By all means....don't view it. You might actually have to really know...
Posted By: sam on 2008-08-25
In Reply to: I agree. Probably over-the-top propaganda. sm - Nada
what you support. Can't have that, can you?
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
My view.
I really don't think the slander/libel has anything to do with how the public is perceiving this. I do think it plays a part in how the women feel, as well it should. I have been saying all along that we have free will to read or not read what we wish. I agree with you totally on that. However, I feel the handling of this incident is definitely along political lines and I also feel that what Ward Churchill said was a lot worse. Ward says he does not regret what he said and he probably doesn't. But his career has certainly been affected. Thank you for addressing the issue and not making a personal attack. That's refreshing.
Sam we don't always have the same view but
you are welcome to post under mine at any time. We have debated a few issues without resorting to crude, name-calling and I have enjoyed that. I too am an independent, leaning more toward Dem., and I am glad you aren't going to lump all Dems together, because not all, and none I know, would do anything that you are seeing on TV or say even a tenth of the crap that is being said here.
So Sam, please debate away!
and what about JOY ON THE VIEW?
and Barbara is just about as bad.
My view............sm
based on my studies of Revelation over a period of time, are that there are 2 beasts referred to in Revelation 13. The first Beast who arises out of the sea (could be interpreted to mean a sea or mass of people or, in Obama's case, that hew was born on an island - Hawaii) and the Antichrist are one and the same. Why? Because the Beast will usher in a one-world religion that will demand he be worshiped, thereby making him the Antichrist. The 2nd beast will arise out of the earth. I believe this is likely the religious figure who will point to the first beast and build him up as one to be worshiped. Farrakhan has already said "the messiah has spoken" so could this be him? I don't know, but I do know that Obama has said that should the political winds blow in an ugly direction he would side with the Muslims and Farrakhan has very strong roots in the Islam faith.
All this remains to be seen, of course, and I'm certain that, if these conclusions are correct, it won't matter who we vote for because God will cause the events in Revelation to come to pass, whether now or at some point in the future.
God does not view us
as homosexual or heterosexual. He sees us as humans he created. We are not to be lukewarm or sit on the fence when it comes to sin. You need to either heat up the water or fall off the fence. Hopefully, it will be on the right side. ;-)
Another point of view...
Thinking About Iraq on King Day
By Star Parker
Monday, January 15, 2007
The characteristic of greatness - whether we are talking about a great man or great art - is that it transcends time and place. It dips into that which is universally and eternally true and applies those truths to a particular moment and a particular place.
Re-reading, after many reads, Dr. Martin Luther King's words of Aug. 28, 1963, the famous I Have a Dream speech, his greatness rings clearer than ever.
Because King did indeed touch the heavens on that day and pull down kernels of eternal truths about freedom and the condition of man, those words of 40-plus years ago have relevance to our struggles today. They can serve as guidance in these difficult times.
Am I saying that King's message from 1963 can guide us in today's conundrums _ about our embroilment in Iraq, about the Middle East, about America's role in the world? Yes, I am saying this.
The power of King's message, the unquestionable reason that the movement he led was successful, was his appeal to the truth of freedom and its universal applicability to all men.
By identifying and appealing to the freedom of man as a universal and eternal truth, and going on to make clear that this truth defined what this great country is about, then King's conclusion _ the intolerability of conditions that denied any American full participation in this freedom _ could not be denied.
Beyond this central message, King made other very important points in this speech.
One of key importance was that responsibility for solving a problem does not necessarily imply direct responsibility in having caused that problem.
Although the responsibility clearly was in the hands of those Americans with power, overwhelmingly white Americans, to fix the problems in the country that limited the availability of freedom to all, this did not mean that all those same Americans were racists or had caused the problem to begin with.
The responsibility for fixing these problems came, rather, with being the beneficiaries of a country whose destiny and identity was fundamentally linked with the enterprise of freedom.
In King's words, white Americans have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny and they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom.
He appealed to blacks not to allow suffering to translate into bitterness nor into categorical hate of white Americans. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.
Instead, King exhorted black Americans to Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive.
So Dr. King accomplished a lot of business that August day in 1963.
He recognized the universal truth of human liberty. He recognized our country as a unique vessel of that truth. He appealed to Americans with power to assume their responsibilities as the beneficiaries of liberty to make this a better and freer country. And he appealed to black Americans to assume a different kind of responsibility _ to not allow themselves to be destroyed by unearned suffering but to be redeemed by it.
The prophet is a lonely man because he brings a message that people do not want to hear.
Dr. King's activism was not welcomed by most whites and a good many blacks.
There is natural appeal in the inertia of the status quo. Change and assumption of new responsibilities and challenges are welcomed by few.
Turmoil tells us that something is wrong and we have no choice but to open our eyes and ears and assume the responsibilities that are cast upon us.
I am, of course, not a military tactician and am in no position to speculate about how best to use American troops to midwife a portion of the world that clearly needs help in becoming more modern, more civil and freer.
However, I can say, that I am in complete sympathy with our president who senses that America has a unique and special role to play in this world. We cannot shirk responsibilities that are clearly ours.
