Excellent rebuttal on all points...nm
Posted By: ms on 2008-09-01
In Reply to: Rebuttal.... - sam
x
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
Excellent points!..nm
x
Excellent points!!!!! - no message
Just wanted to say excellent.
Rebuttal....
You seem fond of making extremely negative blanket statements about all liberals as though we all have the same views on every single issue, and you make it quite clear that in your perfect mind our views are just plain ignorant and wrong.
You make the same blanket statements about the "religious." But I suppose that is okay if yu do it?
Just because we sometimes get sick of hearing the same things from you over and over again does not necessarily mean we have contempt for ALL conservatives, just your incessant preaching of the same statements again and again. Here are a few that I am familiar with:
Your parents were Democrats but would not recognize the party as it is today, abortion = dead baby, states should vote on it, it's murder, etc. (your religion tells you it's wrong so you are above reproach on this one right?),
Kam, you have such a penchant for putting words in my mouth. Let me try to say this one more time...my personal opposition to abortion does not come from my being a Christian. It comes from basic morality. If you think otherwise, then you must think only Christians have morality? You know that is wrong. Yet you have such a negative view (to use your words) of Christians and conservatives, you don't care. You do the very things you accuse me of, and cannot see it. I never said I was above reproach. No one is perfect.
you think 30% to 40% off the top of your wages is enough and don't want any clueless liberals taking a penny more of your money for taxes since you assume we don't know how to fix some of the broken government programs and redirect money that's already coming in,
Yes, I think 30% to 40% off my wages is enough. That is my right. Why does that chap you so much? There is no law that says you can't give more than that of your check to the IRS, if you so desire. No one is asking you not to do whatever your heart burdens you to do. If it burdens you to give 50%, give it.
you want Fred Thompson to win because he is pro-life,
I want Fred Thompson to win because he is pro-life. Because he is pro state's rights, and more power there than at the federal level. I want Fred Thompson to win because he has a viable plan to fix Social Security. I want Fred Thompson to win because he wants to attempt to bring health care costs down instead of yet another huge entitlement program. I want Fred Thompson to win because he is ready to take the illegal immigration issue. I want Fred Thompson to win because I believe he will protect this country. Those are a few of the reasons I want Fred Thompson to win.
you cannot stand Hillary Clinton and think our country is screwed if she's elected,
There you go again with the cannot stand Hillary Clinton stuff. You invent thingbs to make your point. I have said that I have nothing against the woman personally. You really need to KNOW someone to have something against them personally, however, I can understand why you don't readily grasp that because you dislike me intensely and you don't know me EITHER. I do not agree with Hillary Clinton politically. She has VERY strong socialist tendencies and has had since her college years. This is not new for Clinton. Not that it matters to you if she is socialist, as that seems, by what you post, to be right up your alley. Which is fine, if that is what you want. You have a right to want that and I certainly would argue FOR your right to have that opinion. You CERTAINLY cannot say the same for me. That is ONE major difference in you and ME.
you think the American government is too dumb to figure out a way to make universal healthcare successful,
It is not just the American government, kam. Canada is struggling with theirs.France is now struggling with theirs. It is not so much making it work, i.e., taking care of people, especially in the beginning. But it inevitably becomes a cash cow that is not sustainable. The new French President is already saying that. If they don't get to the heart of the matter and bring health care costs down, no plan, private or public, is going to work. THAT has been my point all along, and I would rather the country not be bankupted in the search for "free" health care...and I don't think a greater burden should be put on the American people than is already on them tax-wise. I think the American government needs to learn to prioritize and live within its means and have said so over and over. Why is that so repugnant to you??
you think Bush is smart (LOL, LOL)
I said the man made higher SAT scores that I bet your or I either one did, and he hold's a Master's Degree from Harvard and also graduated from Yale. You do not do that if you are unintelligent. THAT is what I said. You can LOL all you want to, fact is fact. I do not understand why you get such a kick out of belitting others. And you certainly DO get a kick out of it.
and that most of our problems aren't his fault even though he's been in charge of things in DC for the last 7 years
Sigh. Kam...the President does not make law. Congress does.
, despite the fact that if things go wrong if Hillary's president THEN it WILL be her fault (but not George W's - not possible!), etc., etc.
There is no need in going into fact with you; you don't care about fact. You hate George Bush as much as you think I hate Hillary Clinton, and you can't see past that. Yet, it is okay to hate him and belittle him, but let someone say something negative about Hillary and you go ballistic. Do you not see the glaring hypocrisy in that?? And..if you were really paying attention...you would see that I have a great deal of things I do not agree with George Bush on. However, I do not blame him for all the ills in the country, just like I did not blame Bill Clinton for all the ills in the country while he was President.
I realize it is your right to post on this board, and I sometimes like to post on the conservative board as well, but I don't go over there and make blanket statements about ALL conservatives.
You totally missed the point of the "liberal" posts, but, again, that is not surprising. If it does not fit your agenda, you do not want to hear it. I have gotten definitions of "liberal" from several self-professed liberals. I have looked up the "Dictionary" definition of liberal. Because I wanted to know what they were about, in their own words. And the common thread was caring about "all living things," "taking care of the poor and downtrodden" and "tolerance." Now YOU tell me if YOUR posts follow those lines. They don't. You have little tolerance for anyone who does not agree with you, you have no tolerance of George Bush at all,you hate his guts and take very opportunity to belittle and mock him. That is the antithesis of what I just said about how liberals define themselves. You are okay with the wholesale slaughter of the unborn in the name of "choice." THAT is the antithesis of what I just typed. When a liberal dares to speak out, as that woman did in her article, about the sanctity of life, those who also call themselves liberal turn on her and say she is not really a liberal. Which led me to believe what the two posters who told me, on this very board, that there are no true liberals in the Democratic party. Based on what the claim of liberals is that they stand for, anyone with a halfway open mind has to agree. You SAY you are liberals, but you do not follow the basic precepts. Democrat, yes....liberal, not so much.
That's kind of like making broad, judgmental statements about a group of people based on skin color, in my opinion. I may make negative statements about the Bush administration, but their actions have earned my dissaproval over several years of dismal failures, and therefore I feel that is justified.
Ah, so because someone has "failed" in your eyes, you feel you have the right to mock, belittle, make snide remarks about someone personally, basically attack at every opportunity, and feel "justified" in doing so. Yet, when I try to champion the cause of the unborn, you jump on me in the same fashion, and feel "justified" in doing so. Where, or WHERE is your tolerance for dissenting opinion?
So next time someone gets annoyed with arguing with you because you believe you cannot possibly be wrong, try to step back and ask yourself if we despise all conservatives or if we've just grown tired of another endless argument with you.
I don't recall ever saying you, kam, despise conservatives (when you say "we," I assume you are talking about you and piglet, as you both certainly share a definite disdain for conservatives in general and Christians in particular). I believe you despise me, which is ridiculous because you do not know me. That matters little to me. I just find it odd that someone would have that strong a feeling toward someone they do not even know, just because they have a differing opinion.
