Home Contact Us

Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Have you read up on Rahm Imanuel?

Posted By: sam on 2008-11-06
In Reply to: Is it any wonder that Israeli war hawks might be shaken up - at the audacity of diplomatic initiatives...sm

Militant pro-Israel supporter. I'm sure Iran is going to be thrilled with him. How do you think HE is going to advise the Prez on how to deal with Israel's enemies? You know, the ones who called for their removal from the map?

Just wondering.

Complete Discussion Below:

marks the location of current message within thread

europe - shelly
- They wanted Bush to do that and he said no because - Backwards typist
- Iran warns US. Israel Livini Blasts O's Iran plan - Other countries.
  - Is it any wonder that Israeli war hawks might be shaken up - at the audacity of diplomatic initiatives...sm
    - Have you read up on Rahm Imanuel? - sam
      - sorry...Emanuel. nm - sam
  - Yes. - Marmann
- End times, we will all be one government/money.nm - Scary.

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

Are you saying that's not Rahm Emanuel?
Or are you just saying if he wasn't speaking to someone you approve of he can say anything he likes and you won't ruffle a feather?

Is your beef with Rahm, or with the person who did the interview? The interviewer is from the New York Daily News.

Just trying to understand your point here. Does it really matter WHO Emanuel gave the quote to? As if that somehow changes the quote itself?

I believe that Rahm Emanuel...sm
has Obama's ear, most definitely, so anything he would purpose would be looked at favorably by Obama.

My personal opinion, and mine only, is that Obama's show of building a cabinet of supporters and nonsupporters is a smoke screen...just like most of the rest of his campaign and office of President-elect thus far. I don't believe we will see the full effects of his administration until it is far, far too late.

Rahm Emanuel seems worse to me.
x

Rahm Emanuel is no liberal.
Rahm Emanuel supported Bush on Iraq from the get go. "Lefties" NEVER did...not for a single moment. His poolitical views align with the Democratic Leadership Council, the core belief of which is that the party should shift itself away traditional populist positions and toward the more "third way" centrist views. It has been called the "republican wing" of the democratic party by progressives and the left of centers. His views on Israel are decidedly republican and are more extreme than even the shrub.

Having said that, the chief of staff is not primarily and advisory position. In fact, the nature of the position is primarily defined by the president himself, and the chief of staff can operate only within the parameters that his president allows. JFK did not even have a COS. Obama has not indicated one way or the other how he views his relationship with the COS or how much he will or will not rely on him for advice.

For every single other aspect of those job responsibilities, Rahm Emanuel is undeniable strongly qualified by his experience. The president's chief of staff first and foremost must be trusted by the President, perhaps more than any other person in his cabinet or ministry. I would say the most important qualification for that job is that of impeccable discretion. We have no evidence to indicate that Rahm Emanuel does not posses that trait.

What is Rahm expecting to happen?
That is why we need a Civilian National Security Force?

Rahm Emanuel counts as his mentors...
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.

Rahm Emanual: Pit Bull Politician

From Fortune, CNN Money.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/11/06/news/newsmakers/emanuel_easton.fortune/?postversion=2008110613

Son of a terrorist link below

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rahm_Emanuel

Rahm shouldn't hold his breath. sm
Want us to understand what it is like to be an American. Now that is funny - more like NWO slaves.

Rahm Emanuel is not the president-elect....(sm)

If you pay attention to what Obama is doing right now this might make sense. Obama is filling his cabinet not only with people who agree with him, but also people who disagree with him. Presumably he's following the lead of Lincoln who did this with his cabinet members. The conclusion I come up with is that just because Rahm said it doesn't necessarily mean it will be law.

I saw that Rahm said he does not agree with Obama on some subjects - but
he said that Obama will be the president and he will not be pushing his own ideas as they are so completely opposite on some things.

Rahm Emanuel Evading Property Tax
On Home By Declaring Himself A Charity?

Wow. When I�m wrong I�m the first eventual one to admit it, so I�ll go ahead and say it, �I was wrong.� Yes, I doubted that Obama could bring about the �change� I needed to not have to worry about paying bills anymore.