I cannot help but think that it is not an accident that the United States stands so alone, despite many other nations that claim to have similar commitments to and stakes in civility and liberty. The way they act makes clear that they don't.
The truths that Dr. King articulated in so crystal clear a way in 1963 continue to resound today. Freedom is what this country is about. We have no choice. It is our heritage. We thrive and prosper from it. And we cannot avoid the responsibilities that come with it in our engagement with the rest of the world.
I understand your view, but
Yes, you don't like government control at all. However, if insurance companies have full control -which they pretty much do - then they have the full power to deny or insure whomever they choose. What do you say then to the people who have cancer that have been denied coverage by the insurance company? I have posted a few times regarding this issue and I never get a response. I am really curious, for those who want government hands out of health care altogether, what do you say to the people that insurance has denied due to an illness? Too bad?
Just a little opposing view...
Journalistsf Tell Howard Kurtz Why Good News from Iraq Shouldnft Get Reported (updated w/video)
By Noel Sheppard | October 7, 2007 - 13:35 ET
As CNN's Howard Kurtz accurately pointed out on Sunday's "Reliable Sources," few media outlets seemed at all interested in giving much attention to the great news out of Iraq last week regarding September's sharp decline in casualties.
To Kurtz's obvious frustration, his guests - Robin Wright of the Washington Post and Barbara Starr of CNN - both supported the press burying this extremely positive announcement.
I kid you not.
*****Update: Wright responds to reader e-mail message at end of post.
After introducing the subject, Kurtz asked, "Robin Wright, should that decline in Iraq casualties have gotten more media attention?"
This was Wright's amazing answer (video available here):
Story Continues Below Ad
Not necessarily. The fact is we're at the beginning of a trend -- and it's not even sure that it is a trend yet. There is also an enormous dispute over how to count the numbers. There are different kinds of deaths in Iraq.
There are combat deaths. There are sectarian deaths. And there are the deaths of criminal -- from criminal acts. There are also a lot of numbers that the U.S. frankly is not counting. For example, in southern Iraq, there is Shiite upon Shiite violence, which is not sectarian in the Shiite versus Sunni. And the U.S. also doesn't have much of a capability in the south.
So the numbers themselves are tricky.
Wow. Numbers shouldn't be reported because they're "tricky," "at the beginning of a trend," and there's "enormous dispute over how to count" them?
No such moral conundrum existed last month when media predicted a looming recession after the Labor Department announced a surprising decline in non-farm payrolls that ended up being revised up four weeks later to show an increase.
And, in the middle of a three and a half-year bull run in stocks, such "journalists" have no quandary predicting a bear market every time the Dow Jones Industrial Average falls a few hundred points.
Yet, when good news regarding military casualties comes from the Defense Department, these same people show uncharacteristic restraint in not wanting to report what could end up being an a anomaly.
Isn't that special?
Alas, not seeing the stupidity in this position, Starr, with a straight-face nonetheless, agreed with Wright:
But that's the problem, we don't know whether it is a trend about specifically the decline in the number of U.S. troops being killed in Iraq. This is not enduring progress. This is a very positive step on that potential road to progress.
Hmmm. So, I guess a "very positive step on that potential road to progress" isn't newsworthy, huh Barbara? Even Kurtz recognized the hypocrisy here, which led to the following:
KURTZ: But let's say that the figures had shown that casualties were going up for U.S. soldiers and going up for Iraqi civilians. I think that would have made some front pages.
STARR: Oh, I think inevitably it would have. I mean, that's certainly -- that, by any definition, is news. Look, nobody more than a Pentagon correspondent would like to stop reporting the number of deaths, interviewing grieving families, talking to soldiers who have lost their arms and their legs in the war. But, is this really enduring progress?
We've had five years of the Pentagon telling us there is progress, there is progress. Forgive me for being skeptical, I need to see a little bit more than one month before I get too excited about all of this.
Hmmm. So, a shocking increase in deaths would have "certainly" been newsworthy. However, for a decrease to be reported, skeptical journalists have to be more convinced that it's a lasting improvement.
Sadly, this is what makes today's reporters more like sports fans than real journalists.
After all, it shouldn't be their position to decide when a comeback, rally, or winning streak is real enough for them to jump on the bandwagon and get excited about. News - be it good or bad - is to be reported.
That's their job.
And when folks like this make dissemination decisions to not share information on something as important as American casualties of war due to their own personal skepticism, they have indeed abdicated their solemn responsibility to the public whose interest they regularly claim to serve.
What follows is a partial transcript of this segment.
HOWARD KURTZ, HOST: The news from Iraq has been consistently depressing for several years now, a continuous tableau of death and destruction. But when the administration released more positive casualty figures this week, the media paid little attention. A couple of sentences on the "CBS EVENING NEWS" and NBC "NIGHTLY NEWS," The New York Times ran it on page 10, The Washington Post," page 14, USA Today page 16. The L.A. Times, a couple of paragraphs at the bottom of a page 4 story.