Just for your information, I have spent lots of hours in consideration of the Democratic stand on a lot of issues. I don't make snap judgments on issues. I have lived a long time and I have been through different administrations. I have thought of both sides of the abortion issue, and though what some women might have to go through would not be pleasant and heart-breaking in their own right. But, in the final analysis, I am always brought back to the same truth. There is nothing more innocent, more deserving of all our protection than the unborn. And frankly, I cannot care whether or not that meets with your approval or whether it will make things rough for me when I stand up for them. It is a deeply held belief of mine that comes from a place of deep moral feeling and I cannot abandon that in the name of choice. You can, and that is your right. I cannot...and I will try to say this one more time. I do not hold that belief because I am a Christian. I hold that belief because I am a human being and my morality (we all have it, one does not have to be Christian to have morals). My faith in God only enhances what I know in my heart to be true.
Tell me this, kam. When have YOU ever stepped back and wondered if YOU could possibly be wrong in this issue, or any of the other issues we have talked about?
Rebuttal...
I have a theory. I will start with a saying of mine which resembles the title of a book by Ann Coulter. "If a conservative actually lived life, they'd be a liberal". I have tagged individuals such as the Observer as "arm chair Christians". These are people who have only gained knowledge of life from a book, what they see on TV, conversations with others, and have formed their infallible opinions about what ails the world and how to fix it.
Wow, piglet....how arrogantly judgmental of you. "Arm chair Christians." I know what I have done in my life and I certainly know what formed my opinions. Your opinion of me, your "tags," they speak only of your character, not mine. Verryyy Ann Coulterish post, piglet. You sound as much like her as she does.
I have been a missionary for most of my adult life.
I did not know pagans sent out missionaries. But good for you!
I have traveled to foreign countries and I have given aide to our own in need.
Again, good for you. That is admirable. Though I have not traveled in foreign countries, I have worked with Down's children here in the US (another deep moral calling I feel), and worked with programs to help women faced with the choice of aborting or no to be able to make a choice for life if they so desire, and it only affirms the choice I made to stand for the unborn. You choose not to. Certainly your right. And I would argue for your right to have that opinion. Sure cannot say the same thing for you, now can we?
If you live amongst those of different race, social structure, economic status, and a life completely unlike that afforded by being born or a resident in the United States, you have a much greater appreciation of human life in general.
Unless of course that person is conservative or the dreaded "arm-chair Christian." I guess we don't qualify as human life, even in general...??
It becomes more precious. If you hold a starving child, if you actually spend time with the homeless in America, talk with them, smell them, look into their eyes, you have a greater appreciation for human life. Arm chair Christians who label themselves a conservative have very little real appreciation for human life because they have never personally been touched by it. If they did, they would be a liberal.
I have held a Down's baby. I have hugged a Down's child, a Down's adult. They are precious, precious human beings. I have seen the pictures of infants in utero. I have looked into the faces of infants just born. That is why I will never, EVER be able to look the other way while abortion continues. Why that is so repugnant to you, I have no idea. Really arrogant of you to decide that I have no care in me for others and in the same breath in the name of choice destroy humans by the millions. But no matter how much I might disagree with it, you have the right to your opinion and state it. As do I.
Wow, that is the most judgmental, looking down your nose comment yet...lol. You certainly have staked your claim to be the Ann Coulter of the Democrat board. "They have no appreciation for human life because they have never been personally touched by it. If they had they would be liberal." That is a supremely arrogant statement. And that is not a true liberal quality, by definition. The definition of liberal is the antithesis of arrogant. You are a Democrat, piglet, yes, by ALL means. But a true liberal by the definition of liberals themselves? Not so much.
And again...WHY does that appreciation for human life not extend to, but EXCLUDE, the unborn? How does one justify that they have that appreciation for human life, but not extend it to the most innocent segment of human life. I am still amazed that you cannot see the absolutely glaring contradiction there.
I disregard 99.9% of her postings, as do probably most of the liberals who post. They don't make much sense to me. They do tend repeat themselves and most of her rebuttals are nothing more than spin and is much too fond of pointing out erroneous material.
It if is erroneous, rebutt it with facts that prove it is erroneous. Since you do not, one can only assume you cannot find any, and then result to personal shots and arrogant belitting, as this post is full of. If that is your brand of liberalism, no wonder the "true" liberals run from it and do not post on this board (THEIR words, not mine).
They are not written in the spirit of exhange of ideas or dialogue, they are written to try to enlighten and teach us, for if we really pay attention to her postings, we would have to come to the logical conclusion that she is right, right? One does become suspicious when another has an opinion and knowledge about practically everything and cannot seem to help themselves from saying them at every opportunity. I believe it stems from a control issue. Ha. That is amusing. I am about as far from a controlling person as exists. That's a good one. My posts are written to illustrate my point, just like yours are. You really are intolerant of any view different from yours, aren't you? What are you so afraid of? Where does that intolerance come from?
I appreciate your thoughts and I think your postings are great. Kindred. I wish/hope more would speak their convictions as well to counter the negative that pops up way to often.
Rebuttal....
No, I am not insulted.
Your points:
Sarah Palin is against abortion and does not believe in birth control.
Response: Many people are against abortion and that is a major issue with them. It is their right. That is one of the reasons they WILL vote for her. There ARE some pro life Democrats. Google it.
Sarah does not believe in evolution and thinks all schools should teach creationism.
Response: What is wrong with teaching both sides of a story? Because you believe it is wrong it doesn't exist? That sounds more like Nazi Germany than America. What exactly about Christianity is so frightening to you? You believe in civil rights, individual freedoms, yada yada, as long as those freedoms stay in lockstep with the DNC. Does that seem America-like to you?
Your point: She doesn't have an opinion on the Iraq war.
Response:
Her son is deploying to Iraq next month and she says she is proud of him. I think her opinion is obvious.
Your point: She is a pro gun person.
Rebuttal: So are the majority of Americans. It is a constitutionally granted right of all americans.
Your point: She doesn't believe in global warming.
Rebuttal: That is an untruth. She just does not believe it is a man-made phenomenon. She established a commission in Alaska to study it and get a plan in place for Alaska.
Your point: She oppose gay marriage.
Rebuttal: So do a lot of the American people. Me included.
Point: She is against putting polar bears on the endangered species list.
Response: In Alaska, yes. She feels the science does not support it. Without seeing it, I don't know. I do know that oil and gas are a huge part of the state economy and many Alaskans work in the industry. She has to balance both.
Point: She is an advocate strongly for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Rebuttal: ANWR covers 19 million acres. The area that they want to drill in covers 2000 acres. Let's get real here. Palin has always said there would be bidding for the right to drill there and part of the bid had to address environmental issues.
Point: Her husband works for BP (British Petroleum) and she pushed for another pipeline to be built in Alaska.
