Correct if I am wrong, but at the moment this is
Posted By: President Bush's problem...sm on 2008-11-06
In Reply to: Russia - dea
you can't test ANYBODY until they hold the position, can you? Having said that, there are a few things to consider here. What do you think is an appropriate response to Russia's renewed aggression of late? Does it come as any surprise that, with American military forces stretched so thin, Russia would not try to take advantage? Georgia was not aimed at Obama, now was it?
This is where viable alliances come in handy. Europe is in the neighborhood and not across the ocean from Russia. Poland, Ukraine, Georgia and other countries interested in orienting themselves toward and allying themselves with the West will naturally be viewed by Russia as open targets, vulnerable to their flexed muscles.
W has done very little in the way of preserving the value of these time-tested alliances and has held the US in the isolation that is endemic to world superpower status. A diplomat he is not and the guy seems to have a real adversion to the basic concept of diplomacy.
In stark contrast we find Obama. As far as I am concerned, he cannot get to the helm fast enough, so if anything, I take comfort in the idea that we are 76 days and counting.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
- Russia - dea
- Correct if I am wrong, but at the moment this is - President Bush's problem...sm
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
So....Correct me if I'm wrong here
But you seem to be advocate blowing somebody away just because you merely think they are going to do something wrong?
Quite the little anarchist, aren't you?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe there
***
Please correct me if I'm wrong but
I thought Hispanics and African-Americans weren't the biggest pals. I mean...you watch these gang shows and prison shows on tv and all they talk about is the rivalry between the Hispanics and African-Americans.
Please correct me if I'm wrong here
but it seems like most everyone dislikes Nancy Pelosi. If we all hate the woman, why is she in the position she is? How did such a horrid woman get to have so much power? Ugh.....she just makes me wanna puke.
Correct me if I'm wrong
I don't mind being wrong, and will admit when I am wrong....
Yes there is a difference between inciting hate and inciting violence. I have never heard MSNBC inciting violence and I also have never heard Fox incite violence. What Fox does is wake up people and let us know what our right are according to the constitution. They have even said over and over and over how wrong it was for Acorn to organize groups to terrorize the executives of AIG and put their families in fear. They are against violence of all sorts and they state that over and over. What MSNBC does is purposely go out of their way to misinform the public. They make fun of and chastise (sp?) anyone who doesn't agree with them and they go on the attack pretty much foaming at the mouth - Actually I saw Matthews drool one time he was so worked up.
I'll tell you about MSNBC. I know cos I watched them for the last 8 years. I couldn't stand the Bush regime, and I found myself drawn to MSNBC because I agreed with most of everything they said. I absolutely loved Keith Olberman (as my mom would say - very easy on the eyes too). I always found him to be witty and agreed with everything he said. Same with Chris Matthews. He did ask some tough questions and when he was rude to the guests I just figured it was okay because since I agreed with Chris and not the guest I though it was acceptable to be rude to them. This is what I found during the election. I didn't like either candidate. Didn't want either one that was running, but the more I watched MSNBC, the more I found them not to tell the truth about a lot of issues. I found I was getting the truth with Fox so started watching them more and more. Now every once in awhile I will turn on MSNBC but find I can only take about 5 minutes then have to turn them off.
What you did say after the article you posted about Michael Savage being banned was - "We need to do the same thing. I can think of 2 right off the top of my head. How about Hannity and O'Really?"
I just read my response again and I never said that you said anyone should be banned from the country, but you did say they should be banned (or at least implied that).
I'll tell you, I'm not right or left. I have liberal viewpoints on certain issues and I have conservative viewpoints on other issues. It all depends on what the issue is about, and I certainly don't like being labeled in either party. I think there are many fine democrats and I think there are many fine republicans, and I also think there are some good independents, libertarians, etc.
It's funny you find yourself agreeing with O'Reilly, because I find myself disagreeing with him more and more. HA HA.
I do however like George Carlin's interpretation of politics and what's really going on. It may be comedy but he really hits the issues right on target.
Correct me if I'm wrong
I don't mind being wrong, and will admit when I am wrong....
Yes there is a difference between inciting hate and inciting violence. I have never heard MSNBC inciting violence and I also have never heard Fox incite violence. What Fox does is wake up people and let us know what our right are according to the constitution. They have even said over and over and over how wrong it was for Acorn to organize groups to terrorize the executives of AIG and put their families in fear. They are against violence of all sorts and they state that over and over. What MSNBC does is purposely go out of their way to misinform the public. They make fun of and chastise (sp?) anyone who doesn't agree with them and they go on the attack pretty much foaming at the mouth - Actually I saw Matthews drool one time he was so worked up.
