to be broadcast in a TV documentary later this month, were absurd.
In the BBC film, a former Palestinian foreign minister, Nabil Shaath, says that Mr Bush told a Palestinian delegation in 2003 that God spoke to him and said: George, go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan and also George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq.
During a White House press briefing, Mr McClellan said: No, that's absurd. He's never made such comments.
Mr McClellan admitted he was not at the Israeli-Palestinian summit at the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh in June 2003 when Mr Bush supposedly revealed the extent of his religious fervour.
However, he said he had checked into the claims and I stand by what I just said.
Asked if Mr Bush had ever mentioned that God had ordered him into Afghanistan and Iraq, Mr McClellan said: No, and I've been in many meetings with him and never heard such a thing.
The claims are due to be broadcast in a three-part BBC documentary which analyses attempts to bring peace to the Middle East.
Mr Shaath, the Palestinian foreign minister in 2003, claims Mr Bush told him and other delegates that he was spoken to by God over his plans for war.
He told the film-makers: President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan. And I did, and then God would tell me, George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq... And I did.
'And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East. And by God I'm gonna do it.'
The Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, who attended the June 2003 meeting as well, also appears on the documentary series to recount how Mr Bush told him: I have a moral and religious obligation. So I will get you a Palestinian state.
Mr Bush, who became a born-again Christian at 40, is one of the most overtly religious leaders to occupy the White House, a fact that brings him much support in middle America.
History is littered with examples of people doing the most bizarre and sometimes wicked things on this basis, said Andrew Blackstock, director of the British-based Christian Socialist Movement. If Bush really wants to obey God during his time as president he should start with what is blindingly obvious from the Bible rather than perceived supernatural messages.
That would lead him to the rather less glamorous business of prioritising the needs of the poor, the downtrodden and the marginalised in his own country and abroad.
When we see more policies reflecting that, it might be easier to believe he has God on his side. And more likely that God might speak to him.
The TV series, which starts on Monday, charts recent attempts to bring peace to the Middle East, from the former US president Bill Clinton's peace talks in 1999-2000, to Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip this year. It seeks to uncover what happened behind closed doors by speaking to presidents and prime ministers, along with their generals and ministers, the BBC said.
Well, the majority of America claims a Judeo-Christian faith
and being set up as a democracy/Republic the majority view holds. No one is stopping the minority from having their beliefs, but our country was founded on Christian principles, and one of those Christian principles was to allow anyone to practice their religion, but that does not mean we have to mullify our beliefs to appease the minority. Separation of church and state was started to keep the state out of the church and not the church out of the state. Forty-nine of the states start their preambles with God in the title, and to toss all of that aside just to please a very small minority of those who either don't believe in God period or don't believe in a Judeo-Christian God would be beyond ridiculous. Immigrants to this country have to assimilate to our culture. It's not for us to change our culture to accomodate them or any minority religion or race who CHOSES to live in this country. We are a Judeo-Christian founded country no matter what the left in their recent history rewriting campaign tries to tell you. The documentation is there to prove it.
O's votes support his claims. JM's votes support Bush.
Believe what you like. Voting records tell the tale. Could use a few more details on that budget. Just what programs will he slash and and how many tax dollars will be directed away from middle class and in the direction of the rich? How much longer can the infrastructure afford to crumble?
JM adopted O's withdrawal plan when he saw how well it went over with the public in an election year. He flipped on the war once. What's to stop him from flipping again once elected? The nation is war weary. Some prefer a surge in diplomacy, not military answers to diplomatic failures. Ask the Iraqis who have lost more than 100,000 among them how sucessful the war has been. Obama has always understood that the OBL/Taliban live in Afganistan, not Iraq. JM, a little slow on the draw there.
I see nothing in JMs platform that backs his claims about transparency. I see specific plan on the O side under technology initiatives, continued initiatives which originated under Clinton and were reversed during the undercover Bush administration. Pork barrel spending for pubs means something different than it does to dems. Slash the poor to give to the rich? Hard seel in the current economic frefall. Also find nothing in JM's plan to address runaway contract corruption in Iraq. Having Halliburton and companies there props up those struggling American corporations. Show me the plan.