One exception was Charlie Gibson, who made it the lead story on ABC's "WORLD NEWS."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHARLES GIBSON, ABC ANCHOR: The U.S. military reports the fourth straight month of decline in troop deaths, 66 American troops died in September, each a terrible tragedy for a family, but the number far less than those who died in August. And the Iraqi government says civilian deaths across Iraq fell by half last month.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KURTZ: Joining us now to put this into perspective, Robin Wright, who covers national security for The Washington Post. And CNN Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr.
Robin Wright, should that decline in Iraq casualties have gotten more media attention?
ROBIN WRIGHT, THE WASHINGTON POST: Not necessarily. The fact is we're at the beginning of a trend -- and it's not even sure that it is a trend yet. There is also an enormous dispute over how to count the numbers. There are different kinds of deaths in Iraq.
There are combat deaths. There are sectarian deaths. And there are the deaths of criminal -- from criminal acts. There are also a lot of numbers that the U.S. frankly is not counting. For example, in southern Iraq, there is Shiite upon Shiite violence, which is not sectarian in the Shiite versus Sunni. And the U.S. also doesn't have much of a capability in the south.
So the numbers themselves are tricky. Long-term, General Odierno, who was in town this week, said he is looking for irreversible momentum, and that, after two months, has not yet been reached.
KURTZ: Barbara Starr, CNN did mostly quick reads by anchors of these numbers. There was a taped report on "LOU DOBBS TONIGHT." Do you think this story deserved more attention? We don't know whether it is a trend or not but those are intriguing numbers.
BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: But that's the problem, we don't know whether it is a trend about specifically the decline in the number of U.S. troops being killed in Iraq. This is not enduring progress. This is a very positive step on that potential road to progress.
KURTZ: But let's say that the figures had shown that casualties were going up for U.S. soldiers and going up for Iraqi civilians. I think that would have made some front pages.
STARR: Oh, I think inevitably it would have. I mean, that's certainly -- that, by any definition, is news. Look, nobody more than a Pentagon correspondent would like to stop reporting the number of deaths, interviewing grieving families, talking to soldiers who have lost their arms and their legs in the war. But, is this really enduring progress?
We've had five years of the Pentagon telling us there is progress, there is progress. Forgive me for being skeptical, I need to see a little bit more than one month before I get too excited about all of this.
*****Update: Susan Duclos of Wake up America sent an e-mail message to Robin Wright concerning this matter. Here was Wright's response:
Ms. Duclos -
Thanks for your comments. The point I was trying to make on CNN is that two months do not make a permanent trend. As Gen. Odierno said last week, when he came to the Post, the numbers have been good the last couple of months but the US military has not yet reached the point of "irreversible momentum." When they do, it will certainly mean a different kind of reporting about the war in general. Unfortunately, all it will take is one or two really bad incidents and the numbers will start going up again. The numbers aren't the whole story either. The progress in Anbar has been widely covered in the US media -- and that in many ways tells us far more about both the war and the future than the death tolls.
I also think we're all a little nervous about declaring victories before we're fully confident that they represent a long-term and enduring trend and are not just a favorable blip on the screen.
With regards,
Robin Wright
Diplomatic Correspondent
The Washington Post
Telephone: 202 334-7443
Email: wrightr@washpost.com
Fax: 202 496-3883
Looks like anything good is being censored on this side by most of the major outlets here. Not surprising.
my view on experience is...
I don't think experience is that big of an issue - nobody has "experience" at being the President of the United States until they get elected - and I don't think that the experience that Hillary claims is any real experience anyway.
I am excited at the prospect of having somebody in office who has no "experience" - maybe they will really want to "change" the way the "experienced" people have been doing things!
I appreciate your point of view, Just Me....
and I will be the first to admit, as I admitted right up front to GT/GW/BW/FPJ who knows what else, she pushed my buttons and took great joy in doing so. She attributed things to me I never said, condemned an entire political party en masse and had the nerve to call me a bigot and that was the nicest thing she called me. If you followed the posts you know that most of the name calling from my end was just repeating back to her what I had been called. The same kinds of exchanges happen on political talk shows every night. Have you ever watched Chris Matthews or Keith Olbermann?
Her parting shot...Time to take out the trash.
In deference to your request, I will say this...I believe that GW believes with every fiber of her being that she is right and is passionate about her beliefs, and I certainly understand that. I think she is probably a nice person to those who share her views, loves her family like the rest of us and would like to fix all the perceived injustices in the world, just like the rest of us would. But you can't move forward if you don't let go of the hate and the blame game. There is plenty of blame to go around, on both sides of the aisle. No law, no program, no nothing can be passed in this country without both Republicans and Democrats voting for it, fact. We can't blame it all on the left and we can't blame it all on the right or the middle or whoever. In fact, we shouldn't be blaming at all, just trying to fix. But...as I am sure you well know, Just Me...the radical side of BOTH parties don't see the middle road.
The irony of the whole thing is that I am not a registered Republican...registered Independent. Only register Republican in primary years because I can't vote if I don't register Republican or Democrat...that's the law. Yet I was thrown right in and condemned right along with every other "pub."
