Didn't think anybody answer that
Posted By: what the... on 2005-09-26
In Reply to: How is Army Mom sacrificing her son? - what the
because it's obvious that a parent can't sacrifice their own child to the military---that's why very few people take Cindy S. seriously.
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
You still didn't answer
The Billy Graham/Mother Teresa reference was made only to say what if one of them asked the question. If one of them did, a) we would not have character assassination for days on end so we could cut straight to the chase. What I am saying is that if a person pretty much all Americans admire were to ask the president, "why did _____ die in this war?" what would his answer be.
Are you going to Iraq to help nation-build?
Too bad for her she didn't just answer
the way most contestants try to: Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah... world peace.
I didn't answer it because I wasn't here. sm
It's answered above.
You didn't answer MY question.
LOL. You still didn't answer the question. nm
nm
and still you didn't answer the question about...
if it was YOUR money they were taking. Furthermore, 10% for a millionaire is $100,000 (that's one hundred thousand dollars) per million. That same 10% for someone making, say, even 60K is only six thousand dollars. Anyway, no one pays 10% in taxes so let's make it more realistic. Let's make it say 25%. Now you've got 250,000 per million in taxes. Why should it be a higher percentage? It is an equal share. Where is the incentive to continue earning if you are doing it simply to pay more in taxes to benefit someone else and not for your own earning? Then what happens when that incentive is gone?
The moral thing to do is to treat people equally regardless of their socioeconomic situation. The right thing do is to let people decide for themselves what they can do to benefit others who may be less fortunate economically.
I will ask again: What if it were your money? what if they decided that any working person should pay to support those not working? How would you feel about that. Or are you just jealous because someone has more than you?
His teleprompter didn't give him an answer
/
I nearly didn't answer this out of the sheer lunacy of such a claim. sm
I am not sure what is so complicated about the fact that in a world of good and evil, the forces of good must sometimes temporarily ally themselves with certain unlikable forces against the most terrible and dangerous evils of the time. Of course, the problem is that people like you and most who post on this board have no real understanding of the enemy we face and will shudden in true horror when it's face is finally clear to you. Your complacency and willingness to blame all the world's woes on one single man, no matter who that man might be, is fatally short-sighted. In an effort to hate all things Bush, you have neglected the monster in the closet.
nice dodge. You didn't answer the question.
nm
That's good that you are still deciding, but you didn't answer my question. nm
.
Okay, but you didn't answer the question... What was Bush's agenda?
?
why do you answer so stupidly, the right answer
if you had any brains, would have been......
'well, she made a mistake.'
But telling me that I need a job, is so stupid, yes, stupid AND a very weak point.
I didn't miss any part and didn't say...
anything either way. I just posted a link.
This is the reason we are in Iraq and it's the same reason I didn't vote for him in 2000: Didn't
his own personal reasons.
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050620/why_george_went_to_war.php
The Downing Street memos have brought into focus an essential question: on what basis did President George W. Bush decide to invade Iraq? The memos are a government-level confirmation of what has been long believed by so many: that the administration was hell-bent on invading Iraq and was simply looking for justification, valid or not.
Despite such mounting evidence, Bush resolutely maintains total denial. In fact, when a British reporter asked the president recently about the Downing Street documents, Bush painted himself as a reluctant warrior. "Both of us didn't want to use our military," he said, answering for himself and British Prime Minister Blair. "Nobody wants to commit military into combat. It's the last option."
Yet there's evidence that Bush not only deliberately relied on false intelligence to justify an attack, but that he would have willingly used any excuse at all to invade Iraq. And that he was obsessed with the notion well before 9/11—indeed, even before he became president in early 2001.
In interviews I conducted last fall, a well-known journalist, biographer and Bush family friend who worked for a time with Bush on a ghostwritten memoir said that an Iraq war was always on Bush's brain.
"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and Houston Chronicle journalist Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said, 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He went on, 'If I have a chance to invade…, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency.'"