Rebuttal: Her husband no longer works for BP. He quit when she became governor because of possible conflict of interest. Thousands of people in Alaska work for oil companies. As I said, the oil and gas business is the majority of the Alaskan economy. Should all the residents just move out and close the doors? They have as much right to live and work as the rest of us. Oklahoma, Texas, and many other states also are very dependent on the oil and gas business.
Point: At the age of 45, since she does not believe in birth control, had another baby and he has down syndrome. This seems to me to be pretty poor judgement on her part.
Rebuttal: No, pretty poor judgment would have been to shirk responsibility and abort the child. I applaud her decision.
Point: She says she has family values, she is a Governor and her husband works on the North Shore full time, who raises the Palin kids?
Rebuttal: Her husband does not work on the North face full time any longer. Still, there are a million families in this country where the mother and father work full time. Who is raising THOSE kids?
Point: Palin has her sisters ex husband fired from the Alaska State Patrol.Can anyone say abuse of power?
Rebuttal: He was not fired. He was given a 10-day suspension that was reduced to 5. Among the offenses was tasering his 11-year-old stepson, being drunk in uniform in his patrol car, and terroristic threatening of his former father-in-law (put a bullet in your f'ing mouth I believe was the quote). And for that he received a 5-day suspension. He SHOULD have been fired. He has no business wearing the uniform.
Can anyone say what kind of moron did NOT fire that man??
POint: Palin was a Mayor of a 9,000 person town and has been Governor for only 20 months.
Rebuttal: Neither of the presidential candidates, McCain or Obama, or Joe Biden, have ANY administrative executive experience (running a government). So she is more experienced in running a government than any of them.
Point: She voted for pat Buchanan over George Bush in 2000. If you think Bush is bad Buchanan is even worse.
Rebuttal: I will have to research this one before comment.
Point: She stated on 7/30/2008 she does not know what the VP does every day.
Rebuttal: She is a state governor. She is focused on running her state. Why should she be expected to know what the VP does every day? Is there a job description and we don't know about it? She meant specifically, not generally. The VP serves at the pleasure of the president, basically.
Point: Gos is named her kids Track, Bristol, Willow, Piper and Trig.
Rebuttal: Good grief, what difference does that make? Because she didn't name them John, Susie, Mary, Anna, and Joe...what does that even mean??
Point: The major newspapers in Alaska do not think she should be the VP pick.
Rebuttal: She enjoys an 80% approval rate by the people of the state who don't have an agenda vs papers who probably do. I have not seen proof of this either, so will have to research.
Point: Her mother-in-law said she is voting for Obama.
Rebuttal: Well good for her. God bless America, where we have a right to vote for whoever we want to.
Point: So America, is this this a responsible pick from a 72 year old man who has had repeated bouts of cancer? Do you want Palin running our country? Does being a lucky beauty queen now give people the credentials to be the VP?
Rebuttal: She has more experience than Obama already, and if we elect him, we get him day 1. Nobody has to die or get incapacitated. The beauty queen thing is a cheap shot and including it was not necessary. Contrary to your opinion, obviously, a woman can be pretty AND smart.
She does have the credentials. More credentials than Obama. More executive credentials than her running mate and both of the men on the other ticket. JOhn Mccain has more foreign policy experience than Obama. Obama has Biden. Sarah Palin has limited foreign policy knowledge. She would have an advisor if something happened to McCain, just like Obama has.
To call her inexperienced is to put the spotlight on the same inexperience on the part of the #1 guy on the other ticket. Perhaps that is a subject Democrats should avoid in the future.
rebuttal
Not everything on Fox is untrue. They give their real names and get the weather right most of the time. They are usually accurate on locating where a candidate is in the U.S. that particular day.
Dear, demographics refers to a selective set of characteristics used to define a group in regards to polling, etc.
As for only only place to get conservative views, you left off Rush Humbold, Michael Savage, Quinn and Rose, Hannity radio, O'Reilly radio, Wall Street Journal, multiple magazines, books by Coulter, Hannity, O'reilly, and on and on and on.
rebuttal -
http://sarahpalintruthsquad.wordpress.com/category/alaska-national-guard/
Rebuttal.....
From what I can see about the Democratic Leadership Counsel is they think Democrats should adopt the more centrist view when the run for something...the way Obama did. Obama is a far left liberal, his voting record says it, his history says it. But that is not the way he ran his campaign.
Rahm Emanuel was totally immersed in the Chicago political machine and counts Richard Daley as a mentor. There is a centrist for you.
as to his supporting the Iraq War....I believe that comes from his militant pro-Israel stance, not from any support of Bush. I think anyone who looks at his history knows that. And anyone who knows him knows how he stands on Israel, so I am assuming that is A-ok with Mr. Obama. It might cause some concern for Hamas though...they might withdraw their endorsement.
Chief of Staff is a title and I know you are not naive enough to think that Emanuel will not have Obama's ear, probably before anyone else.
A little on Mr. Emanuel: "At this point of his political career he was known for his intensity. Notably, he reportedly told British Prime Minister Tony Blair, prior to Blair appearing in public with Clinton for the first time after the Lewinsky scandal, "This is important. Don't fu*k it up."[17] Emanuel is said to have "mailed a rotting fish to a former coworker after the two parted ways."[16] On the night after the 1996 election, "Emanuel was so angry at the president's enemies that he stood up at a celebratory dinner with colleagues from the campaign, grabbed a steak knife and began rattling off a list of betrayers, shouting 'Dead! ... Dead! ... Dead!' and plunging the knife into the table after every name."[2] His "take-no-prisoners attitude" earned him the nickname "Rahm-bo".[16]
I think even his mother called him that...lol.
People who worked with Emanuel at that time "insist the once hard-charging staffer has mellowed out."
Let's hope he mellowed out. Not a lot of impeccable discretion going on THERE.
He left the White House to accept a well-paid position at Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein investment bank in Chicago, where he worked from 1999 to 2002 and reportedly earned US$18 million.[18]
Hmmm...$18 mil in 3 years. Not bad.
Republican rebuttal
You live in the same country as I do? Or maybe you live in a different "world". Perhaps it is the fantasy world of Emperor Dubbya and his oil company minions.
Wow, what a crude rebuttal!
I thought this site was for discussions, not crystal ball fortune-telling and sleezy name-calling. But, like you said, differing opinions.
And here's the don't blame anyone but Bush rebuttal
like clockwork.
Mythbusting your...er...mythbuster rebuttal....sm
News flash.
Socialism doesn't work.
Never has.
Never will.
Nan-ism post was in direct reply/rebuttal to the two posts above it.
Surely you would agree that when accused of something we should have a chance for rebuttal? And that our rebuttal would surely include proof/evidence of why we took a particular stand? Would you deny the liberal board that right? SOME of us may be tolerant (or as Nan put it, "sissies") but some of us are very capable of speaking up for ourselves.
I have read Nan on this board (and others as well) for almost two years so I think I have a pretty fair grasp of her opinion and style of posting.
a few points
I couldn't find the Russert quote because you misquoted. I believe both Cheney and Russert changed their positions since this interview.....