Just Me, sometimes you just have to stand for what you believe, and not let a bully pigeon hole you and call you things you are not. And sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. That is just a part of life. I apologize if you were offended by witnessing it. I truly do. I apologize to anyone who was.
Just to clarify: I don't hate immigrants or immigration. That is how this country was born. Save Native Americans, we ALL descend from immigrants. I just feel immigration should be legal, and that immigrants should become tax-paying citizens before they get the benefits of citizenship. That's it. Real simple. And not bigoted.
And for the record, I don't hate all Democrats or blame them for all the ills in the world. Like I said...plenty of blame to go around on both sides. My parents were Democrats (old school Democrats). There have been Democrats I greatly admired...John Kennedy...Zell Miller. Great Americans in my opinion.
Afraid to view it are you?
And it is the least of my worries what you consider trash...:)
Perhaps not everyone shares your view....as to the
downward course of the nation. Just like you did not allow us to rain on your parade...you ain't gonna rain on this one. So happpeeee this morning, not even you can dampen it, try though you will. :) You have a great day, valuevoter! It is a GOOD day!!
Some may view that differently.......
When I was little and my grandfather said pull yourself up by your bootstraps and move on, he simply meant do the best you can, lean on God and do not expect yourself to be able to handle EVERYTHING yourself. Somehow politics gets pulled into the meaning, when it shouldn't really. It used to be a phrase thrown out there to encourage others to get up and on the saddle again, so to speak, and just get moving without waiting for everyone else to do it for you. Do the best you can in whatever you do.
I agree with this view.
The Christian Right threw fits when Ridge was being considered. Leiberman was too much of a party turncoat to suit them and way to left of party center. It does not really matter where the idea of submitting to the temptation to pander to the Right AND Hillary supporters/women voters came from. JM or advisors, the pick would suggest that whoever made this decision was putting winning first and the welfare of the country second. BTW, presidents are held responsible for the decisions they make, no matter how many advisors had input.
My view as an independent.
I don't see Michele as hard, negative or loud. I see her as passionate and a go-getter. I have seen her speak at different things and have always enjoyed her.
Cindy I see as not weak, but just more quiet. I wouldn't say she was weak though.
Maybe this has something to do with their age differences, different generations?
My point of view
I really don't care if a president cheats on his or HER spouse under most circumstances. But when his little playmate testifies he was being "serviced" by her with talking on the phone with important people, that bothers me. She very well could have heard confidential things she shouldn't have. When you are in the Oval Office you are on the clock and should act like it.
need to view the big picture
Gut reaction is to say let the fail. I was not in favor of the bailout as proposed; however, common sense tells me that there has to be some plan. It isn't a question of stocks falling; it is a question of the economic structure of the US failing completely. I do want to save their "greedy banker butts" (to use your words) but you need to think of the bigger picture. You talk about a drop in stock, retirement, possible lower value of your home and no loan for college. How about drop in stock and savings and checking and everything to zero. How about losing your home, not having a job, not being able to afford food or clothing? Do you understand the consequence of no fix to this problem goes way beyond "bailing out their greedy banker butts." It is just not wall street here, it is the entire American economy.
Not much of one, if it narrows their view
*
View of the world........
It would seem to me that someone, obviously you, who has nothing to believe in, does have a VERY NARROW view of the world, as you seem to believe you and you alone got yourself here, and formed everything around you. I, on the other hand, know for a fact there is so much out there waiting for us and I for one am looking forward to it BECAUSE I don't have such a narrow view of the world/Heaven!!!
The View today
Love, love, love Joy (Go Girl!). Bill O'Reilly is an arrogant, egomaniac and Keith Olberman so has his ticket. Elisabeth is know-nothing, simpering little twit who most of the time doesn't have a clue what she is talking about. Whoopi is the best -- so much common sense!! I would vote for Whoopi in 2012!
It's more how Muslims view us
They see any non-Muslim as an infidel. THAT is the problem.
the overwhelming view is that
the Supreme Court does not want to touch this with a 10 foot pole. They believe rightly that the citizens have spoken in the election. Anchors having hard time keeping straight face reporting this story.
World view (sm)
All this talk about how unimportant France and other countries are. Now I understand why you thought Palin was such a genius. LOL. You know that old saying about if you look around the room and everyone in the room is wrong except you? Guess what? That's how it's been for the US and the rest of the world for a really long time. I just hope that one day Americans can get over themselves long enough to take a peek outside and see the world as it really is instead of just going by what our censored media wants us to know.
Another point of view...or two (sm)
http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=17587
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-11/20/content_10388377.htm
I go along with the well-said points of view of
Kaydie and LA difference.
You need to get out into the real world. From your post, it seems like you are living in a dream world.
When you have someone in your family assaulted and spends weeks in the hospital on the "edge", you will see why our right to own a gun is necessary. I certainly will not hesitate to shoot if I'm being threatened or to protect my family.
Only criminals use guns indiscriminantly and they don't care about life itself, or haven't you noticed? And that brings me to the point of the death penalty. Those that use a gun to commit a crime should receive the death penalty if they kill someone. I believe the death penalty is a deterent; i.e., some criminals with brains think twice before killing, but others do not.
