Better read up on that homebuyers' tax credit, as you have zero understanding of how it works.
Posted By: nm on 2009-04-15
In Reply to: Well, Obama just made an obvious oops!!! - For those that care.........sm
NM
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
The 2008 credit has to be paid back (no interest), but not the 2009 credit.
nm
credit for safety = credit for 9/11
If Bush wants takes credit for keeping us "safe" from terrorist attacks since 9/11, then he has to take credit for the fact that we experienced the largest terrorist attack in US history under his presidency, as well. He can't have it both ways!
I gave credit where credit was due.
I think Obama did a good job not saying anything about the hostage situation with the captain and I commend him for giving the order to the Navy Seals to do what they did. But still.....I think the heroes and the biggest thank yous need to go to the ones who risked their necks to save the captain.....and that would be the Navy Seals.
All in all, I don't like a lot of things that Obama has done. I know Bush didn't do us any favors in his 8 years either, but Obama is now in office and I do not like the way our country is heading.
As for not giving Obama any slack....how many of you people gave Bush slack on anything even when he did something good....cuz believe it or not.....he did some good things too. It goes both ways.
My understanding (sm)
My understanding is that his name was not on the ballot in MI because he did not want it on the ballot. Anyway, you would have to research that further. I can't remember the reasoning behind that.
About the FL and MI delegates, I think the reason for the meeting is because the party understands that they will need those voters come November. There were something like 2 million votes cast, so they don't want to push those people aside. It could come back to haunt them. Also, my understanding is that what the candidates agreed to regarding FL and MI was not to campaign in those states, or not to campaign heavily, and I think they stood by that agreement.
As far as legends in their own mind and all of that, I don't agree. Bill Clinton is loved by many, whether we agree or disagree - it's a fact. I think that is true for most US presidents.
Thanks for understanding
I'm glad someone understands what I'm saying.
I'm also saying I support Obama but I don't support congress. I don't think congress is working for the best of the American people, they are working for what is best for them.
If in a couple months or so we get out of this I will gladly come on the board and say how wrong I was, but if we don't and it keeps getting worse I will say so.
P.S. - Can't you support Obama without supporting the crooked democratic politicians? (I already don't support crooked republican politicians).
My understanding is
that these contractual bonuses are based on individual or department performance, not company performance overall.
If a sales person or department manager agrees to a base salary and the rest of his compensation to be bonuses based on sales figures or some other measure of performance, then meets/surpasses those figures, the company is obliged to honor that contract, regardless what other departments or the company as a whole does.
If my MTSO offers a bonus for surpassing a line production figure, what justice is there to withholding that from me because the sales department is not signing enough new accounts, the IT department is not resolving technical problems, the billing or payroll department is making too many errors - again - etc.?
If a company as a whole is failing everybody eventually loses. But individuals who are performing as agreed by contract should at least receive the compensation they have earned. Change the rules later, not in the middle of the game.
From my understanding....(sm)
No, they didn't get put into the closet. As far as relationships go, they were more worried about social status than gender. There is a ton of literature on these relationships, but very little about them being shunned, which leads me to the conclusion that it was either overlooked, accepted, or most likely just not an issue.
As far as Sodom and Gomorrha go, well you can call it the hand of God, or you can call it a volcano. I tend to go with the latter. However, it is interesting to note that the word "sodomy" originated from "Sodom" (derived from traditional christian usage).
What part of this are you not understanding
I just read a bunch of posts below and am not disturbed, but maybe dismayed is a better word. Whether you trust Obama or not because of his policies, voting record, political life, or whatever is your perogative (sp?), but to incorrectly be making statements not based on anything but milicious rumors spread around leads readers to believe the writer is a biggot and just does not want a black man (which I should state once more 1/2 black, 1/2 white) in the white house. I have no doubt if more of the white race came out and he looked more white than black a lot of this would not be surfacing.