As far as the "747" you mention -- I couldn't find it because it was actually a "707" and here is another opinion on its significance:
"a former C.I.A. station chief and a former military intelligence analyst said that the camp near Salman Pak had been built not for terrorism training but for counter-terrorism training. In the mid-eighties, Islamic terrorists were routinely hijacking aircraft. In 1986, an Iraqi airliner was seized by pro-Iranian extremists and crashed, after a hand grenade was triggered, killing at least sixty-five people. (At the time, Iran and Iraq were at war, and America favored Iraq.) Iraq then sought assistance from the West, and got what it wanted from Britain’s MI6. The C.I.A. offered similar training in counter-terrorism throughout the Middle East. “We were helping our allies everywhere we had a liaison,” the former station chief told me. Inspectors recalled seeing the body of an airplane—which appeared to be used for counter-terrorism training—when they visited a biological-weapons facility near Salman Pak in 1991, ten years before September 11th. It is, of course, possible for such a camp to be converted from one purpose to another. The former C.I.A. official noted, however, that terrorists would not practice on airplanes in the open. “That’s Hollywood rinky-dink stuff,” the former agent said. “They train in basements. You don’t need a real airplane to practice hijacking. The 9/11 terrorists went to gyms. But to take one back you have to practice on the real thing.”
Salman Pak was overrun by American troops on April 6th. Apparently, neither the camp nor the former biological facility has yielded evidence to substantiate the claims made before the war."
two points
Here we go with the celebrity subject again. Also I don't want the Spears family used as a standard against which to select our national leaders.
No points for you or
And you know this how? Gibson was repeating his questions because he was expecting to hear a little more than what she gave. He did not ask her about the general function of NATO. The NATO question was within the context of Georgia. As I explained in the last post, any US foreign policy toward Georgia is an extremely tricky proposition, whether it is a member of NATO (not any time soon) or not, given global relationships between the US and Russia, US and Eastern European nations and the dynamics between Europe and it's relation to former Eastern bloc countries in terms of their recognition by NATO, which historically is a precursor to inclusion within the European Union.
Georgia's entry into NATO is not a foregone conclusion, especially in view of its recent aggression in South Ossetia. This was no trick question for Palin. The South Ossetia episode is quite recent and the answer to this question should have reflected some sort of awareness of that conflict, the nature of which remains in question in terms of who started the aggression. That episode has complicated Georgia's NATO aspirations. An informed candidate would have naturally expressed that within the context of the question.
In addition, the US has pipeline stuff happening there and there is a direct conflict of interests between the US and Russia in terms of the oil reserves and who is going to exploit them. Why do you think Russia has such interest in Georgia? Another talking point is the fact that US troops are already spread so thin between Iraq and Afganistan. Can we really afford to open a third front? NOT. If Palin really knew anything about any of this, she missed a great opportunity Gibson gave her to "show her stuff." He even gave her the opportunity not once, not twice, but three times…thus the repeated questions. She did not recognize the opportunity and was unable to respond because of her fundamental lack of knowledge on the subject. No point for Palin.
Your contention about the so-called "liberal media" not interviewing Obama about foreign policy is a crock. Maybe in Fox Land. Do you not recall the little overseas trip he made earlier in the summer? There was a whole blitz of interviews, both televised and in print media, in the days leading up to that trip. Fareed Zakaria had a one-hour interview Obama on July 13 on CNN during the GPS program he hosts every Sunday. This link will take you there where you can see the photo and content of the interview.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/13/zakaria.obama/
He was interviewed on Face the Nation. Here's the link.
http://bourbonroom.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/07/20/obama-never-has-doubts-about-foreign-policy-experience/
Here's a link to the CSPAN interview:
http://econ4obama.blogspot.com/2007/12/interview-with-obama-foreign-policy.html
Here's a link to the NY Times interview:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/01/us/politics/02obama-transcript.html
Here's a more recent one:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26612909/
O'reilly questioned him on foreign policy:
http://utube.smashits.com/video/HuXKyXKu0dM/O-Reilly-questions-Obama-on-foreign-policy.html
I could go on, but I think you get the idea.
Obama has foreign policy experience. He is a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In this capacity, he has made numerous trips to many countries. Read about this here under the 109th and 110th Congress sections.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_career_of_Barack_Obama#Initial_work
He has been asked about his experience as you can see in the transcripts from the links provided above. Furthermore, he has a number of ideas and strategies that were also discussed. These types of interviews will be the ones that the pub party will shield Palin from, but that will not save her from the foreign policy segments that lay ahead of her against Joe Biden (can't WAIT for that one!) in the VP debates. Your comment about video, as usual, is taken out of context and your contention is debunked by the content of the above links. No point for you either. Palin is a pipsqueak on foreign policy and no amount of spin from you or from her party is going to be able to save her from herself.
Your points are all well taken.......sm
I don't really know that there is a "bigger picture," however, in terms of one situation being worse than the other. If we proceed with the bailout, will that be the end of it? Who will be at Capitol Hill next holding out their hat? The construction companies? The grocery store chains? The shipping industry? The logging industry? Where is the money going to come from? China is pretty much tired of our useless dollar. Maybe Russia or North Korea will come to our aid. Or perhaps, those of us who are working will be taxed to the point of not being able to feed and provide for our families and decide "what's the point in working?" and just get in line with everyone else and then the government can bail us out, too.
My point is that, either way, this is going to hurt our economy....not hurt, probably crucify. If government would stay out of the free enterprise system, it would eventually right itself. If we bail out the big 3 this time, how long before they will crash and burn for good? And then what? Just go to the Xerox and print up some dollars, because that's about what our dollar is worth these days?
America has fallen down, and there is no one to help her get back up again.
Three Points:
First: "In other words, I didn't campaign and say, 'Please vote for me, I'll be able to handle an attack,'" he said. "In other words, I didn't anticipate war. Presidents -- one of the things about the modern presidency is that the unexpected will happen."
Bush "anticipated" this war as far back as 1999 when he said if he ever had the chance to invade Iraq, he would, so he could be seen as a war-time President and thus have a successful presidency. This was two years BEFORE 9/11 happened and one year before he was President.
So this nonsense of "not anticipating war" is just another Bush lie, and I would encourage anyone who is truly interested in the "integrity" of George W. Bush to read the link I provided below in its entirety because it is quite revealing. It not only includes this tidbit about his wanting to invade Iraq but also shows, once again, how an innocent man who was his ghost writer on a book (and also a family friend of the Bushes) had his character attacked after the Karen Hughes and others came in, realized that Bush said too much, and the author (Mr. Herskowitz) was fired, citing personal habits that interfered with his writing -- totally false and another example of how Bushies will destroy anyone -- even friends of the family. It shows just how despicable they all are.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1028-01.htm
Second: His comment regarding the economic crisis: "You know, I'm the president during this period of time, but I think when the history of this period is written, people will realize a lot of the decisions that were made on Wall Street took place over a decade or so, before I arrived in president," Bush said.