I won't even go into your pub or Roe vs. Wade. They are so asinine, they don't deserve a reply.
I have had one and have an opposite view
I had one when I was around 18 which now is almost 50 years ago and do not dwell on it now nor did I in the past. My body, did what I had to do because years ago you did not bring home a baby and be unwed, never. If you were pregnant, most of the time people sent to what they called unwed mother homes to have the baby and then the baby be adopted out. I had no regrets then and I dont now.
In view of experiencing...
employers who ripped me off on my linecount or bounced my paychecks, just possibly I WAS employed by the poor. I just want to be "regular." Because this whole debate is just that, a crock of &^(@.
Beck on the view....(sm)
I love the part where they ask him if he checks his facts.....ROFL.
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/ladies-view-rake-glenn-beck-over-coa
exactly my point of view, thanks, just me'.......nm
nm
You're entitled to your point of view
but not everybody thinks he has lied. Just because people say he has lied does not make it true. There has been nothing substantial to support that he lied. I just wish people would just quit throwing the word lie around so freely, because they are jumping to conclusions with no substantiation.
What scares me is I wonder how many people could withstand a real threat to this country. We are so un-unified if it came across the television that we were being attacked....I'm not sure some of you would believe it....you'd just say, "another Bush lie..."
Our generation knows nothing of true hardship. The Iraq war is not a quagmire...it's not another Vietnam...it's not anything like the dems are whining about it being....
Again, were coming from different points of view
You are right, we could argue until we're blue in the face. No man, except for Jesus Christ, has ever been perfect, and that's the point. Man is his own downfall everytime. That's because of sin. Christians, Jews, pagans, Hindus, Muslims etc. etc. all have the same problem, and it's sin. Until we leave the Earthly realm man is never free of it, but Jesus paid the price for it. Yes, I believe the Word of God is inerrant. I feel you have to believe it all or not at all. It's either right or wrong. I don't expect you to see it the same way, but I can assure you I haven't drank the Kool-Aid. I have read many, many different historical and Christian writings. I highly recommend the book The Case for Christ about a atheist who took a year to research Christianity before making a decision whether or not to accept it. Also, another good book is I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist (from your writings it doesn't sound like you're an Atheist though) Ultimately though it comes down to a leap of Faith. The definition of faith is believing in something I cannot see. It's hard for me not to look at nature without seeing God's hand all over it, and as the Bible says, The Heavens declare His Glory.
I have enjoyed our debate, but I am moving on...
They have hearts....they just don't view the child...
as a child. That is how they rationalize it. Because your average person's basic moral values tell them killing a child is wrong. Therefore they deny it is a child. Or they rationalize by saying "I would not have one, but it is not my business if someone else does." Well, yes it is. If we all had that attitude, none of the wrongs in the world would ever be righted.
They should go and view the video link posted below. Anyone who could view THAT and still say it is not a child that is destroyed indeed has a hardened heart. It broke my heart. I have seen abortion video before, but I have never seen anything like that. Like the preface said...you have the guts to view that, you are no longer igorant of what is really happening. Now you have knowledge of the choice you are making or the procedure you are enabling. It is absolutely horrific. And most who are pro choice will NOT watch it because they want to remain in comfortable denial. No one likes to feel guilty. We are designed that way. :)
It is not, in my view, a political issue....
it is a moral issue. Unfortunately, politics is the only way to get anything done in this country. Last time I looked, I have exactly the same rights you do in this country...to freely express my views. And no matter how much you would like to stomp on it (and here I thought liberals were ALL FOR freedom of speech...yeah, ONLY when it supports THEIR view of things, self-serving left wing political strategists that they are...YOUR words, not mine).
what a bigoted point of view!
I suppose it is okay for the "men" to have affairs and the other issues they have had? that's not dysfunctional? It is okay to leave it to the women to take to fix their crap?
This really makes me both mad and sad --
who are completely intolerant to a view other than their own...
can bash and belittle the other candidate but let someone post something about theirs and they pile on. At least be honest about it You call yourself Democrats but you are nowhere near democratic. Geez...at least be honest about what you are.
Interesting view on the economy...
George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years. The first six the economy was fine.
A little over one year ago:
- Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
- Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
- The unemployment rate was 4.5%;
- The DOW JONES hit a record high 14,000+;
- Americans were buying new cars, taking cruises, and vacations overseas, living large!
But Americans wanted CHANGE! So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic Congress & yep we got CHANGE all right.
In the PAST YEAR:
- Consumer confidence has plummeted;
- Gasoline hovers near $4 a gallon;
- Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);
- Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12 TRILLION DOLLARS & prices are still dropping;
- 1% of American homes are in foreclosure;
- As I write, the DOW is playing around 11,500. $2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS HAS EVAPORATED FROM OUR STOCKS, BONDS & MUTUAL FUNDS INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS!
Yes, in 2006 America voted for change. And we sure got it. Now Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate for president, claims hes really going to give us change.
How much more CHANGE do you think we can stand?