Antiglobal/antidiplomacy. No surprise there. This is about the futureworld, not American imperial delusions of grandeur. So much data on the drilling scam being an immediate relief for gas problems out there it is not worth addressing. Can you say T-Bone Pickens, i.e., we can't drill our way out of this one. He should know. Been an oil man all his life.
Since these are just a few, what else do you have up your sleeve?
see message
I think the behavior you describe is pretty common for ignorant folks. Just because they voted for him, they feel they have to uphold every stupid decision he makes.
Thank you - please see message
I'm glad you felt comfortable responding to my post. I didn't realize how heated things had gotten but could tell from what remains on the conservative board that it had gotten pretty ugly, and I thought the tax issue was a fairly safe issue to broach to provide a cooling period while discussing an issue that pretty much everyone agrees on - a need for tax reform.
Note, though, that it was one post on one topic and the first I have submitted in some time. Most of the threads on the board begin with an issue/article posted by Nan or AG.
However, regardless of who contributes most to the conservative forum, I must agree with Brunson and thank him/her for recognizing that the conservative forum is the conservative forum. I realize that tempers have flared there and things got out of hand, but the conservative posters have given no worse than they received. It seems to me that, at any time, liberal posters tired of dealing with Nan and AG (and MT, as well) on the conservative board could have done as Nan and AG did - remained on the forum dedicated to their point of view.
Thank you for your welcome to this forum - you have been very congenial, and I have enjoyed the discussion today. Frankly, I cannot see myself fitting into this liberal forum - as I said, my views on most issues tend to be pretty conservative. I don't see much point in hanging around the conservative forum if there isn't anybody there, so it looks like I'll probably just be peeking in now and again to see if/when discussion resumes. If I reply again on this forum, I will certainly try to do so with as much respect and kindness as you have shown me today, even though my opinions will probably differ.
Hey.....see my message!
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!!!
See Message.
Maybe if you were more tolerant and didn't pose such a rude message, someone would be interested in debating with you. I think it's just human nature to not want to associate with people who approach others in such a nasty confrontational way. If you were nicer to others, others would be nicer to you.
See message.
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. 
See message.
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.
See message.
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.
OMG!!! (see message)
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.
Please see message.
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.
See message.
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. 
Please see message.
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.
Please see message.
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.
Please see message.
It was just a very angry hateful person who wished bad things on America. Just a one-line post on the subject line with a red angry face in the text portion of the post. (I don't want to repeat it because it might cause this thread to be deleted again.)
See Message...
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 
See message....
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
See message...
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
Please see message.
You've just summed up exactly my impression of Hillary Clinton, and my impression wasn't formed by anybody who is anti-Clinton. It was formed by Hillary's own self-portrait that she eagerly showed to the world.
Thanks - see message
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.
See message...
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
Please see message.
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.
Thank you OP - appreciate your message.
Thanks.
Sam (see message)
 If you can't stand the heat....Get out of the kitchen!
NS - see message
no soup.
see message
Arf.
No, SS. I use sm for see message.
Not to worry. I have a thick hide. Have to when hanging around this place. Kinda reminds me of when docs use abbreviations to confuse and confound and sends me plunging into the dictionary unnecessarily on a dead-end word search!
See message.
It has occurred to me that I would not associate with any of these right-wing religious fanatics in my personal life, nor would I waste my time debating political or religious concepts with such people. Therefore, it would be hypocritical of me to take part in discussions with them on this forum. I will continue to read some of their posts for the shock value only (akin to watching a train wreck), but I will no longer attempt to engage them in reasonable dialogue. I will, however, continue to take part in discussions with open-minded, intelligent posters who think for themselves and are not following the flock and blinded by religion.