Bush apparently accepted a view that Herskowitz, with his long experience of writing books with top Republicans, says was a common sentiment: that no president could be considered truly successful without one military "win" under his belt. Leading Republicans had long been enthralled by the effect of the minuscule Falklands War on British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's popularity, and ridiculed Democrats such as Jimmy Carter who were reluctant to use American force. Indeed, both Reagan and Bush's father successfully prosecuted limited invasions (Grenada, Panama and the Gulf War) without miring the United States in endless conflicts.
Herskowitz's revelations illuminate Bush's personal motivation for invading Iraq and, more importantly, his general inclination to use war to advance his domestic political ends. Furthermore, they establish that this thinking predated 9/11, predated his election to the presidency and predated his appointment of leading neoconservatives who had their own, separate, more complex geopolitical rationale for supporting an invasion.
Conversations With Bush The Candidate
Herskowitz—a longtime Houston newspaper columnist—has ghostwritten or co-authored autobiographies of a broad spectrum of famous people, including Reagan adviser Michael Deaver, Mickey Mantle, Dan Rather and Nixon cabinet secretary John B. Connally. Bush's 1999 comments to Herskowitz were made over the course of as many as 20 sessions together. Eventually, campaign staffers—expressing concern about things Bush had told the author that were included in the manuscript—pulled the project, and Bush campaign officials came to Herskowitz's house and took his original tapes and notes. Bush communications director Karen Hughes then assumed responsibility for the project, which was published in highly sanitized form as A Charge to Keep.
The revelations about Bush's attitude toward Iraq emerged during two taped sessions I held with Herskowitz. These conversations covered a variety of matters, including the journalist's continued closeness with the Bush family and fondness for Bush Senior—who clearly trusted Herskowitz enough to arrange for him to pen a subsequent authorized biography of Bush's grandfather, written and published in 2003.
I conducted those interviews last fall and published an article based on them during the final heated days of the 2004 campaign. Herskowitz's taped insights were verified to the satisfaction of editors at the Houston Chronicle, yet the story failed to gain broad mainstream coverage, primarily because news organization executives expressed concern about introducing such potent news so close to the election. Editors told me they worried about a huge backlash from the White House and charges of an "October Surprise."
Debating The Timeline For War
But today, as public doubts over the Iraq invasion grow, and with the Downing Street papers adding substance to those doubts, the Herskowitz interviews assume singular importance by providing profound insight into what motivated Bush—personally—in the days and weeks following 9/11. Those interviews introduce us to a George W. Bush, who, until 9/11, had no means for becoming "a great president"—because he had no easy path to war. Once handed the national tragedy of 9/11, Bush realized that the Afghanistan campaign and the covert war against terrorist organizations would not satisfy his ambitions for greatness. Thus, Bush shifted focus from Al Qaeda, perpetrator of the attacks on New York and Washington. Instead, he concentrated on ensuring his place in American history by going after a globally reviled and easily targeted state run by a ruthless dictator.
The Herskowitz interviews add an important dimension to our understanding of this presidency, especially in combination with further evidence that Bush's focus on Iraq was motivated by something other than credible intelligence. In their published accounts of the period between 9/11 and the March 2003 invasion, former White House Counterterrorism Coordinator Richard Clarke and journalist Bob Woodward both describe a president single-mindedly obsessed with Iraq. The first anecdote takes place the day after the World Trade Center collapsed, in the Situation Room of the White House. The witness is Richard Clarke, and the situation is captured in his book, Against All Enemies.
On September 12th, I left the Video Conferencing Center and there, wandering alone around the Situation Room, was the President. He looked like he wanted something to do. He grabbed a few of us and closed the door to the conference room. "Look," he told us, "I know you have a lot to do and all…but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way…"
I was once again taken aback, incredulous, and it showed. "But, Mr. President, Al Qaeda did this."
"I know, I know, but…see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred…" …
"Look into Iraq, Saddam," the President said testily and left us. Lisa Gordon-Hagerty stared after him with her mouth hanging open.