You view of the dem health insurance is way..sm
too simplistic. The idea is to have people pay what they can afford on a sliding scale for private health insurance. You have your private doctor and everything you have with your insurance now, much like people who have been in Medicaid. The only difference is that Medicaid is for the poorest and is free. The Obama insurance would cost what is a reasonable price based on what you can afford. I am not a know it all about this subject, but this is basically what I understand about it. It would not be run like the VA. I think we should bag the VA from the horrors I have heard about them. For shame treating our veterans like that!
Women of Alaska - another view.
http://bigshow.bigfolio.com/?s=000011662&t=0e6a8ae03101be65098418ccb735e4a1
Definitely worth the watch
Funny how view points are so different.
The dems are saying McCain wasn't presidential and made faces or whatever. The reps say that Obama smirked and not presidential. LOL! It really comes down to who you believe. If you don't like McCain, you are going to see the negative things you want to and vice versa. We are all guilty of this.
I think this election can go either way and we won't know until it is over. I just know who I'm supporting and I will continue to support until the end.
You in your view civil rights don't mean anything? (sm)
Civil and political rights are a class of rights ensuring things such as the protection of peoples' physical integrity; procedural fairness in law; protection from discrimination based on gender, religion, race, sexual orientation, etc; individual freedom of belief, speech, association, and the press; and political participation.
So acorrding to you, we should just scrap this whole civil rights thing that would protect those who do not have as large a voice and go for a majority vote?
Ann Coulter on The View (the spew) SM
Im surprised those dim bulbs allowed someone with as much wit and intelligence as Coulter to share the stage with them.
No, but he was on the Today show and now going on The View
x
Pre-Obama - Lee Iacocca's View
This was written during Bush's occupation.
Remember Lee Iacocca, the man who rescued Chrysler Corporation from its death throes? He's now 82 years old and has a new book, 'Where Have All The Leaders Gone?'.
'Am I the only guy in this country who's fed up with what's happening? Where the helll is our outrage? We should be screaming bloody murder! We've got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right over a cliff, we've got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can't even clean up after a hurricane much less build a hybrid car. But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say, 'Stay the course.'
Stay the course? You've got to be kidding. This is America, not the dammed, 'Titanic'. I'll give you a sound bite: 'Throw all the bums out!'
You might think I'm getting senile, that I've gone off my rocker, and maybe I have. But someone has to speak up. I hardly recognize this country anymore.
The most famous business leaders are not the innovators but the guys in handcuffs. While we're fiddling in Iraq , the Middle East is burning and nobody seems to know what to do. And the press is waving 'pom-poms' instead of asking hard questions. That's not the promise of the 'America' my parents and yours traveled across the ocean for. I've had enough. How about you?
I'll go a step further. You can't call yourself a patriot if you're not outraged. This is a fight I'm ready and willing to have. The Biggest 'C' is Crisis! (Iacocca elaborates on nine C's of leadership, with crisis being the first.)
Leaders are made, not born. Leadership is forged in times of crisis. It's easy to sit there with your feet up on the desk and talk theory. Or send someone else's kids off to war when you've never seen a battlefield yourself. It's another thing to lead when your world comes tumbling down.
On September 11, 2001, we needed a strong leader more than any other time in our history. We needed a steady hand to guide us out of the ashes. A helll of a mess, so here's where we stand.
We're immersed in a bloody war with no plan for winning and no plan for leaving.
We're running the biggest deficit in the history of the country.
We're losing the manufacturing edge to Asia, while our once-great companies are getting slaughtered by health care costs.
Gas prices are skyrocketing, and nobody in power has a coherent energy policy. Our schools are in trouble.
Our borders are like sieves.
The middle class is being squeezed every which way.
These are times that cry out for leadership.
But when you look around, you've got to ask: 'Where have all the leaders gone?' Where are the curious, creative communicators? Where are the people of character, courage, conviction, omnipotence, and common sense? I may be a sucker for alliteration, but I think you get the point.
Name me a leader who has a better idea for homeland security than making us take off our shoes in airports and throw away our shampoo?
We've spent billions of dollars building a huge new bureaucracy, and all we know how to do is react to things that have already happened.
Name me one leader who emerged from the crisis of Hurricane Katrina. Congress has yet to spend a single day evaluating the response to the hurricane or demanding accountability for the decisions that were made in the crucial hours after the storm.
Everyone's hunkering down, fingers crossed, hoping it doesn't happen again. Now, that's just crazy. Storms happen. Deal with it. Make a plan. Figure out what you're going to do the next time.
Name me an industry leader who is thinking creatively about how we can restore our competitive edge in manufacturing. Who would have believed that there could ever be a time when 'The Big Three' referred to Japanese car companies? How did this happen, and more important, what are we going to do about it?
Name me a government leader who can articulate a plan for paying down the debit, or solving the energy crisis, or managing the health care problem. The silence is deafening. But these are the crises that are eating away at our country and milking the middle class dry.
I have news for the gang in Congress. We didn't elect you to sit on your assses and do nothing and remain silent while our democracy is being hijacked and our greatness is being replaced with mediocrity. What is everybody so afraid of? That some bonehead on Fox News will call them a name? Give me a break. Why don't you guys show some spine for a change?