Well Barack Obama has put my money where his Cabinet is with the news that his newly minted Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, has possibly been evading taxes on his home for years. How could he do it? Easy! He created a fraudulent charity in 2002, named it after him and his wife, set its address as his personal residence, and voila, taxes are gone:

According to the Cook County Assessor�s website, the Chicago home of four-term Democrat Congressman and likely new White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, doesn�t exist. While the address of 4228 North Hermitage is listed as Emanuel�s residence on the Illinois State Board of Elections� website, there seems to be no public record of Emanuel ever paying property taxes on this home�

Why would 4228 North Hermitage property owners Rahm Emanuel and wife Amy Rule not pay property taxes?

One reason could be because Emanuel and Rule declared their 4228 North Hermitage home as the office location for their non-profit foundation appropriately called the �Rahm Emanuel and Amy Rule Charitable Foundation�. As a non-profit headquarters, they may consider their home as exempt from paying taxes.

Skeptical? You shouldn�t be! After six years, the �Rahm Emanuel and Amy Rule Charitable Foundation� has had only two donors. Can you guess who?

The Rahm Emanuel and Amy Rule Charitable Trust was formed in 2002, when the Chicago lawmaker was first elected. The former Clinton White House aide and his wife, Amy Rule, are its only donors.

USA Today has a great article about Rahm and other Dems, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who are illegally operating charities under their own names while failing to report that information.

Congratulations, America, you�ve just elected another corrupt politician who surrounds himself with corrupt supporters. �Yes we can� steal from the government and those we represent!
Source: Illinois Review and USA Today

Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff disturbs you how?
could you please expand on your concept of the Chicago political machine? I must have missed those posts in the past.

The President's Chief of Staff is basically an administrative coordinator who oversees the white house staff. He manages the president's schedule, Under his supervision are his own deputy, White House Counsel and the White House Press Secretary. Sounds like an executive butler to me. He has experience as a political staffer and advisor, a successful campaign director and fundraiser on both the state and national levels. Senior advisor to Bill Clinton on political affairs, policy and strategy. Returned to the House of representatives from the 5th district in Illinois 4 times. He must be doing something right.

Though he had expressed his interest in staying in the House and possibly aspiring to Speaker of the House, he has now decided to leave the legislative branch and become part of the executive branch. He seems to be imminently qualified for the job and does not have any direct legislative powers. Please tell us what it is you find so foreboding about the appointment of this White House butler guy.

Rahm Emanuel wants forced civil service

Listen to the link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfV8iXiB9Xg

DH said its disgusting that he's laughing about it.

You're not terribly familiar with Rahm Emanuel, are you?
If you were, you wouldn't be asking those questions.

Picked Rahm Emanuel, most left wing liberal for
Wow, real great choice. I wished he would have picked more of a conservative or at least someone for both sides of party. Great way to make start as President.

It's official. Rahm Emanuel star of democratic party
accepts position of the O's chief of staff.

Hillarious video...Old video of Obama roasting Rahm
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/11/obama-emanuel-r.html

This looks interesting. A long read, so will read it when I get home from work. nm
nm

Obviously u didnt read, I said NONE of them are moral. Read the post before spouting off.

I read on CNN (yes, I do read liberal stuff too..hehe)...sm
...that Karl Rove was actually very disappointed in the McCain campaign for airing negative type ads against Obama.

So I would say that Rove is definitely not in the hip pocket of the McCain campaign.

Good research sam - but a lot to read right now so gotta read it later
I've been goofing off too much from work. I appreciate what you wrote and will read when I'm done with work here.

sorry, should read I did not read post that way.
,

All you have to do is read up on Marxism, read up on...
black liberation theology, and look at what Obama is proposing. All of it a matter of public record, most of it from his own mouth. Your denial of it does not change the facts. If you support socialism, vote for him. Certainly your right. You are already wanting to squelch any kind of dissent...what's up with that? If you seriously consider calling someone a socialist a smear, you really need to read up on your candidate. I did not post a smear, I posted a fact. Redistribution of wealth is socialist and he already said he was going to do it...I heard him say it and it is now a campaign commercial. Sigh.