Similarly, Bob Woodward, in a CBS News 60 Minutes interview about his book, Bush At War, captures a moment, on November 21, 2001, where the president expresses an acute sense of urgency that it is time to secretly plan the war with Iraq. Again, we know there was nothing in the way of credible intelligence to precipitate the president's actions.
Woodward: "President Bush, after a National Security Council meeting, takes Don Rumsfeld aside, collars him physically and takes him into a little cubbyhole room and closes the door and says, 'What have you got in terms of plans for Iraq? What is the status of the war plan? I want you to get on it. I want you to keep it secret.'"
Wallace (voiceover): Woodward says immediately after that, Rumsfeld told Gen. Tommy Franks to develop a war plan to invade Iraq and remove Saddam—and that Rumsfeld gave Franks a blank check.
Woodward: "Rumsfeld and Franks work out a deal essentially where Franks can spend any money he needs. And so he starts building runways and pipelines and doing all the necessary preparations in Kuwait specifically to make war possible."
Bush wanted a war so that he could build the political capital necessary to achieve his domestic agenda and become, in his mind, "a great president." Blair and the members of his cabinet, unaware of the Herskowitz conversations, placed Bush's decision to mount an invasion in or about July of 2002. But for Bush, the question that summer was not whether, it was only how and when. The most important question, why, was left for later.
Eventually, there would be a succession of answers to that question: weapons of mass destruction, links to Al Qaeda, the promotion of democracy, the domino theory of the Middle East. But none of them have been as convincing as the reason George W. Bush gave way back in the summer of 1999.
I can answer that. The answer is no. nm
Answer
I was frequently banned on the old forum format, at least once a week during the weeks I was actually posting (I would then get disgusted and stay away for up to a month at a time). Have only been banned once since the new format so I would agree with your analysis.
Otherwise as to other folks banned, I remember lots and lots of complaints/comments but can offer no specifics. I also remember seeing a lot of interesting posts go poof! Used to really really be bad on the old religion board. But hopefully that's improved also.
I would have bet it all that you would answer this way.
I suppose you also believe that poverty causes crime.
You would not like my answer
so I won't even go there...
So the answer is yes,
Where did the soldier in the article lie?
I come from a family with multiple generations who served and continue to serve in the military, including Iraq, so spare me your little lecture about troop morale.
Have a lovely day.
This should answer...
at least one of your questions. I found this site: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/MedicaidGenInfo/05_SCHIP%20Information.asp
Which states that in general, states can not permit the implementation of preexisting condition exclusions.
However, in states like South Carolina, where SCHIP is run through BCBS, they can implement preexisting condition exclusions, but only in so far as HIPAA rules allow - which I would assume (have not researched) is the 12 month waiting period.
As for your other question, I have a muscle disease (big time preexisting) and I can't even get health coverage privately. I have to struggle to work full time, even on the days I feel like my whole body is on fire, just to get group coverage. I had the 12 month preexisting condition thing, with which they are denying everything - saying that it's all related to the preexisting condition - and I pay $260 a month. I should also mention that this coverage is just for me - no children/spouse.
Hope that helps.
Thanks for the answer....
and you have a good one as well.
Right...there is no answer.
You want it your way or no way and want to squelch any kind opposition. Sounds more like the the old USSR than the old USA. There's that Marxist thing again.
answer...
Again you prove my point. And MSNBC, CNN, and the others are any different, except their slant is to the left? You really think people don't notice that? lol.
Dear...drop the condescencion. Demographics can have many meanings other than the one you describe.
I was talking about news outlets. I know there are other places to get the conservative view...but I want to get both sides. I don't watch the commentators much on either side...hard to find a point in the bashing, and that means both sides. Mostly I just turn them off.
you just know everything, don't you...have an answer for everything
no matter what anyone says, you (meaning the posters on here who continually try to bully everyone into their own way of thinking) will defend her - even if she was caught in bed literally with John McCain you would have an answer for that.
I heard an interview by Jodie Foster where she stated she literally hates weakness of any kind, in any thing. She said if there was a bird fallen out of a nest (to that affect) on the sidewalk in front of her she would want to kick it. That is the majority of what I see on these boards. Nastiness, aggressiveness, women toward women. Do you think kindness is a weakness, because I know most men do. I personally do not want to be a man.