He threw his own father under the bus on this one because the administration in control "over a decade or so" before Bush's installment as President was Bush 41.
Third: Bush said that he regrets that he was unable to change the partisan tone in Washington -- one that permeated his presidency.
"I didn't go into this naively; I knew it would be tough," he said. "But I also knew that the president has the responsibility to try to elevate the tone.
And, frankly, it just didn't work, much as I'd like to have it work."
"9/11 unified the country, and that was a moment where Washington decided to work together," he said. "I think one of the big disappointments of the presidency has been the fact that the tone in Washington got worse, not better."
9/11 DID bring the people of this country together until BUSH, through his actions, brought about the divisions and the low morale that exists today and might never disappear. The tone in Washington got worse because Bush continually thumbed his nose at the Constitution and at the Congress with all his "signing statements," "executive orders," playing deadly politics with outting a CIA agent, etc., etc., etc. He laughed and joking about WMDs, pretending to look for them under his desk, and quipping, "Nope. They're not there." He showed his contempt for our brave soldiers during a ceremony where he was distributing medals to the survivors of soldiers who had been killed and told a griefstricken mother, "Now, don't go selling this on eBay." (heh heh, smirk smirk) He has used every conceivable opportunity to "raise the terror level" whenever it was politically convenient in order to keep this country in a constant state of fear and submission.
He has only ever cared about the richest top 1%-ers in this country. The current (and never-ending) "bailout" will continue to make his rich criminal cronies even richer, and that's fine because we always have enough money to do THAT. We just never have enough money to help the citizens of the USA. Indeed, to suggest that we might even need help results in accusations of us being lazy or living beyond our means, etc. There is no doubt about it. All these "bailouts" are Bush's babies (complete with same secrecy and lack of transparency which has become his trademark), and buying up banks is fascism, plain and simple. He can't blame Clinton, can't blame his father, and he can't blame Obama.
We still have way too much time (in my opinion) left with him as the Commander-in-Chief, and he can do a lot more damage (besides all the safety regulations he is in a frenzy to dismantle, each of which that will make Americans UNSAFE).
With all the things he has done and is continuing to do, the only worry on this board is whether or not the Supreme Court will overthrow the will of the people (which could be very convenient for Bush in instituting martial law and promoting himself to "Dictator-in-Chief," the prospect about which he's "joked" on three separate occasions. I wonder when the last time was that Scalia went hunting with Cheney and what their plans for this whole birth certificate non-issue are.
I suppose if the Supreme Court refuses to hear the case, then everyone on this board will say the Supreme Court is hiding something and go on an anti-Supreme Court tirade for a few months.
Or they might just let it go and return to questioning the "true motive" behind Obama getting his daughters a puppy (the "timing" of which has already been questioned on this board, which is even more bizarre).
All these terrible things that Bush has done over the last eight years -- and is still doing -- including stating that the Constitution is just a (insert Rev. Wright's "God" phrase here) piece of paper. (How telling that I can't even properly quote the President of the United States because his language is too vulgar.) I'm ashamed that Bush has not only talked that Constitutional talk but has consistently walked that Constitutional walk, as well.
His "divide and conquer" technique has certainly worked, as is evidenced by a quick look at this board and the negative judgment of the President-Elect before he has even taken the oath of office.
I've stated before that I will support Obama, as I supported Bush (before Bush gave me a TON of reasons not to). However, it's clear to me that no matter how much Obama proves he loves this country, no matter how hard he works to unite us once again, no matter how devoted he is to bringing back the "American Dream," and no matter how hard he works to fix all the damage done by Bush, there are certain people on this board that will still invent reasons to condemn him, and they'll continue to jump from one non-issue to another non-issue.
I wonder where they all were during eight years of Bush's contempt for the Constitution and how loud their voices were in disapproval of his actions.
Bush can try to rewrite history all he wants, but I will remember what he did and what he's still doing.
THESE are exactly the points where
you are wrong. Obama is not kissing anyone's backside, the contrary. He tries to implementreal democracy, by actions, not only by words.
He is encouraging real democracy (see Iran) and justice (in Palestine).
He is sincere, but not all people can see this. I read yesterday on the Faith Board and there were implication by some people that OObama might be the Antichrist?
OMG, I cannot believe this! JTBB nipped this allegation right in the bud!
I agree with many of their points.
I feel that where they went astray, as often seems to happen on these political boards, was in making this a political issue. I have nothing but the greatest sympathy for these women, for all those who were affected by 9/11. I think Ann was not wise in the way she worded her statements, but there is a grain of truth, however small, in what she says. I am not a big fan of hers, but there are many many more victims out there who have chosen not to take the political path. Still, as I said, I agree with their points, especially the porous borders.
Good points.
I keep hoping that Krazy Katherine (Harris) will begin to spill her guts about it all since the Bushes have turned their backs on her, after she saw to it that he took Florida. She's probably waiting for her payback and isn't getting it from them.
I agree with you on many points.
Living a responsible life with care and reverence for life seems to have been pushed to the side in these times, though. I do believe that in many instances, not all but many, abortion is being used as a means of birth control. In fact, I am absolutely positive about that because I transcribe many reports where women have had multiple abortions on a continuing basis. And to think that anyone would vote that a teenager has a right to an abortion without parental involvement is chilling.
Imagine you were living in America in 1956 and someone would predict that, in the span of half a century, the culture in America would be so transformed that homosexuality would be an acceptable and even celebrated lifestyle choice, Christianity would be relegated to a private matter not to be considered in questions of public conduct, the culture that had dominated America and was an integral part of its success would be condemned as the cause of most evil in the world, the family would be on the verge of collapse as an institution, children would be listening to music that spewed obscenities and celebrated random sexual encounters and violence, teens would be having sex so commonly that some sexually transmitted diseases would become epidemic in that age group, and abortion would be the law of the land with a million and a half such procedures performed annually. Predictions of such a complete collapse of basic morality would have been considered so ridiculous that it would have been deemed possible only by the complete capitualtion of our nation's leadership to pure evil.
The collapse of morality in this nation was not organic nor imposed by force but orchestrated as part of many interlocking marketing campaigns that had as their goal the repackaging of evil in a seductive wrapping and selling it to the American public. In some cases, the motivation was socio-political while in other cases the motivation was purely financial. Yet in each case the underlying techniques of manipulaiting the public are essentially the same.
The only way to combat the manipulation around us to become aware of its existence. Manipulation is rarely as effective once the manipulated are cognizent of their fate.
Ther is an entire laundry list of movements in contemporary American culture. Although many conservatives are in some sense aware of the problem of manipulation of the public sentiment, it is still quite jarring to see all the dots connected.
The problem we face is not just with leftists but also with corporate executives who see nothing questionable in artificially generating a desire for products through deceit. The forces of the left merely picked up on these techniques and applied them to sell their product. That corporations manipulated the public to sell soap, automobiles, and cigarettes instead of political views, sexual practices, and anti-Christian bigotry does not make such manipulation a morally acceptable practice. A wonderful example of this is the legislation just voted on in Missouri for embryonic stem cell research. The largest contributor to this (quote) cause (unquote) was the company who stood to benefit the most from the research.