Some on this board can only read what they want to read (nm)
x

READ THE ARTICLE-READ OTHER
READERS COMMENTS!!!

Nan please read what I have to say

I've read your latest posts. You fit the decription of a troll at times, but I don't really care about that. DOesn't matter. What I do notice is that you incite other posters with calculated insults, condescension and twisted and sometimes cruel logic. Then when the object of your insults becomes angry and lashes back you pretend to be an unfairly accused innocent and the object of someone else's crazy, uncalled-for rage.

This is compatible with borderline personality disorder. My mother had it, a brother-in-law battles it and I am all too familiar with it.

I did read it.
Not posting the whole article puts the quote out of context. It's not really a way to do things on a chat forum, but then maybe you don't post in a lot of other forums. Those I frequent always post the whole article or at least a link. It would give you a lot more credibility. Take it for what it's worth.

Read this...
Pandora's Box
September 22, 2005
By Ken Sanders

You have to hand it to the Bush administration. No matter how bad things might be in Iraq, and no matter how dim the prospects are for Iraq's future, Bush & Co. still manage to look the public straight in the eye, smirk, and insist that the decision to invade Iraq was a good one. Call them determined, even stubborn. Call them dishonest, perhaps delusional. Regardless, the fact is that by invading Iraq, the Bush administration opened a Pandora's Box with global consequences.

Bush and his apologists have frequently promised that the invasion of Iraq will spread democracy and stability throughout the entire Middle East. That naive declaration could not be farther from the truth. Not only is Iraq itself in the clutches of a civil war, the U.S.-led invasion threatens to destabilize the whole of the Middle East, if not the world. It may have irrevocably done so already.

By most definitions and standards, Iraq is already in the throes of civil war. Whether defined as an internal conflict resulting in at least 1,000 combat-related fatalities, five percent of which are sustained by government and rebel forces; or as organized violence designed to change the governance of a country; or as a systematic and coordinated sectarian-based conflict; the requirements of civil war have long since been satisfied.

While our television screens are saturated by images of chaos and death in Iraq, the stories beneath the images are even more disturbing. Purely sectarian attacks, largely between Iraq's Sunni and Shiite populations, have been rising dramatically for months. According to Iraqi government statistics, such targeted attacks have doubled over the past twelve months. Police in Iraq are finding scores of bodies littering the streets, bodies of people who were blindfolded or handcuffed, shot or beheaded. The Baghdad morgue is constantly overwhelmed by bodies showing tell-tale signs of torture and gradual, drawn-out, agonizing death.

In Baghdad, Sunni neighborhoods live in fear of Shiite death squads like the Iranian-backed Badr Brigade of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), Iraq's leading Shiite governing coalition. Such death squads operate openly, in full uniform, and with the deliberate ignorance, if not outright sanction, of the Iraqi government. On a single day in August, the bodies of 36 Sunni Arabs were found blindfolded, handcuffed, tortured and executed in a dry riverbed in the Shiite-dominated Wasit province.

At the other end, Shiites face each day burdened by the terror and trauma of being the targets of constant suicide bombings. The army and police recruits killed by suicide bombs are predominantly Shia. In Ramadi, a Sunni stronghold, Shiites are fleeing their homes, driven out by murder and intimidation. On August 17, 43 Shiites were killed by bombings at a bus stop and then at the hospital where the casualties were to be treated.

There are less-violent examples of the deepening rifts between Iraq's Sunnis and Shiites since the U.S.-led invasion. By some estimates, nearly half of the weddings performed in Baghdad before the invasion were of mixed Sunni/Shiite couples. Since the invasion and its resulting instability and strife, such mixed weddings are all but extinct. This new-found reluctance of Sunnis and Shiites to marry each other is just another indication of the increasing isolation and animosity between the two populations.