Right - see message
Right, the guy is going to be running for president. You really think he's going to write about his life when he was a Muslim. He should have because there is nothing to be ashamed of (but the fact that he didn't makes me pretty leery of what his intensions are and what else he is not telling us). However, most Americans want a Christian president (why I have no idea), but that's the unfortunate truth, so Americans want a Christian president, he wants to be president, of course he's going to write he's a christian. You also have to research back further and not just believe what someone writes about themselves. If that were true then you probably believe that Hillary's plane landed in Bosnia under direct fire with gunshots going off all around her as she ran and ducked for cover in her vehicle. Which is of course as she says why Bill didn't go to Bosnia. According to her there's a saying among Presidents that if its too dangerous to go then send your wife. I'd research both liberal and conservative papers, and also what his family members have to say about him.
see message
(Didn't know what to title this so just wrote see message)...
I have never heard of Bobby Jindal. Thanks for the links I will look at them.
You know I think this is a good point. There are politicians that are good and are trying to do good for the country/city/state or whatever, but they are unknowns and don't get a lot of familiarity. One candidate I really liked was Ron Paul. He seemed to be the most knowlegable about issues, economy, etc and I really like him a lot and still listen to what he has to say.
I do miss sam and her messages. Does anyone know what happened to her. Maybe she got sick of being bashed, slammed, ridiculed and cut down all the time and just stopped coming. I myself have not been posting as much as I used to mainly for those reasons. Kind of had to take a "de-tox" from this board. HA HA
Anyway...the one good thing I'll have to say about Obama being in is at least now it paves the road and Arnold Schwartzeneger will be able to run in four years, so looking forward to that. I know he tried to get the constitution amended once before and they didn't pass, but now that they have for Obama, Arnold will be able to run. GO AAAHNOLD!!!!!
I still say I think all politicians in WA should be fired and replaced with the more honest "less celebretized" ones out there.
should have been see message...sm
...and our savings did grow.
Savings, however, is fast dwindling these past two years, though. Haven't saved anything at all lately.
Please see message -
'as long as they do not try to push their lifestyle off on me.'
That's a direct quote from you. So don't you think that same request should go both ways?
Just my opinion......
See message
Instead of posting all over this place to all the people who replied I'll just post one message here (am sure I'll get chewed up and spat out by the liberals) but here goes...
First on the OP's question. To me its more serious what a candidate says, not someone else who is not running. Obama's comments were offensive because to me it showed how little he thinks of American people like me, you, my dad, neighbors, etc. Obama is very weathy, no doubt about that, and that is who he surrounds himself with. To think he is going to help the little people (us) well its time to pull your head out of the sand. The only thing he sees us for is so he can tax us more and continue the spending. As for Rothschild's comment - who cares. If your going to go after things she says, then you need to go after things Rev. Wright and Louis Farrakhan said. Not fair to say you'll go after anything your opponent says, but you blatently disregard the things your own candidate says.
Second to the people who didn't even give a decent answer to this board but instead type silly nonsensical words that make no sense to this board it goes to show how childish and uninformed you are. If you've done any reading or research you might just have something decent to say instead of attacking just for the fun of it (although I can't see where you think that is fun).
Third, polls are polls and that's all you can say about that. One day Obama's up the next day McCain's up. On MSNBC they were saying that McCain has a slight lead in the polls, on Fox news they said Obama had a slight lead in the polls. They change on an hourly basis and all depends who is pushing for who.
As for McCains campaign "fall down around his knees"? Where in the world did you hear that? I know you wish it to be so, but the truth of the matter is McCain's campaign has soared and you can't dispute the truth that Sarah Palin has energized the party and because of her and the issues that John McCain and Sarah Palin are talking about a lot of Obama supporters are moving over to John McCain/Sarah Palin, and her poll numbers have not dropped 10%. You can spread any rumor and lie you want to, it isn't going to change the fact that it isn't true. If anything her ratings have gone up (and I'm seeing that even on the most liberal stations). Especially after her latest interview with Sean Hannity. If people had little confidence in her before they are waking up to the fact that this governor knows what she is talking about, knows how to stimulate the economy, and knows that the government should be working for Americans, not against them like the democrat party by taxing us all through the roof. She's intelligent and well informed on on all subjects asked of her. If your going to say anything you should admit that all Obama has to say is uh, um, uh, uh and he gets tripped up enough on his own words (but I'm sure you've forgotten all of that).