First - Obama is NOT muslim. You can think all you want and hope it to be true but what part of the facts don't you understand. How many times does he have to repeat he is a Christian. Always has been. Raised in a Christian home, white grandparents, white mother, went to catholic school, attended a Baptist church, married in a church (not Moslim), children baptised in a church. To say he is a muslim is like saying McCain belongs to KKK after all he's a white dude. Pullease. Sure, his father was a muslim when he married Obama's mother but that's where it stops. Obama never studied the muslim religon or went to muslim services. My parents are catholics but I was not raised catholic and am not catholic. His mother later remarried someone from Indonesia and Obama attended a catholic school. Get your facts straight. He never went to a muslim school or studied muslim studies and he is not muslim. So what if the muslims like him, so do the Christians, Jews, Mormoms, Baptists, and many other religions!
Second of all on the flag thing. Obama's plane has the American flag on it, are you upset because the flag is not so huge it covers the plane from one end to the next? There's a flag there! Also, just because he doesn't have an american flag plastered all over the place on everything does not mean he is not "American". Have you seen him pledge to a flag of another country? No, he pledges to the American flag! As for the picture that he is standing not with his hand over his heart. I can't tell you how many times I've said the pledge of allegience and I didn't have my hand over my heart every time. Doesn't mean I'm not American. He's not trying to get rid of the American flag, but for pete's sake it doesn't need to be plastered in every square inch of empty space.
The poster who is not well informed about Obama's religion and trying to scare people into believing he's muslim when he's not is just plain wrong. It doesn't "ruffle any feathers" because you are just wrong. You may not want to "sugar coat any facts" but first you need to get the facts straight. People don't "hate" republicans, and certainly not enough that they would want "anything" in there. You could always put that statement on the other foot "People just hate the democrats so much they'll elect an old senile person to fill the position just as long as a democrat doesn't get in there". That excuse just doesn't sit well.
I'm no "Obama-lover" and I won't be voting for him but not because of malicious rumors on the internet or false statements made by the republican side. I'm basing my decision on his voting records and other issues that I don't agree with him on, certainly not from anything I get off the internet. You know there are people on both sides who hate the other candidate so much they are posting fall information, but for anyone to spread this...all I can say is "shame on you".
Well, thanks for finally understanding what I was saying.
Hitler maybe, but I'd have to think about that one for a while.
my understanding of the situation...
My understanding is that Obama says this is a practice that can be regulated at the state level. The federal government is just making sure that abortion stays legal and then the individual states decide how far their state will go with it.
From my understanding, the jobs
created would only be temporary. Don't forget, road and bridge construction only lasts in the summer in the northern states, and when those road and bridge jobs are done, what's next?
The money being doled out for infrastructure is definitely not enough. There are many, many roads and bridges that have to be built/rebuilt in the country and any one of them would cost $1 million and up. PA is getting $2.7M for roads. Is that going to take care of the roads? Doubt it. Headlines recenty in our paper stated PA was going to get $6B. I checked the charts and don't see where he gets that figure.
What's missing here is your understanding of this thread....
it is about infants born alive after botched abortions and left to die without care. Partial birth abortion is when they turn the baby around in the womb, let all but the head be born, then stick a needle in base of skull and suck the brain out to collapse the skull and make sure the baby is dead before it comes out, to avoid that pesky being born alive thing that proabortion people so hate.
At least get your facts straight and know what you are denying before you deny it.
And yes, he does support partial birth abortion. He supports removing the ban on that heinous procedure. His wife sent out a campaign letter while he was running for senate in Illinois that said that very thing.
Sheesh.
I'm not understanding the meaning of your post
Actually it almost sounds like something Hemmingway would write. HA HA. Anyway...just confused by the post. Are you talking about the record breaking snowfalls and bone chilling cold spells all over the world (oh so not global warming), or are you refering to the incoming president, and the last part of the post just lost me. Please explain.
Actually, it was my understanding that both arenas represent the
"war on terrorism." So in a sense, they are both the same war, just different theaters.
People with a lot more understanding and empathy than
.
So, I have trouble understanding abstract ideas AND
I have no sense of humor. Anybody else?
Try it..It works for me :o)
I havent read their posts for two days and its like a breath of fresh air!
Okay, whatever works for you....
Works for me! :)
nm
That works for me.
Something in the works to get rid of them all. sm
I will probably vote for Nader or Baldwin. No write-ins allowed in my state or I would vote for Ron Paul. Barr is a neocon mole. See the new grassroots effort Voter Bomb.
Here is link:
http://www.voterbomb.com/2008/
I just tried it and it works for me....nm
nm
Here's how it works.