The recently finalized Iraqi constitution does little to bridge Iraq's growing sectarian divides. The culmination of sectarian feuds passing for political debates, Iraq's constitution only ratifies the sectarian divisions of the nation. In the north are the Kurds who long ago abandoned their Iraqi identity, refusing to even fly the Iraqi flag. In the south is a burgeoning Shiite Islamic state, patterned after and influenced by Iran. Both groups have divvied up Iraq's oil reserves amongst themselves. Left in the nation's oil-free center are the Sunni Arabs, dismissed as obstructionist by the Kurds and Shiites. So unconcerned are the Kurds and Shiites with a unified Iraq that they both maintain their own large and heavily-armed militias.

Of course, the constitution still has to be ratified. If it is ratified, it will likely be by a Shiite/Kurdish minority, effectively maintaining the status quo that motivates, in part, the Sunni-led insurgency. If, on the other hand, the constitution is defeated, there's little reason not to believe that the three major factions in Iraq won't resort to forcibly taking what they want. Either way, in the words of one Iraqi civilian, God help us.

The discord in Iraq is not limited to fighting between Shiites and Sunnis. In Basra, for instance, rival Shiite militia groups constantly fight each other. The notorious Badr Brigade, backed by SCIRI, have repeatedly clashed with dissident cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi militia. The Badr Brigade frequently works in conjunction with Basra police and are suspected of recently kidnapping and killing two journalists. Suspecting that the Basra police have been infiltrated by both the Badr and Mehdi militias, the British military sent in two undercover operatives to make arrests. The British operatives were themselves arrested by the Basra police. When the British went to liberate their men, they found themselves exchanging fire with the Basra police, their heretofore allies, and smashing through the prison walls with armored vehicles.

Iraqis aren't merely growing increasingly alienated from each other, as well as progressively opposed to coalition forces. Iraq's estrangement from the rest of the Middle East and the Arab world is widening as well. Seen more and more as a proxy of the Iranian government, the Shiite/Kurd dominated Iraq finds itself at odds with the Sunni-dominated Middle East. For instance, since the U.S.-led invasion, not a single Middle East nation has sent an ambassador to Baghdad. And, despite promises to do so, the Arab League (of which Iraq was a founder) has yet to open a Baghdad office.

There are, clearly, many reasons other than sectarianism for Iraq's estrangement from the Middle East and Arab nations, security being the foremost. However, Iraqi diplomacy, or lack thereof, is also to blame. From chiding Qatar for sending aid to Katrina victims but not to Iraq, to arguing with Kuwait over border issues, to blaming Syria for the insurgency, Iraq's fledgling government seems to have taken diplomacy lessons from the Bush administration. In fact, with the exception of Iran, Iraq has butted heads recently with nearly every Middle East nation.

Iraq's constitution hasn't won it any friends in the Arab world, either. For instance, Iraq drew strong condemnation from the Arab world when a draft of its constitution read that just its Arab people are part of the Arab nation. Only after the outcry from the Arab League and numerous Arab nations, did Iraq change its constitution's offending language. (The argument by Bush's apologists that the Iraqi constitution's alleged enshrinement of democratic principles threatens neighboring countries is unconvincing. Syria and Egypt both have constitutions that guarantee political and individual freedoms. In practice, however, such guarantees have proven meaningless. Why, then, should they feel threatened?)

Iraq's varied relationships with Middle Eastern nations will be immeasurably significant should Iraq descend further into civil war. For example, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Jordan would most likely come to the support of Iraq's Sunnis. (There are already signs that the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq has impacted Saudi Arabia's Sunni population. According to a recent study, the invasion of Iraq has radicalized previously non-militant Saudis, sickened by the occupation of an Arab nation by non-Arabs.) Iran would only increase its already staunch support for Iraq's Shiites. Turkey would also likely be drawn in, hoping to prevent any Kurdish success in Iraq from spilling across its border. Moreover, Iraq's violent Sunni-Shiite discord could easily spark similar strife in Middle East countries like Bahrain, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia.

In such a worst-case scenario, Iraq's instability would spread and infect an already unstable region. If the Gulf region were to further destabilize, so too would the global economy as oil prices would skyrocket, plunging the U.S. and so many others into recession.

Put another way, Bush's illegal, ill-conceived, short-sighted, and naive venture in Iraq could reasonably result in total chaos in not just Iraq and the Middle East, but the world over.