As for John McCain's age and health there are a few myths being spouted by the democratic party and it would be good for you to know the truth.
1. He doesn't have skin cancer. He gets regular checkups. Second if your worrying about cancer you should worry more about your candidate "smoking" Obama. That guy smokes like a chimney and I wouldn't be surprised to hear any day now he has lung cancer. My mom had lung cancer and it was not a pretty site. It eventually went into her brain (not to mention all the other side effects). So I'd be a bit more worried about someone who smokes like a chimney, then someone who used to have some skins spots that were cancerous but treated and no longer is.
As for his age...Biden is not much younger than he is. And like someone said years ago when Ronald Regan was running (maybe it was Regan himself who said it), "I'll take age and experience any day over youth and inexperience".
So you know who looks like the desperate fools (yes there are more than one). The desparate fools are the democrats who attack for no reason. Who have deployed over 50 lawyers and other dishonorable people to try and find any little piece of dirt on Gov. Palin. The ones who if they don't find anything they will make it up. The ones who said she is not qualified because she has never had an abortion. The ones who say she has no experience but won't admit Obama doesn't have any experience. And the ones who are complaining because she has a tanning bed. Those are the desparate fools.
I was an Obama supporter up until a couple weeks ago. Then I started learning more about him, the groups he affiliates himself with, his voting record, what his wife has done (we have heard that she is the biggest contributor to giving Barack information on what to do, so yes, I want to know what her background is). I've read what his plans are regarding taxes, housing crisis, war, etc (which he has changed his mind and is now for keeping troops overseas and is in approval of a draft).
You want to talk about an "honesty issue" then you need to start talking about your own candidate. He's telling so many lies and being deceitful to the public, and you never know where he stands because he changes his mind every day. Obama and Biden are in an absolute panic right now because McCain and Palin are so close in the race and they are ahead in most of the polls, even in others, and below in just a couple. States that have alwasy voted democrat in the past are now starting to lean towards republican and its becoming a full blown meltdown for them.
I like what Gov. Palin said in her interview. She said she was thick skinned and tough and the insults and lies just bounce right off because she knows the truth, but it's the American people that matter and they are more important than anything.
I did not ask - see message
This is not an answer to my question. I did not ask for the standard "relax it's a scare tactic" statement the liberals usually throw back. We all know Obama is a socialist. Just a plain fact. Not a scare tactic. The democratic party is not the same as the democratic party of times past anymore. Our founding fathers are rolling in their graves because the modern day democrats have destroyed the party. Yes, the democratic party is "supposed" to be a party of the people, by the people, and for the people. It is not that anymore. Take a look at the far left/socialists who have infiltrated it (Clinton, Obama, Dodd, Pelosi, Franks, and others). Our founding fathers warned and fought against everything they are proposing for America. No matter how much (I am a registered democrat), we want to believe our party is for the people it is not anymore. So once again if all your going to do is attack the republicans (who are more democratic than the democrats) then that does not answer my original question - what will it be like to live in a socialist country if Obama is elected. A lot of us are too young to know what that is really like, and most people won't care as long as they keep getting fed American Idol and Survivor on TV.
me too - see message
In the past I have voted Carter (he was the first president I was old enough to vote for). Next election I was in the army and we could not vote. Then after that I voted for Regan, Dukakas, Clinton, Dole, Bush, Kerry (and one of those elections I almost voted for Ross Perot). I can't say that I'm for either party, just the one who I feel is better for the job. My post was replying to yours that you said most of the democrats got bored and left. That is a totally false statement. The democrats are the ones on the board bashing the McCain supports. You've got to read all the posts. Yes if your for one side or the other you will say the other side is picking on you and everyone is bashing you, but reading all the posts it is mostly dems bashing the republicans. I'm going down the board line by line and reply by reply reading all of it. I too am getting sick of it but your placing all the blame on the republicans and it just is not true. So when you wrote "That is exactly what I am talking about some people like to argue", I thought you were agreeing with me. Didn't realize you were the same poster.