Had Enough? Hey, I'm not trying to be the voice of gloom and doom here. I'm trying to light a fire. I'm speaking out because I have hope - I believe in America. In my lifetime, I've had the privilege of living through some of America 's greatest moments. I've also experienced some of our worst crises: The 'Great Depression,' 'World War II,' the 'Korean War,' the 'Kennedy Assassination,' the 'Vietnam War,' the 1970's oil crisis, and the struggles of recent years culminating with 9/11.
If I've learned one thing, it's this: 'You don't get anywhere by standing on the sidelines waiting for somebody else to take action. Whether it's building a better car or building a better future for our children, we all have a role to play. That's the challenge I'm raising in this book. It's a "Call to Action" for people who, like me, believe in America'. It's not too late, but it's getting pretty close. So let's shake off the crap and go to work. Let's tell 'em all we've had 'enough'
They talked about it on 'The View'
today and all agreed that this is a sick kind of humor, not funny at all, but very insulting to the President, who is actually meant.
They incorporated the story of the woman who was attacked by her chimp and was shot.
Very tasteless humor.
Pro-Choice Christian view...
"Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee." In Psalm 139:13-16 the anti-abortionists claim that because God was active in the creation of King David in his mother's womb that we must conclude the fetus is recognized by God as being a person. But here we see God stating that he knew Jeremiah "before" he was formed in the womb. By anti-abortionist logic, we would have to conclude that we are a human person even before conception. Since this is a ridiculous notion, we must, therefore, conclude that the anti-abortionist is interpreting these verses incorrectly.
The point to all this is simple: We cannot take the verses we like and interpret them to support what we want to support. And, more to the point, we cannot simply accept what some Christian leaders proclaim as being God's word on a given subject without carefully reading the full text of the book and taking into consideration the entire context. We cannot simply interpret those few verses from Psalms, Isaiah, and Luke as a reason to be against abortion. And, there are still other verses -- if interpreted in the sloppy manner demonstrated by anti-abortion Christians -- in the Bible that could easily lead us to argue that indeed God, at times, supports abortion.
In the full context of Ecclesiastes, King Solomon makes the point that much of life is futile. Over and over he writes that if life is good then we should be thankful. But when life is not good, Solomon makes some interesting statements:
"If a man fathers a hundred children and lives many years, however many they be, but his soul is not satisfied with good things, and he does not even have a proper burial, then I say, `Better the miscarriage than he, for it comes in futility and goes into obscurity; and its name is covered in obscurity. It never sees the sun and it never knows anything; it is better off than he.'"
Ecclesiastes 6:3-5
Clearly there is a quality of life issue being put forth in the Scriptures. And in this case, Solomon makes the point that it is sometimes better to end a pregnancy prematurely than to allow it to continue into a miserable life. This is made even more clear in these following verses:
"Then I looked again at all the acts of oppression which were being done under the sun. And behold I saw the tears of the oppressed and that they had no one to comfort them; and on the side of their oppressors was power, but they had no one to comfort them. So I congratulated the dead who are already dead more than the living who are still living. But better off than both of them is the one who has never existed, who has never seen the evil activity that is done under the sun."
Ecclesiastes 4:1-3
Here we have an argument for both euthanasia and abortion. When quality of life is at stake, Solomon seems to make the argument that ending a painful life or ending what will be a painful existence is preferable. Now remember, we're not talking about David's songs here. We're reading the words of the man to whom God gave the world's greatest wisdom.
And Solomon was not alone in this argument. Consider the words of Job, a man of great faith and wealth, when his life fell upon the hardest of times:
"And Job said, 'Let the day perish on which I was to be born, and the night which said, "a boy is conceived." May that day be darkness; let not God above care for it, nor light shine on it.'"
"Why did I not die at birth, come forth from my womb and expire? Why did the knees receive me, and why the breasts, that I should suck? For now I would have lain down and been quiet; I would have slept then, I would have been at rest, with kings and with counselors of the earth, who rebuilt ruins for themselves; or with princes who had gold, who were filling their houses with silver,. Or like the miscarriage which is discarded, I would not be, as infants that never saw light. There the wicked cease from raging, and there the weary are at rest. The prisoners are at ease together; they do not hear the voice of the taskmaster. The small and the great are there, and the slave is free from his master." Job 3:2-4,11-19
And again a few chapters later Job reiterates the greater grace he would have known if his life had been terminated as a fetus:
"Why then hast Thou brought me out of the womb? Would that I had died and no eye had seen me! I should have been as though I had not been, carried from womb to tomb."
Job 10:18-19
Clearly there is a strong argument here that the quality of a life is as important if not more important than the act of being born. Indeed, we could claim that the Bible supports ending a pregnancy in the face of a life without quality. And, if I wanted to be bold, I could claim that this interpretation is in fact a biblical mandate to support the use of abortion as a way to improve our quality of life. And taking these verses to their extreme, I could claim that abortion is not just a good idea, it is a sacrament.