I'll tell you about MSNBC. I know cos I watched them for the last 8 years. I couldn't stand the Bush regime, and I found myself drawn to MSNBC because I agreed with most of everything they said. I absolutely loved Keith Olberman (as my mom would say - very easy on the eyes too). I always found him to be witty and agreed with everything he said. Same with Chris Matthews. He did ask some tough questions and when he was rude to the guests I just figured it was okay because since I agreed with Chris and not the guest I though it was acceptable to be rude to them. This is what I found during the election. I didn't like either candidate. Didn't want either one that was running, but the more I watched MSNBC, the more I found them not to tell the truth about a lot of issues. I found I was getting the truth with Fox so started watching them more and more. Now every once in awhile I will turn on MSNBC but find I can only take about 5 minutes then have to turn them off.
What you did say after the article you posted about Michael Savage being banned was - "We need to do the same thing. I can think of 2 right off the top of my head. How about Hannity and O'Really?"
I just read my response again and I never said that you said anyone should be banned from the country, but you did say they should be banned (or at least implied that).
I'll tell you, I'm not right or left. I have liberal viewpoints on certain issues and I have conservative viewpoints on other issues. It all depends on what the issue is about, and I certainly don't like being labeled in either party. I think there are many fine democrats and I think there are many fine republicans, and I also think there are some good independents, libertarians, etc.
I am in favor of free speech for everyone - that's why I don't think anyone should be banned. What I am not in favor of is one party trying to shut down the other party and only have their party allowed to have radio and talk shows and give their opinion and that is what I'm finding the liberals are trying to do.
It's funny you find yourself agreeing with O'Reilly, because I find myself disagreeing with him more and more. HA HA.
I do however like George Carlin's interpretation of politics and what's really going on. It may be comedy but he really hits the issues right on target.
Ah, correct me if I am wrong, but Obama...sm
was president of the Harvard Law Review, not the job for someone who needs notes and a teleprompter to make an intelligent speech.
AR, you can't remember what you were talking about from moment to moment.
Sorry for the late reply, I've been gone a week. Now AR, I have no problems admitting when I'm wrong about something. However, you STILL have not pointed out anything I said that was factually wrong. First you attack me for claiming R. Bennett was a partisan Republican, which I never did. Seeing that YOU were wrong, you then shifted gears to try and attack me to say that the Bennetts don't LIKE to be lumped together and that was what I really intended to do!! Just admit it!! LOL - sure I was speculating that they may share the same upbringing and philosophies, which is a very logical SPECULATION to make. I never said I didn't do that. That was the point of the whole post.
Arm yourself better next time and you might not come off looking like such a ninny.
Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not sure if Bill Clinton signed this into law, but it surely came to be
under his watch.
Unlike the "Bush supporters" of this day and time, I can and will admit when a president I admired (Bill Clinton) has done something I disagree with.
I don't believe it for a moment. sm
The fact is, he WAS the face of terror. Knowing how cohesive the Arab world is, I don't for a moment believe there were no terrorists in Iraq.
Well, first, I don't believe that; but, let's for a moment....
assume he did call his wife that. And again assuming IF he were so silly as to call Sarah Palin that in public, he would find himself sitting on his rear in that same public, because she would probably clock him. As long as we are talking about what if's, rumors and innuendo.
Think for a moment....
If you pay 20-25% in taxes with 60K, just how much do you think someone making 250K a year pays in taxes?
Believe me, someone making that amount of money does pay their FAIR SHARE. They are in a much higher tax bracket, MUCH HIGHER, and therefore, pays MUCH MORE in taxes. I'm always amazed at how those without a clue seem to criticize those that financially make more. Since when is that a crime? If you could, I'm certain you would too and would not feel you should be penalized for a higher income.
The higher incomes are what keep our lousy government afloat in the first place.
Taxes are relative, the more you make, the more you pay.
At this very moment
I have left the room because I cannot stand listening to Arnold Schwartznegger talk about Obama's skinny legs and scrawny arms. Schwartznegger is a proponent of the right to choose in case you aren't aware of that. So what is he doing campaigning with John McCain. Another thing that is just disgusting is Hank Williams Jr. grinning and nodding in the background.
I can see, I can hear. I respect your opinion to believe what you believe. I DO NOT believe in abortion but your McCain must not have too much problem with it if he has Schwartznegger introducing him do ya think?
Historical moment. We have come together
nm
Wow, what a mirror moment. (nm)
nm
I realize that. But at that particular moment, they
Seeing as how there were standing there praying for her and all. And yes, I saw the video, and yes, they DID mention witchcraft.
Must be real low on issues at the moment, huh....nm
.
Agreed....my only regret at the moment...sm
...is the ton of work that just showed up on my desk from my two itsy bitsy GT accts I have, which ain't so itsy bitsy....I won't be able to be around very much for the next week, and there looks like a bunch of new topics up above, which I may have to skim later...