That is okay, Jesus has said the weak shall inherit the earth - I will follow Jesus' teachings before I would ever follow people who think killing over 1 million innocent people is a good thing and are blood-thirsty for even more lives and souls, a majority of which comes right from the pulpits. I think I read somewhere those people will suffer most at the end of the world - as for me I am making sure I am not one of them.
Might is right, bigger is better - you can have all of it and women can get as aggressive as they want but you will find out it was wrong when men do it and it is wrong for women to do it.
here's the answer
I, too, am in a quandry about this election, but I do know that opening up drilling for oil in Alaska is just a temporary solution. We are spending 10 billion ($$$) a month for the war in Iraq. Why are we there? For oil. Think how far that money would go towards developing new alternative energy sources in this country in order to free ourselves from our addiction to foreign oil. Even in Dubai, where they currently have plenty of oil, they are cuttng edge in the development of alternative energy sources. Even they realize the oil is not going to last forever!!. The powers that be in this country are so ignorant and greedy that they refuse to see that this is the ONLY SOLUTION to this madness!!! Wake up, people. This is a change that will garner HUGE improvements in all matters of economy and environment, and showing the rest of the world that the US can be an example in leading the way to making these changes!!!
That's really the best answer
Don't talk to them about it. Judging by this board, things can get very heated and nasty and really, has anyone changed their minds after reading any of this stuff? I think at this point most of us know who we are going to vote for and arguing is just pointless.
Answer. sm
I realize what trouble we are in. That is why it frightens me that this bimbo is literally 1 heartbeat away from the presidency.
See answer above. Aha. nm
nm
Answer
The same number of Democrats as Republicans.
Looking for a serious answer...
I am looking for a REAL answer to this. Not a snide remark from either dems or pubs.
Why are the presidents, leaders, etc of nations we aren't "friendly" with supporting Obama?
Just real answers please. I think we are up to our ears in sarcastic remarks on this board.
Thank you for the answer - nm
nm
Got my answer
It doesn't matter and our vote will be counted.
You don't have to answer
Is it PA. That is the way it is here, God is still very much present in our schools and out, and that is a good thing.
answer this
BLACK? that's what i thought... uh... no and let me make this perfectly clear... I AM NOT INSINUATING THAT AFRICAN AMERICANS WILL RIOT.
Your answer is in the
x
Yes, see your answer above. nm
x
answer
into poverty, but you don't want the money it takes to care for these children to come out of your pocket???? Am I on the mark?
Answer: First of all, I wouldnt be forcing anyone to have a baby born into poverty. That would be THEIR choice. Yes, it is a CHOICE to get pregnant or not. If you dont want to get pregnant you should use BIRTH CONTROL, given out FREE to anyone who cannot afford it. Of course, you cannot actually shove it down someone's throat and make them swallow it, I guess. Second, I already DO pay for these unwanted children. It is called WELFARE.
I guess this is another so-called way to sling mud at Obama. The rich republicans can't have it both ways. You either care for the unborn (welfare for their mothers) or you allow the mother the choice... Which is it? Answer: First, I am not slinging mud at Obama. I would be against abortion no matter who was running for office. Second, I am not a rich republican but a poor democrat. Sorry to dissappoint! Third, I believe that education about birth control and sex should be funded more, there should be more support out there for teens on how to NOT GET PREGNANT in the first place. Second, there are NO unwanted children in the world. If the natural mother did not want the child, there should be, and I am sure there are, government funded programs to allow these girls to adopt out their babies to the MILLIONS of people who want to adopt. Also, our government should help fund would be parents to be able to adopt w/o having to spend thousands of dollars to do it. So that way people in the good ole' USA could adopt w/o having to go to third world countries to do it. Another thing, the government should reevaluate their priorities in that it costs almost nothing to have an abortion and commit murder versus spending thousands on adoption. Go figure that one!