Your prove your own point, that is assuming you have one, other than your typical, run-of-the-mill generic smear orgy. So far, your not doing that great of a job since all you seem to know how to do is belittle. Try a direct answer to the points I hve raised about the nature of the original post, the nasty reply and your defense of it.
I have no ax to grind, no point to prove, only my side of the story to present. I prefer to leave it up to the others to draw their own conclusions.
That's the way that works - nm
xx
WHATEVER WORKS - DID THEY
CARE ABOUT US WHEN THEY FLEW PLANES INTO OUR BUILDINGS? - GET OVER IT - NEXT WEEK YOU'LL HAVE SOMETHING NEW TO COMPLAIN ABOUT, ESPECIALLY WITH OBAMA MAN IN OFFICE!
works for me....
your hatred is ugly.
What works for you may not work
If you are a good Christian, good for you; be a shining example of your faith. But if in the process of being a good Christian you trample MY rights and/or faith, well, sorry, that isn't good. THAT is why I believe in the separation of church and state. We are all different and have different levels of development, spiritual and otherwise. God is the ONLY and ultimate judge; I believe we all come before Him to account for our lives. My relationship with God is between Him and me...no one else. I don't think it is the job of my fellow humans to judge me and and tell me, *My religion/faith is better than yours* I don't care how much YOU believe it.
Works for me. But it will never work for you and we all know it. nm
nm
Noone is saying prayer alone works, Sim!
nm
works for me too. Now there is a change I could ...
believe in... :)
And I think he works very hard trying to ...
take down a God he doesn't even believe exists by ridiculing people who know He exists. If God doesn't exist, what difference does it make? Methinks he doth protest too much...lol. Lotta guilt there from somewhere. lol.
THAT is the way Washington works now.
They can't help but add pork. It's in their genes. Only one ticket is talking about changing that. Only one ticket has a non Washington insider on it. Obama is right...we need REAL change, but the thing is, he is NOT real change. He is more of the same. Real change is McCain/Palin.
I think that works both ways -
I think there are a lot of people who will not publicly acknowledge to people that they will vote for Obama, but when the time comes and nobody knows what they really do, they will choose him.
Funny how that works isn't it.
.
I say go ahead if that's what works for you.
x
I am so sorry. Hope everything works out for you. nm
.
Funny how that works...........
Republicans Hail Parts of Bill That Few of Them Supported
Published: February 19, 2009
WASHINGTON — Republican lawmakers nearly unanimously resisted supporting the president’s $787 billion stimulus package, but what has proved irresistible is the temptation to take credit for at least a few of those billions.
Despite criticizing the bill as wasteful, a handful of Republican members of the House and Senate have found some provisions to cheer.
Just hours after voting against the bill on the House floor last week, Representative John L. Mica of Florida issued news releases lauding the inclusion of $8 billion for high-speed rail projects around the nation. Mr. Mica said the bill would also help pay for a commuter train project in his Central Florida district.
“If we could put a man on the moon, we should be able to move people from city to city quickly instead of wasting time on a congested highway,” said Mr. Mica, the ranking Republican on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. “I applaud President Obama’s recognition that high-speed rail should be part of America’s future.”
Jennifer Crider, a spokeswoman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, called the unlikely chorus of praise from Mr. Mica and other Republican lawmakers “the height of hypocrisy.”
Rusty Roberts, chief of staff to Mr. Mica, disagreed. “Certainly it’s possible to oppose the entire bill on principle and favor certain sections of it,” Mr. Roberts said.
Representative Don Young of Alaska, for example, praised the stimulus as “a victory for the Alaska Native contracting program and other Alaska small-business owners.” And Representative Leonard Lance of New Jersey, after touring a flood-control project in his district that could receive stimulus financing, pronounced it “shovel ready.”
Representative Peter Hoekstra of Michigan sounded almost giddy on Wednesday in a post on the microblogging Web site Twitter: “If you know of someone thinking of buying first home, now may be the time. Stimulus incentive is very generous! Up to 8k! Check it out.”