Take it easy....
OK, sam. Another moment in history has come to pass.
you go me ROFLMAO. LOL.
I haven't but would not hesitate in a moment
The area we live in is getting overrun with thugs, drug addicts, meth heads, etc. Robberies are on the rise and a lot of them happening in the middle of the night while people sleep. Kids were caught burning down houses because "I was bored and didn't have anything else to do".
I would have no problem doing whatever it takes to protect myself and home. Anyone who enters my home illegally is a skum bag and piece of dirt and I don't consider them human so have no problem destroying the animals they are.
Ah, YESS! Thank-you! (I was having a 'senior moment',
nm
Then why don't we make a pact from this moment forward?
We will stay off your board if you stay off ours. Do you agree or not?
I did notice that. These peoople are getting more and more pathetic by the moment..sm
and have been pushing me farther and fatther to the left.
That was such a retarded response to an important issue. I would like to know what you guys think about it though. Keep the electoral college or not.
If you would step out of paranoid palace for a moment..
point to me ONE place where I advocated killing all Muslims. All I said was, and the only question I asked was, why don't the peace-loving Muslims denounce the murders within their own ranks who are hijacking their peaceful religion to justify killing of innocents and hatred of anything nonMuslim? And you rant and you rant, but you never answer that. And again..it was the Muslim extremists who called what they were doing jihad...I did not call it that, I simply repeated what they said. For someone who is supposedly educated, you certainly run from questions when they are posed to you. And by the way...education does not give you the right to be rude, and rude you are lady...and if you are the poster child for an education...I believe you get the idea.
Wow. A historical moment. I almost never agree with your posts....
x
Where? Who? Our country has no real leader at the moment.
Not Bush.
Not Obama.
Nobody.
Nada.
Zilch.
Oh, wait, maybe Pelosi...she's got a lock on the purse strings...yours and mine, although you don't know or care......ugh....
Like I said, no real leader anywhere in sight.
If possible, think for one moment what it would mean for Israeli troops to fight in Iraq. TI
If I need to say anymore, my suspicions will be confirmed.
Why don't you lay off me for a moment and pray for the people on our gulf coast...
they are far more important than this bickering.
On terrorist ties, since topic is popular for the moment
McCain link to private group in Iran-Contra case.
http://yorkdispatch.inyork.com/yd/sections/politics/ci_10655363
Nevermind the soul for a moment....let's talk about LIFE.
The law says killing someone is murder. It does not say anything about killing someone with a soul is murder. The baby is alive, and it is being killed. That's murder.
Punishing a teen for life for a stupid moment of
it just brings yet another person (most likely ALSO stupid) into an already overpopulated world.
wrong, full of wrong statements, see my upper post...nm
nm
Wrong Woman - Wrong Message
http://www.truthout.org/article/palin-wrong-woman-wrong-message
Wrong, wrong, wrong, clueless Lu.
Horse hockey
You are correct
the thing is we can find common ground with people who we don't always agree with 100%. Blair tends to be more socialistic, but he is unified in the fact that terrorism is the worst threat to our world right now, and we have to stop it at all costs. Social agendas come second to him. Safety is 1st.
You are correct
I'm sure there are some wonderful people in Iran!! You included. It's good that you can the government is scary though. Here are some words from Iranian president AhMADinejad from just yesterday...
Ahmadinejad warned the West that trying to force it to abandon uranium enrichment would cause an everlasting hatred in the hearts of Iranians.
From your comments it sounds as if this a false statement since you love America. You of all people I'm sure appreciates America!!
Yes, of course you are correct
However, my post topic was literally just a couple posts below yours and it seemed unlikely that you would have not noticed the duplication in monikers. This board may indeed be available world-wide, however, there is a fairly small group of folks who routinely post.
My point was simply that your posting may have erroneously led folks to believe that I was posting both pro and anti-liberal messages within a few posts of each other. That would be rather confusing to say the least and it would be thoughtless to confuse and/or mislead anyone who might be using this board, whether in the U.S. or outside of the U.S.
You are correct about the $40K....
that is the SCHIP program as it has been over the past 10 years (although income levels have gone up some from the start of it). The expansion of the program was to include the $80K families. This bill was about expansion of the program. Letting the program continue as it was was not the issue. The expansion was the issue. Bush would not have vetoed it if they had not sought to expand it that much. They knew he would veto it if they left that in, and they wanted him to veto it to score political points. That I do not understand. Yes, some Republicans voted for it too, also for political reasons, so if the fallout was really bad they could come back and say "Oh i voted FOR it." Kinda like the Iraq war resolution...lots of Dems voted for it...yada yada.
I want to correct myself on the above...