Not all abortions are a form of birth control, ya' know. I knew a very religious lady that aborted her child due to hydrocephalus. The child would been born deformed/a vegetable. This would have put this lady at high risk. She prayed about it and soon after aborted the child. She had to live with that.
That is the child that God gave her. I dont have all the answers about why that would be, but murder is still murder. So does that mean because the baby was deformed that he was less of a baby, a human life? Not our call to make. As far as her having to live with that, this is true. However, as a Christian, we also have to live with whoever we put into office. They represent us, our beliefs. We have to answer for who we give the power to. We are all responsible.
Not all situations are the same. Furthermore, you can't force your child to have a baby or to have an abortion. Either way, it's her body.
In the OT of the Bible God speaks about the children of Israel. They were worshipping an idol and offering their children to it. He spoke about innocent blood be shed and he was angered by it. He speaks quite clearly that it is murder. Also, if anyone supports abortion, I think they should go to the faith board and click on the post not for everyone and find the link in there to a video, copy and paste and watch what happens to an aborted fetus. At 19 weeks what a baby looks like and see what happens to them when the are killed. I mean, after all, if you can condone it, then you should be able to watch it. |
answer s/m
There is absolutely nothing wrong with being Roman Catholic. There is something wrong when priests or pastors start threatening their parishoners with he11 fire if they don't do as they say. They need to stick with God's business and leave politics out of it.
Answer
When I first answered Amanda her post said that anchor babies by virtue of being born on American soil are american citizens. I said I was fine with that. The reason I am fine with that is because the 14th Ammendment of the Constitution, section 1 says -
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I have not yet found anything in the Constitution that talks about the parents of the child needing to be US Citizens.
There is a lot of info out regarding this subject. I did find an article from the Seattle newspaper that the republican party is talking about no automatic citizenship for kids born to illegal immigrants. Here's that article.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2004450665_gop01m.html
Here's another article that I just found interesting. This one talks about the people who knowlingly break our laws just to have their kids born in America.
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article4435.html
All I say is that if it is in the Constitution we need to follow it. The Constituion and Bill of Rights were written with a purpose.
If an child is born in America to illegal parents, and the constitution says that baby is a US Citizen then that child should be allowed to run for President just like all the other people born in America. If the person is born outside of US soil then no they are not eligible.
Obey the Constitution and stop trying to change it (no, not you personally, that's just my motto).
Answer...(sm)
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Orderly-bankruptcy-option-auto-firms/story.aspx?guid=%7B86C06032-FA65-4B0A-AC3C-EBA0CA835D11%7D
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/orderly-bankruptcy-option-auto-firms/story.aspx?guid=%7B86C06032-FA65-4B0A-AC3C-EBA0CA835D11%7D&siteid=yhoof
There are numerous other articles about the bankrupcy thing. Just Google *orderly bankrupcy.*
As far as the ethics bill (keeping in mind that I have not been able to read the actual bill yet--can't wait to get hold of that one) employers are not allowed to reprimand employees for exercising thier rights under this bill. So, while some might be able to fire people *at will* others can't.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#28304676
As soon as I find the bill itself I'll post it or post a link.
I already know the answer to that one...
nm
Sometimes no answer is all the answer
rhetorical questions seem to throw them into a real tizzy, so I'm not expecting anything more insightful than "whichever way our winds blow."
A serious answer
First of all, when you say that you don't ..."sit back and expect Obama to take care of putting gas in your car and making your mortgage payments" you imply that people who voted for Obama DO. You're entitled to express your opinion, but if this is all you got, then you deserve to be flamed. The "American Spirit" is NOT confined to the Republican party. If you actually listen to what Obama says, he has repeatedly stressed personal responsibility time and time again. There are millions of Democrats in the same financial boat you're in who believe in the same American Spirit and personal responsibility that you do.
Second of all, many of the promises Obama made on the campaign trail have to be put on the back burner because of the financial crisis he inherited that is far, far worse than what's been reported and is going to get a lot worse before it gets better, regardless of what Obama does or doesn't do.