Actually, I will stop short of making that claim. In fact, I will stop short of making the claim that the Bible condemns or supports abortion at all. It does neither. The condemning and supporting comes not from the words of the Bible but from leaders within our Culture of Christianity who use verses out of context -- the same way I just did to support abortion -- to support their views against abortion. The condemning and the supporting comes not from the Scriptures but from average Christians who take the easy way out, accepting one or two verses of the Bible as proof that their leaders are speaking the gospel truth. The condemning and supporting comes not from God but from those who do not take the time to read the Bible, in its own context, and decide for themselves the meanings therein.
For indeed, there is one passage in the Bible that deals specifically with the act of causing a woman to abort a pregnancy. And the penalty for causing the abortion is not what many would lead us to believe:
"And if men struggle and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."
Exodus 21:22-25
This is a very illuminating passage. In it we find a woman losing her child by being stuck by men who are fighting. Rather than it being a capital offense, however, it is relegated to a civil matter, with the father-to-be taking the participants to court for a settlement. But, as we read on, if the woman is killed, a "life for a life," then the men who killed her shall be killed. Some have claimed that the life for a life part is talking about the baby. But from reading the context we can see this is not true. It also states a tooth for a tooth and a burn for a burn. Babies don't have teeth when they are born, and it is highly unlikely a baby will be burned during birth. It is pretty clear that this part refers to the mother. Thus we can see that if the baby is lost, it does not require a death sentence -- it is not considered murder. But if the woman is lost, it is considered murder and is punished by death.
It's important to note that some anti-abortion lobbyists want to convince us the baby in this passage survived the miscarriage. They point to the more "politically-correct" translation they find in the New International Version of the Bible. There it translates the term "miscarriage" into "gives birth prematurely" (the actual words in Hebrew translate "she lose her offspring"). While this may give them the warm and fuzzy notion that this verse might actually support their cause if maybe the child survived, it is wishful thinking at best. In our modern era of miracle medicine only 60% of all premature births survive. Three thousand years ago, when this passage was written, they did not have modern technology to keep a preemie alive. In fact, at that time, more than half of all live births died before their first birthday. In a world like that, a premature birth was a death sentence.
What has been so clearly demonstrated by the passage in Exodus - the fact that God does not consider a fetus a human person - can also be seen in a variety of other Bible verses. In Leviticus 27:6 a monetary value was placed on children, but not until they reached one month old (any younger had no value). Likewise, in Numbers 3:15 a census was commanded, but the Jews were told only to count those one month old and above - anything less, particularly a fetus, was not counted as a human person. In Ezekiel 37:8-10 we watch as God re-animates dead bones into living soldiers, but the passage makes the interesting note that they were not alive as persons until their first breath. Likewise, in Genesis 2:7, Adam had a human form and a vibrant new body but he only becomes a fully-alive human person after God makes him breathe. And in the same book, in Genesis 38:24, we read about a pregnant woman condemned to death by burning. Though the leaders of Israel knew the woman was carrying a fetus, this was not taken into consideration. If indeed the Jews, and the God who instructed them, believed the fetus to be an equal human person to the mother, then why would they let the fetus die for the mother's crimes? The truth is simple. A fetus is not a human person, and its destruction is not a murder. Period. It is time to stop the one-sided view of abortion being proclaimed by Christian leaders. These leaders do not -- despite their claims -- have a biblical mandate for their theologies. It is time to stop preaching that the Bible contains an undeniable doctrine against abortion. It is time to stop the anger and hatred being heaped on abortion doctors and upon women who have abortions, especially when it's done in the name of a God who has not written such condemnations in his Bible. It is time to stop, because the act of making a judgment against people in God's name, when God is not behind the judging, is nothing short of claiming that our own beliefs are more important than God's. We must stop, because if we don't, then indeed the very type of theological argument being used against abortion can be turned around and used to proclaim that abortion is biblical.
Wouldn't that be forcing YOUR view?
xx
I think too many of them watch The View and believe those dim bulbs. NM
xxx
I'd like to see things from your point of view but
I can't seem to get my head up that far in my behind.
Please View Video Before it is Removed
This video clearly shows that George Bush warned Congress starting in 2001, that
this economic crisis was coming, if something was not done. But Congress refused
to listen, along with the arrogant Congressman, Barney Frank. This video says it
all. The liberal media reportedly did not want this video on You Tube--it was
taken off. This link is of the same video, but is routed through Canada .
Everyone in America needs to see this before it is yanked off the Internet
again!
Someone who respected her point of view
Both similar to yours. Though her point of view was a little different from yours, she had a great sense of humor. She knew she was going to be attacked by certain posters on this board no matter what she said and she never cared and never caved in to the ridicule and the ignorance.
If they finally got to her, then I'm really sorry about that, though I can understand why. I considered her a friend, and I miss her. 
post your view on the conservative board
I think your views should also be posted on the conservative board. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander..Lets call an all out truce between the conservative posters and liberal posters, then I will agree..however, anyone reading these posts will realize the conservatives time and time again have been the attack dog and the liberals have tried to defend their own.
|