Mr. Hoekstra, who also voted against the bill, appeared less optimistic last week. “House passed spending bill. I don’t believe it will work,” Mr. Hoekstra wrote on Twitter. “Hope we’re wrong but I don’t think so.”
that mentality only works if..
we actually are all in this together. it doesn't work too well if half of us are working and half of us are not. Right now in the US it is the working people supporting the ones who don't. don't get me wrong, I am totally in favor of helping anyone who can't but not one bit if favor of supporting those who won't. Nope, I am not in it together with those who won't.
Funny how that works.............
You seem to be determined to "explain" Obama's intention with his "quotes", that he is only trying to promote peace in some way, yet he sat in Rev WRight's church while HATE was being spewed from the pulpit left and right and he didn't seem to have any problem with hate speeches NOR did he have a problem with his daughters listening to hate speeches!
Yep, he's all about peace and understanding alright....
What did he say? Did he take credit for somebody else's
x
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.
|
Here's another link. I hope it works for ya. sm
http://switch5.castup.net/frames/20041020_MemriTV_Popup/video_480x360.asp?ai=214&ar=1050wmv&ak=null
That is why the Marxist message works with them...
let's take it from all those nasty people who are doing better than me (who incidentally worked hard to earn it) and don't make me do a thing to get it. Class warfare. Classic Marxism. Trouble is, they don't recognize it.
Propaganda works well on dimwits but not well enough
su
Chris Wallace works for
Fox News which is a republican propaganda outlet. An actual journalist was chosen. The Fox get it turn next week which only zealots will watch.
Racism works both ways
You say your white relative may not vote for a black man but where I live racism is alive and well coming from the black community as well. It is taught to their children, which is very sad, and they bring it into the schools as well.
Yep, that is how it works. And that is why I am voting a straight....
Republican ticket for the first time in my life. That is all the power I personally have to try to stop it. And I am darned sure going to. :)
That's not how the voucher system works.
You don't send your kid to a "voucher school." You get a tax credit to help offset the cost of private school. Because, guess what, THEY'RE BETTER! They're actually held accountable. In high schools here in Florida, you don't even need a teaching degree! You just have to have gotten a BA in something. Anything. That's effing pathetic. My daughter's BIOLOGY teacher was a TAX ACCOUNTANT, who did little more than pop video tapes into the TV set so the kids would leave her alone so she could eat her box of Slim Fast bars and read Soap Opera Digest. THAT'S the public school system, and it stinks to high heaven.
People who protest against vouchers do so because it suits their political agenda, NOT because they are thinking about what's best for the kids.
"Voucher programs have also inspired enormous opposition, primarily from the education establishment and on the political Left. Union officials and public educators tend to see vouchers as a threat because they empower parents rather than school boards to decide where a child goes to school. The Left views vouchers as the conservatives’ way of introducing competition into public education as a whole, and as a means of promoting the privatization such programs as Social Security and replacing many others with free market initiatives. In addition, since most (85 percent) of the private voucher schools serving low-income students are religious (and mostly Catholic), vouchers inspire stiff resistance from those who believe in a strict separation of church and state. " ~ from http://stats.org/stories/2008/tes_scores_vouchers_oct20_08.html
Sorry, but Kool-Aid works both ways.
You can drink Republican Kool-Aid or Democratic Kool-Aid, it just depends on who is serving it.
I'm quite aware of how Medicare works...
I have been dealing with my mother's for years. You won't have to worry about your mother not being able to afford her medications for 4 months because the way it is being set up, your government will decide if your mother even needs that drug and if so, how many "pills" she can be dispensed and how long she can take it and if the GOVERNMENT doesn't feel it is helping, she will not be allowed to get any of it......PERIOD! They will decide if she is still young enough to make the government's handing her the meds worth their money or not. If not, they will allow her to do without and if that kills her, so be it. They have determined she is a lost case and doesn't deserve her medications, the medications I and you pay for.....but of course, Obama lovers just know their government knows best. Now they can decide if you live or die depending on your age. Just stick around folks.......it's gonna be sickening!!!
Yeah, it works both ways...
What if homosexuality was outlawed???? That would be forcing our views upon the homosexual community and shoving that down their throats!!!! Nobody is doing that as it would obviously be ridiculous and cruel to homosexuals.
The institution of marriage should not be changed, plain and simple. Civil unions fit the bill for G/L, but marriage is only for a woman and a man.
|