I was wrong about the poverty level. The figure quoted for a family of four at 300% of the poverty line is $62,000 so he was close on that. However, the bill does not state those people over that level will not get on it. It says the matching rate from the feds might not be available. Then we have the EXCEPTION...the waiver. That opens the door for New York and every other state who wishes to, to expand the program as high as they want to go. That is what Bush was talking about. The waiver makes it possible, and not only possible, probable.
Just wanted to be sure my facts were correct.
Thanks.
Yes you are 100% correct!!!
By george you are right!!! EVERY SINGLE POSTER ON THIS BOARD IS ME!!!!!! Except for Observer, of course, and a few old American Girl postings! I admit it, I am guilty, you have caught me. I have authored every single post you read on here. It keeps me very very busy but it's worth it!!!
There I have "fessed up and I feel sooooooooo much better. Whew! Thank you Observer for helping me to do the right thing.
You are correct - however, you were the one...
Yes, you are correct, a lot of people don't give middle names second thoughts, and certainly there is nothing to worry about when mentioning his name in full, but when you smear it like its a dirty word, I call that a dirty shame. I was simply stating why don't you say Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton or John Sydney McCain, no you don't, therefore it seems when people don't treat one candidate equal to the other they are up to something. I have no problem with his middle name. I think its a beautiful name. I also think Sydney is a beautiful name.. Second just because someone posts a long post does not mean they copy from other articles. I happened to write the post myself, however, if you would like a much longer one there are plenty that I can copy and paste from - just let me know....happy to oblige. :-)
Correct!
Strange how it's permissible to spread all kinds of rumors about McCain but off limits to mention the facts about Obama's past and present associates, such as the Reverend whose sermons he claimed he never heard.
Sam would be correct
nm
You are correct and I think you are going to see it...
more and more as this campaign goes on. I think it has finally happened. The slumbering lion is waking up. :)
I am sure you are correct, but please,
be specific as me was.
Well.....if you are correct in
assuming that she and her husband aren't working their butts off....at least she isn't living beyond her means regardless of how many hours she works. At least she doesn't want a handout from the government and money given to her that she hasn't earned. There are people making as much as she does a year and are well beyond their means with toys, cars, homes, etc. Crying that they are victims and requesting a handout.
The most disgusting thing that I have ever seen was during Christmas. Every year my church does an angel tree. Every year I would take names of children and their ages and their interest and go out and buy them gifts so they would have something for Christmas. I wanted to help. What kid doesn't deserve a nice Christmas....ya know. So I went out and spent a lot of money on these kids. Come to find out....these kids weren't poor. Their parents drove newer and more expensive cars than I drove. The parents were only out for a free handout....and that sickens me. I felt used. I so wanted to help people who really needed help. Not people who were just looking for a free handout come Christmas time.
Unfortunately you are correct. s/m
Unions don't have any clout anymore thanks to the Reagan years. Without the ability to strike, what can they do? While my husband, as a retiree, has excellent benefits, it is something that is not available to workers retiring now and in the future. Fact is, we are worried that his benefits may be cut. They have raised the retirement age and will have to pay more for their medical insurance. Why? Because they have lost members. People who worked at CF with my husband and weren't of retirement age for the most part had to take non-union jobs which paid far less causing many of them to lose their homes and file bankruptcy. Did anyone hear about them? I guess not. That was in 2001 and truckers are worse off today than they were then as are most American workers.
People have let the unions that people fought for go down the tubes. American workers bought into the "unions have outlived their usefulness, aren't needed any more" from the Reagan years. Unhuh and we see how much the employers care about their employees now. Unions are no different than politics. They are no better or worse than the people who support them. Basically the clout of the unions came from people that had the fortitude to stand up for their rights and stand together. Unfortunately we don't have that any more, it's more like, "I've got mine, sorry about you."
Unfortunately, since McCain says Reagan is his hero, I expect if he is elected the American workers can expect to be further shafted. JMO of course.
You are correct on that one.
Consider that the tax issue will have to pass Congress unless my memory fails me. I would say middle-class is more like $80,000 to $150,000, depending on whether you fall at the lower or upper end. As I understand it what Obama is seeking to do is do away with Bush's tax cuts, which WILL affect just about everyone. The tax cuts, as many of Bush's policies, was a bad idea in the beginning. Now because of his poor management of the economy EVERYONE is going to pay more taxes and many of those free loaders we talk about may get told to get to work as they should be. Obama's plan appears to be to be nothing more than rolling back Bush's ill advised tax cuts in the first place.
You are correct..........sm
Arnold can run for Senate (provided he has his citizenship papers in order, and I believe he probably does. Not sure what the laws are in Kollyfawnya.) but he could never run for the POTUS or VPOTUS.
you are correct..it's still that way,
born and raised there, it doesn't change.
You are 100% correct. n/m
x
|