I say we need a call for our culture to return to principles rooted in the Christian faith. The problem is that much of the Church in America has already succumbed to the very illness that needs combatting. It is an easy target to aim at liberal churches who have surrendered on traditional morality. Much of the shallowness of contemporary Evangelical Christianity is a direct result of their adopting modern marketing techniques (as seen in the megachurches) as a means for advancing the Gospel. Such techniques may produce numbers but not necessarily disciples. Look at what has happened to the Episcopal church as a good example of having lost one's way. They are losing members by the thousands.
The American public has for a generation been sold evil as good and it has taken this long for a crack in the facade to appear. For anyone interested in the future of this country, I think it is time to realize that abortion is not a right. It never was and it never will be. For every woman who cries KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF MY BODY, there is a child, call it what you will if that will assauge your conscience, who has no voice at all. And when you are sitting with your family at Christmas or Thanksgiving and watching the children play, try and justify to yourself the ones who never had a chance to be there.
Agree with some points
I myself abused the welfare program for one year as a 19-year-old unwed mother. Well, kind of. It was not an experience I ever wanted to repeat. However, my feeling is that the difficulty lies in determining who is truly deserving and needy of welfare and who is just taking advantage of the free ride. And at what point do we also punish the children of ne'er-do-wells by denying benefits. I guess that's my concern.
OK, now I've got to get some typing done or I'll end up on welfare from losing my job!!
Good points. nm
nm
Very good points! nm
.
Here here - very good points.
I didn't catch the whole interview (just a question here and there) but I did hear him ask her about the Bush doctrine. I looked at DH and asked him "what part of it is he asking about". She had the perfect right to ask him to clarify. It was definitely a set up (or tried to be a set up). Overall I think she gave a good interview given they were trying to bait and trap her. Luckily it didn't work and she came out looking better. Maybe what they should do is get some people from other countries who have no vested interest in who gets picked to interview and be the moderators during debates because it's obvious that it doesn't matter what network you work for, if you want one candidate to win over the other your going to be condescending to the other. Boy do I miss Tim Russert.
BTW - With all that has been thrown at her from the media and the liberal sacs she sure can take care of herself. Makes me realized what a strong VP she will make.
Good points! nm
x
Interesting points
I voted by mail for McCain/Palin. Here's why.
Obama has a new ad out talking about taking the day off of work to vote. Let's face it, everyone taking the day off will NOT help the economy.
Obama keeps pointing out he will go through the budget line by line. last I knew the President does not have the ability to line item veto.
He speaks of redistributing the wealth and that it starts from the bottom up. Who defines what bottom is? And why should someone take my money or even my father's money since he makes over 250, 000 and give it to someone else?
And let's not forget the act of treason that was swept under the rug when he spoke to the Iraqi leader basically stating the current President is not capable? I can post links if needed.
McCain has his bad points as well but honestly, I would sleep better at night knowing him and Sarah are at the helm.
Yes, I agree with you on all points...sm
I will respect the office of the president. Mr. Obama must earn my trust and respect.
My husband came into my office last night with his water glass, and said we had to give the kid a chance. We had to have a toast to Obama, and wish him well. After all, we are all Americans.
We must wish him well in the days and years that are ahead. He and America will need it.
I can only wish that he will move to more to center, to do the right thing, just as Clinton did. And I think we did retain enough seats to block passage if need be, in the Senate.
So again, I will wish him well. I can do no less as an American.
I agree, you have some points there......nm
nm
Very good points nm
x
Just a response to a few of your points......... sm
unless I get really carried away! LOL
"What's next, not allow people to marry if they have purple hair or tattoos on their faces, or how about multiple nose rings or a mohawk haircut. Where's it going to stop."
As long as it is a MAN with a man with facial tattoos and a nose ring who is marrying a WOMAN with a purple mohawk, I have no problem with it. Those things, while stupid in and of themselves, are not (with the possible exception of tattoos and piercings depending on how you interpret the Bible) against God's word.
"Once again you are following a book you believe in (bible). We all do not believe in that book. To base your believes on a book written by men who put in and kept out what they wanted to to control society...well I just don't buy it."
Okay, let me understand here. You don't believe in the Bible because somebody told you that it was written by man who wanted to control society, but yet you believe those who prepetuate that lie? Ooookkkkaaaayyyyy.
"As for affecting your life. Maybe we need to start teaching children about tolerance. Explain to them about gay couples and straight couples, and teach them to love their neighbors. Teach them not to ridicule people for the way they want to live their lives. I am glad we are seeing more and more on TV. People need to start being tolerant and learning to live in this century. Teach your kids and if they decide that that is the lifestyle they want to live when they are older then love them for who they are and not who you fear. "
Thanks to the homosexual agenda that is plastered on the news and newspapers every day, I do have to teach my children about homosexuality AND THAT IT IS WRONG at a much younger age than I would have liked to. I didn't learn what a homosexual was until I was in high school and only then because there was an effeminate young man who was said to have been gay. Whether he was or was not, I don't know, but I had never heard of the words people used to describe him before then....and those words certainly wasn't "gay" or "homosexual." I do teach my boys to love all people. I also teach them that doesn't mean being involved sexually with someone of the same sex or with anyone prior to marriage. I also tell them that I love them no matter what and while I have never said "even if you are gay" I know I would still love them, even if I did not accept or approve of their lifestyle CHOICE.
"All I know is one day when I meet my maker he will say, at least you had an open mind and loved everyone for who they were, and you tried to educate people."
I know that when I meet my maker, he will say at least you tried to tell others about me and what is written in my word.
Okay....I got carried away. LOL
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.
Good points
From what I understand the Obamas did look at the public school system in DC. Unfortunately, it's not terrific. Don't blame the feds - blame the people who insisted on election Marion Barry ad nauseum to one position of power or another in that city.
Picture yourself as a parent of a public school child. Now picture yourself as that same parent, yet your child has to go through metal detectors and screening and more every time they want to go to class because the President's kids go to school with you. Now picture yourself as that same parent because there is a kidnapping threat or death threat to those same kids of the president.
The Obamas made the only choice that was viable for their children and for other children who will be going to school with them. Public schools are not set up for the type of security that POTUS' kids need.
And let's be realistic. This POTUS needs a helluva lot more security than others did. I love the guy and I voted for him, but I'm not blind to the security issues that are faced with him being POTUS.
Here we go with the exclamation points
Why are you equating Smilin Bob (I didn't know who he was until about 3 seconds ago) with the absence of christianity? This is so typical. It's a pretty faulty logic to say that if you have a spirituality that doesn't include Jesus, you therefore want a large -- ahem -- dock.
Once again, you (personally and/or to the extent that you represent other christians) cannot seem to tell the difference between a product and a belief system, & do you actually think Smilin Bob's ONLY patrons are non-christians? Why on earth would you draw the line there?