Closing Gitmo has nothing to do with protecting the US from future terrorist attacks. Closing Gitmo is the right thing to do. Not torturing people is the right thing to do. Staying within the rule of law is the right thing to do.
Obama's support didn't happen in a vacuum, you know. People who feel like they've been living under a slimy rock for the past eight years can suddenly see a light at the end of the tunnel and are inspired again. That's a powerful thing that you can't quantify, and the only people who were truly inspired by the last administration are the people who are responsible for the financial mess we're ALL in and are now laughing all the way to the bank. What do you think Cheney's copay is?
Ok, answer me this
If terrorists and/or plotters as I like to call them are not Americans, why should they be tried as if they were? They are not afforded the same rights as Americans for they are not such. I uinderstand there are "innocents" at Gitmo, but if their own countries do not want them back, does that not make you stop to wonder why? And, what should be done if Bin Laden were to be caught? One of the whole points of Gitmo is so that enemies of this country are not on the mainland. I believe the UN should be responsible for trying these terrorists under the name of whi8chever country they terroroized.
I am going to answer this last little bit and then...
I am finished indulging you. I bought it three years ago. I moved in August. I rented it this month after my sale fell through because the buyer could not get financing. Yes, mobile homes do depreciate in value, but the five acres that it sits on have appreciated greatly and, like I said, I bought it way under market value. My husband is in the military, so we move frequently. Is there anything else that you think I am lying about, or are you finished?
I don't know the answer to this.
One big concern I have is giving money to people who got us here in the first place. From your post I am going to assume (and please correct me if I'm wrong) but you and your husband would be fine if he had not have gotten laid off and you didn't have medical issues keeping you from work. That sucks and I get that. However, people who can work and won't......people who ran up their credit bills and got loans they couldn't pay. These are the people that government will help.
They won't help people like us who have worked and supported ourselves for so long and because of the irresponsible people....we are now suffering and struggling. If my husband's dealership would be closed by his boss, I have no clue what we would do. He makes most of our money. The only thing we owe money on is our house. We have everything else paid off through years of hard work. If by chance my husband loses his job and we can't pay for our house, government won't help us. They will take everything else we have busted our rears to pay off. Yet there are people sitting on their lazy butts, popping out more children, smoking their cigarettes, drinking their beer and they are getting government checks to keep up that wonderful lifestyle. They are rewarding irresponsible behavior and I just cannot stand for that.
I don't know that I agree with more government spending as I think that is what has largely got us in this situation to begin with, but I do know that having increased government spending AND tax cuts in the same bill just isn't going to do anything. This stimulus package will not work. If it does, I will gladly eat crow, but I just don't think it will.
You know the answer to that......... sm
She HATES Fox News! 
For the record, though, I do believe that BB usually does post her opinions, whether agreed with or not, from an honest perspective. Not sure what happened this time. 
her answer to that --
she said that she paid for all the eggs to be fertilized at one time and then had some stored up for later. She had a lot of eggs to begin with.
her answer to that --
she said that she paid for all the eggs to be fertilized at one time and then had some stored up for later. She had a lot of eggs to begin with.
Can I answer, even though I do not ............ sm
consider myself to be either, dem or pub?
Granted, most of my political views lean more conservative, thus generally more in line with the Republican viewpoint, but I vote by candidate and not along straight party lines.
That being said, I do agree with Obama's plan to do away with tax cuts for companies who offshore work, particularly as this might apply to the area of MT (naturally, lol). Even though the company I currently work for does not offshore, I know the industry as a whole and health care for individuals whose records are offshored is compromised.
Regarding the matter you mentioned, I agree that he should not have been held without charges for almost 6 years now. There were charges of conspiracy to commit terroristic acts that could have been brought against him, but what are the chances that he would have been out on parole by now or at some not-too-distant future date and right back at his old ways. Maybe he was being held without charges until Osama could have been found and the whole gang brought to justice? Who knows.....but holding him without charges and refusing him counsel has kept him out of society and from being harmful to the American people.
What is the answer then?
We're all ears.
|