So, I like you am sick of hearing the same old arguments over and over and getting sick of one party putting all the blame on the other especially when they are the majority doing the wrong doing they are acusing the other side of doing.
When I say you are closed minded I mean you will not objectively look at all the posts. It seems to me that you feel as though the republicans should be bashed and put down because of our feelings that we believe McCain would be a better president and we should not defend ourselves or beliefs with facts otherwise then you will say we are bashing those who started putting us down in the first place. That is why I said you have a closed mind. But no more shocking when I was voting for Clinton and my mom for Bush Sr. and she said to me "boy you sure have a closed mind".
I'm not saying that the message did not
come from AL Quaida, just that I don't think that they are stupid people and it WOULD be stupid for an enemy to come right out and say who they want us to elect because it would then be unlikely that this would happen. I am not saying we can't trust that it is a genuine message, just that the content can't be trusted because it comes from people who cannot be trusted.
M - see message
Reasons I'm for McCain:
1. Tony Resco
2. Jeremiah Wright
3. Acorn
4. The love-fest for Obama by the media while hiding who and what he really is.
5. Akmada Jimajab (Iran dude - don't feel like opening new window to see how to spell it correctly), and how buddy buddy he wants to get with him.
6. Socialized health care.
7. Socialist re-distribute wealth.
7. Farrahkan (and his statements about Obama being the Messiah, among other things he stands for).
8. Abortion viewpoints.
9. Creepy obama singers
10. His lies that his funds are just from little ol grandmas giving $5. here and $10. there (he is receiving money from people not in our country to buy his way in).
11. Increase in taxes (won't just be the wealthy, it will trickle down to me).
12. Inexperience in foreign matters.
13. Born in Kenya (not Hawaii with the fake bc) - His grandmother was even in the delivery room with his half brother and half sister when he was born in Kenya. She said she is so proud to have watched him being born and now he is running for president.
14. His ties to his Indonesia and middle eastern family/friends.
15. His lack of knowledge on basic economics that you can't just keep printing money and hand out welfare checks to people who don't give into the system - it just doesn't work.
16. His poor misjudgment on many policies he voted for.
17. His trip to Pakistan in 1981 when no Americans were allowed in the country. He was an Indonesian citizen (and Muslim), and that's the only way he was allowed in (and remained safe).
18. His records at Harvard/Columbia have been sealed.
19. His lies about not studying in an islamic school in Indonesia.
20. All the people in the Arab and Islamic world and in Africa applaud him. They pray for his success and have been involved in campaign contributions to enable him to win the presidency.
21. Leader of other countries even admitting that Obama is ignorant of international politics and not familiar with the Middle East conflict.
22. When he was enrolled in a catholic school the documents say he was enrolled as a muslim. Again his lies that he was not and now his trip to try to suppress the documents.
23. Obama supporters attacking McCain supports and one thug even carving a "B" on the cheek of a lady.
24. The outright lies that the election is about race when the only ones making it about race are the Obama supporters if you don't vote for him.
25. The fear that is trying to be instilled that if Obama is not elected there will be riots. "Elect him or else".
Okay, those are only a few of the reasons I'm voting for McCain.
That's because - see message
If the assailant was above her head and her face was turned away it would be backwards (that's what the layers on TV are saying). Overall I'm not sure I believe it happened now listening to some other stuff. It could have. Just because it didn't happen on camera doesn't mean it didn't happen, but I will admit that people have known to create things that didn't happen (on both sides).
But please tell me the truth...if that happened to a supporter of Barack and someone carved a "J" in the face of an Obama supporter everyone would be all over it, don't you think? But we're hardly hearing anything about it.
To me its not about who is supporting who, its more about if someone did that to someone else, no matter what side that is just dispicable. And I'll add that if it is a hoax (I'm not saying if I believe it or not cos I'm not sure), but if it is a hoax that is even more dispicable.
|