No one is ridiculing anything, although I'm tempted to ridicule the conclusions to which you are jumping regarding what non-christians' morality is necessarily about. You actually seem to be making a case for the idea that the only moral people are christians, which is so ludicrous & religio-centric a claim, I don't even know where to start. You are completely entitled to your beliefs, as I am to mine. As I said in another post in this thread, your right to your beliefs STOPS when they start infringing on my right to mine.
Good points
That was what I kept thinking but didn't know how to word it. Every station has the news on, and then they have shows where people give their opinions/comments, but when people on this board will call it Foux New or Fixed News (or whatever) - I think Geez, these are the same exact news stories, film clips that I'm seeing on MSNBC and CNN when they are doing their news segments. So why is it okay if it's on their stations but the same exact news story on Fox is not credible? Unfortunately though I think your last sentance said it all "you don't let them form your opinions". Unfortunately I think a lot of liberals do let Olbermann and Matthews and the likes form their opinion. I know this because I listen to my family and also because I used to be a huge Olberman and Matthews fan (until I saw the crap they were pulling during the campaign trail and how little respect they gave for the republican side ridiculing them. I would think, well that's not fair because they are not critizing Hillary or Obama. Then my friend said listen to other stations and see what they have to say then form your own opinion once you hear both sides. Otherwise your just being brainwashing.
Points to ponder......
1. Why are so soon old and so late smart? (Amish saying.)
2. Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
3. You cannot make the poor rich by making the rich poor.
4. Life is not a zero-sum game. Abundance is not a finite pie. If I have a slice of it, that does not reduce your portion. It has always been said: Invest in land; they ain’t making any more of it. True. But wealth is something that is created. If you want a bigger piece, you can make your own pie. The raw ingredients are all around you.
5. Traits of those who succeed in life: Flexibility, assertiveness, tenacity, optimism, intelligence, distancing ability, group consciousness, ability to assimilate knowledge, capacity to find meaning in life, courage. William Helmreich in a study of survivors.
6. Why are we punishing these traits? Isn’t this very bad for our gene pool?
7. Why are we rewarding laziness, foolish behavior and dishonesty? Isn’t this even worse for our gene pool?
8. Why has the distinction between a hand up and a handout been lost?
9. I have done fairly well in life and will voluntarily help those who truly are in need. Sometimes I will even share with those who have caused their own problems. But if you force me to do this it is called robbery.
10. There is a reason why, with all the billions of dollars’ worth of humanitarian aid we have sent to third-world countries, nothing much ever changes. We feed a few starving people just enough to produce even more starving smaller people. Human life is not supportable in some of these places. In others, centuries-old cultural patterns and hostilities exist that cause wars and genocides. Do we think we are going to change any of this with some food and medicine? If we step in to try to halt it, our motives are questioned. If we do not, our motives are still questioned.
I will never be a captain of industry and I know it. But I am a really good worker bee and always have been. I have grown a thick skin and do not take much personally. I try for excellence and I do more than expected and sometimes I come up with great ideas. I’ve always been the go-to gal for my bosses and they come to rely to me. But I do not have the will or the drive to run my own company.
However, I do not begrudge those who have the necessary traits - and are willing to take the risks - their success! I do not envy their corner offices. My nose is not put out of joint because they have bigger houses and drive better cars and take vacations to exotic places. I realize that there (but for a complete lack of ambition) go I.
I also do not envy their 60-hour work weeks, the myriad business decisions they have to make: Hiring, firing, generating new business, figuring how their companies will survive in this weird economy. I just do my job, then I get to clock out. Cool!
I have always landed on my feet through some pretty severe reversals and I have no doubt that I will again. It is sad that so many Americans have truly lost the can-do attitude that built this country. Instead, they are waiting for somebody to fill their gas tank, pay their mortgage, feed them, heal them and kiss every boo-boo. Our founding fathers would not recognize their descendents.
A couple of points
1. The Department of Defense budget is being increased.
2. We would not be in our grave situation in this industry if we had unions to protect us against some egregious practices by MTSOs.
3. We would have a 2-party government right now if the Republicans would quit playing silly games. It seems like every week, they manage to do something stupider than the week before.
4. A vote for Mickey Mouse would have been more logical than a vote for the McCain/Palin ticket.
A couple more points
1. Defense spending is being cut, not increased.
2. Unions are not the answer to everything - just as those in Detroit.
3. Republicans alone are not to blame for the break down in the 2-party system - there were Democrats that voted against the stimulus bill and the other garbage being churned out of DC.
4. I would have gladly voted for Mickey Mouse, as long as it wasn't a vote for Obama - Mickey would probably be doing a better job.
A couple of points
1. Percentages, as with our industry, where 30 years ago I was making 5 cents a line and earning at least $100 a day, and have now gotten up to 8 cents a line with all kinds of "technical advances" that keep me barely above $100 a day?
2. I live in Detroit (well, very close, about 8 miles away). If my husband had not been a Union Ironworker, we would have continued struggling alone with jobs that would not have allowed us to live with any security or luxuries, like buying a new car every once in awhile.
3. Gotta tell it like it is.
4. Gotta tell it like it is.
So basically, I live in Michigan and I don't believe the unions are the cause of the auto company's struggles. I would suggest that poor management practices by all the folks who make the really big bucks is far more to blame. The unions have been forced to take cut after cut, including loss of retirement health care, and the beat continues to go on.
I tried to keep "trash talk" out of my response and it's unfortunate that you do not see it that way. One good thing about our country is that people are allowed to have opposing opinions. Not everybody thinks like you do - actually, more than half the country as per the last election.
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...
Democratic talking points 101. nm
great talking points
1. I do believe there should be some sort of civil union, marriage, whatever you call it to allow homosexuals the same basic rights as married couples. As far as Christian marriage - it should be up to each individual denomination to decide. My own, PC USA is debating this issue every year. I am still on the fence about it.
2. As to welfare, I don't think the current program works. Some welfare-to-work, or something similar would be better. I have a friend who gets a child-care subsidy to help pay with that. If she gets a job making just 25 cents more an hour, she completly looses that, so there is no incentive to get a better job. Same with welfare, food stamps, etc. Maybe phase them out as income increases, to encourage better jobs, growth, etc.
3. As for abortion, I agree with pxmt. Don't like it, don't have one. No matter how I personally feel about it, it is not my place (or anyone elses) to tell a woman what to do with her body, or make someone carry a child to term. As far as I am concerned, it is a medical procedure and should be between the woman and her doctor.
Good points - thanks for the reminder
Sometimes I need to be brought back to earth here.
I do think being pro-life and being against abortion are two different things. I don't think McCain cares anything about the life of "adults" and will send anyone to their death in a heartbeat to fuel the war he wants to continue.
You are absolutely 100% correct on not laying the whole war thing on the republicans. Largely the democrats voted for it (not all but a good number of them - including Hillary). However, with that said we have Mr. Cheney - need I say more. I used to like him until I started reading more about him and his role in the decisions that go on. Bush is an imbic!le, hence Cheney is really the decision maker. Bush is just a puppet and Mr. Cheney is the puppet master.
On a different note - this morning I was listing to a show and have heard now that it's pretty obvious that at the convention Barack will announce his running mate is going to be Hillary. If that happens, no matter how much I dislike McCain I WILL be voting for McCain. I will do anything I have to to keep her far away from the white house. I just wish McCain would stop saying "my freinds" every 5 minutes in his speeches. It's very condescending and irritating as all get out. One time we listened to his speech that ran aproximately 5 minutes in which he said "my friends" about 18 or so times. It's like everytime he starts a new sentance he begins with "My friends".
As for the nurse in the video...she should be thrown in jail for acting immoral and aiding in the death of an infant(s). I'm against abortions. First, there are too many childless families in America who are desperate at any chance to have a child. No reason to murder the innocent child. But partial birth abortions...I really started hearing about that when Clinton was president and he signed whatever it was approving this. It's totally disgusting and nauseating and anyone who is doing or or agreeing to have it done should be aborted themselves!!!! They can justify it any way they want to - it is still murder and dispicable! It really saddens me to think people actually think this is okay. But when they go down that road they are not human beings anymore - they are sub-human.
wow.....the talking points are down cold....
what structure? The free enterprise system for one...through hard work able to move up in the world as far as your talent and ambition will take you. Obama wants to penalize those people by talking their money and redistributing it those who did not have the talent or ambition to EARN their way to the "top." Yes, socialism will destroy what makes America great...ingenuity, ambition, and working for what you want or need. And Barack Obama is more of socialist than Hillary Clinton ever thought about being. Yes, she is a socialist...Obama is to the LEFT of her on that issue.
The propaganda and war machine? Good grief!! We were ATTACKED on 9-11, which brought about this whole Iraq thing. And please, do your research...the Iraq Liberation Act was authored during the CLINTON administration, enthusiastically supported by both Clintons and the entire Democratic congress. So please...don't give me the old Bush lied chestnut. It is just not true. If he did, it was because he believed George tenet and Richard Clarke (Both of whom he kept over from the Clinton administration...his first mistake).
Decaying economy? It is not as bad as Carter's term. Our economy was MUCH worse then. Yes, gas prices are high. So for Pete's sake, can we finally drill here???
Shameful health care system? What a ridiculous statement. We have one of the best health care systems in the world. Why does everyone come HERE to be treated? Have you ever transcribed notes for the premier facilities in this country? How many patients come from other countries? How many doctors from other countries come here to train? That is PRECISELY because we don't have "universal" government run health care. If it is so great in Europe, why do those people bring their children to America to be treated for serious diseases? Can we please be serious about this? It is NOT the responsibility of government to insure us. Wait..let me rephrase that in a truthful manner. It is not the responsibility of our fellow citizens to insure us. All government-controlled universal health care will accomplish is a lower standard of care for everyone, premier teaching hospitals will cease to exist, and THEN you will have the shameful health care system you THINK you have now.
Well...while I would not use the words "My way or the highway," we have not been attacked on our oil soil against since 9-11, which is a direct result of our action in Iraq. There are those who will bury their heads in the sand and deny this, but it seems pretty obvious to me with all their actions everywhere else in the world (the terrorists).
As to Europe being our allies....I would again refer you to history. The only allies we have who are still grateful for us pulling their fat out of the fire in WWII is England. France...Italy...oh they wanted us there when we liberated them from Nazi Germany and facism...but have now conveniently forgotten it. Let them be attacked or feel threatened today and who do you think they are going to call? The EU? Yeah, right. Yo, America....helppppp.
As to a little input from them...did not work out very well last time, did it? Whose intelligence agencies agreed with the intelligence Bush was getting? Well....France...Germany...toname two. Yeah, input from Europe is JUST what we need.
As far as hatchet job we have done on ourselves...again, France and Germany have never cared a whit about the US...a lot of jealousy there in case you had not noticed. They will take, take, take...comes time to give, they run like scalded dogs. If that is what you consider an "ally," maybe so. Me, not so much. Compare what we have done in the world and what they have done...what we have contributed to poor and needy all over the world compared to what they have done...and there you will have your story. And again...first sign of trouble and you know who they will go running to? Not each other or the EU...Us. And because we are who we are...we will go and help. History has proven that time and time again. We give everything and get nothing and keep on giving. And these are the opinions you care about??
Wimpy regarding Russia? You have GOT to be kidding. You think Sarkozy of the EU was the least bit influential in getting Russia to dial it down? You SURELY are kidding. It is that hateful stupid "cowboy" Bush who got it done and don't think for a moment it isn't. If Obama was in the White House today he would be kissing the toukas of Russia and Georgia would be a smoking mess and dragged back into Russia under their rule. To quote Teddy Roosevelt you have to talk softly and carry a big stick...Russia knows as long a we have a Prez like Bush there is definitely a stick to contend with. With Obama, more like throwing a sack of daisies at them. There is no way he could ever put up a tough enough front. "Can't we all just get along?" Uh...no, we can't. Because to get along, all parties gotta want to. In what alternate universe does Russia WANT to? The only thing that keeps them from rolling over every country around them is the fear that the US would intervene. Once that is removed...Katy bar the door. And if you look at the history of how russia has behaved...and think anything else, then, I am sorry, you are naive. You have to look at countries and their histories...
Don't know about mtmt's vision of the future, but mine is with an Obama presidency we might just get what little old ugly bald-headed Kruschev told us years ago...we will be taken from inside without firing a shot. Food for thought.
you make some good points; however,
for people so very skeptical of the 'black man' how is it you immediately on a dime trust this woman and you nor any of us know who she really is. You have NO idea about her and you defend her like she is your own family. It is kind of weird...
From our point of view, and by that I mean undecided about who to vote for, we are not that trusting after being burned 8 years ago...
you posed some valid points
I honestly have to tell you I read your post with an open mind and I understand what you are saying. I don't think we can go to war with everyone and I don't think we should. But on the other hand I think there has to be a better way of just thinking your going to be able to sit down with the most extreme who hate Americans and want to see our country destroyed and believe that by just talking with them they'll become our friends and say, "yes your right, we've been wrong all along, what can we do to help you" (well not exactly in those words), but I just think that for someone to think your going to be able to sit and reason with them is a little naive. Look what happened when we tried to reason with Saddam Hussein. He would not reason and threatened us with nuclear and biological weapons. He destroyed wildlife, oceans, and set his own oil fields ablaze. I think we do have to be strong and we need other countries to stand with us. To tell you the truth I don't know what a good solution would be, and I'll tell you one thing I do know is that whether John McCain or Barack Obama gets elected they are going to have one big mess to try and fix.
obama ahead by 15 points
Talk is cheap. See, I can just pull statements out of my bellybutton also.
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.
DOW up over 900 points....biggest gain
xx
How come any time someone points out the TRUTH...
O'lovers call it an 'attack?'
|