A Pandora's Box, if there ever was one.

Sorry, but can you read?
pizza. Don't you think they've thought of moving? It isn't always practical to simply uproot. In this case, there is an elderly family member and children. Again, from the throne passing judgement.

This makes no sense: I'm talking about a certain segment of our society who refuse to learn, refuse to work, and who YOU wish to bring up to an equal place as the rest of society who works hard and earns what they have. Huh? You still missed the point...good grief.

I read that. And then MT goes on

to criticize you for suggesting that posters visit eXtremely Political and is aghast at the post that calls for shooting someone who doesn't agree...... she just FAILS to mention that it's a NEOCON who wants to shoot LIBERALS!!!

This is what she wrote:

Sorry, had to answer this one. There have a Whine to Management option. That is PERFECT for gt. Talking about shooting other posters, atheism and porno. Yeah, that's a great place alright. And now they have THE gt as a member. Does it get any better than that. Although, my thoughts are they won't suffer her long. Those people are pirrhanas.

Well, if that ain't the pirrhana calling the shark hungry!

Perhaps you need to read
No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor... otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief... All men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of religion, and... the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities. --Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. ME 2:302, Papers 2:546

Our civil rights have no dependence upon our religious opinions more than our opinions in physics or geometry. --Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. ME 2:301, Papers 2:545

We have no right to prejudice another in his civil enjoyments because he is of another church. --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776. Papers 1:546

I am for freedom of religion, and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendency of one sect over another. --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799. ME 10:78

Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved. I have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle. --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Rush, 1813.

I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance or admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others. --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Dowse, 1803. ME 10:378

Our particular principles of religion are a subject of accountability to God alone. I inquire after no man's, and trouble none with mine. --Thomas Jefferson to Miles King, 1814. ME 14:198

and many more: http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm

You need to read that again.
Yes, it is US law, according to the Constitution.

The United States signed the UN Charter -- which is a treaty. Let me repeat:

Article VI of the U.S. Constitution makes treaties into which the U.S. has entered the supreme Law of the Land.

In other words, we made a treaty with a bunch of other countries to abide by certain rules, including the use of force. Since we entered into this treaty with the UN, that makes it the supreme Law of the Land -- US Law.

Sure, you can say, So what? Nobody's going to take us to court. We can do anything we want. But if we as a country aren't going to respect our agreements with other countries and our own laws, why should anybody else? Nobody is above the law, right?

By the way, I think we were fully justified in invading Afghanistan.

I have read this...

So what. At one point you say he was involved with AIM and had a lackey break someone's arm. Now you are providing us with an article that disavows any connection with AIM at all. Which is it? Could it be that some folks who were involved with AIM in the late 60s early 70s are no longer involved, or are dead or have had major disagreements along the way about what should be done. Banks, Russell Means and Peltier don't even speak to each other any more. That is sad, in my opinion. Trudell, on the other hand, is still around. (I had the pleasure of meeting him last Saturday in Hollywood Florida at the Native American Music Awards) and still fights the good fight although his wife and children were burned to death in an FBI arson. There is a video, called simply Trudell. It has aired on PBS stations. It is also available from Trudell's web site. It you get a chance, see it. There is so much information out there that no one seems to care much about as regards the American Indian from Columbus to today. The history is always written by the victor and the American Indian history is distorted.

You can read whatever you want...
into what people say. Some are not very tactful and some, like our president, just can't get a syntax together to save their souls. I still think the sentiment was not that these Americans do not want democracy. I still think they thought we **deserved** to be surprised because we have ignored Middle East history, the British colonization, the politics, the culture, the nature of Islam when, in reality, bearing in mind our support for Israel and our dismissal of the Arab states, it should not have been a surprise. This has been brewing for quite some time. That is not the same thing. I really don't know what those 2 had in their hearts but I truly believe that one saying the US has treated the Arab states badly in the past does not make one a **terrorist** or a communist or a democracy hater. These people attempt to see all sides of things, in all colors, not just black and white. Those are the people who will ultimately garner peace if it is at all possible. It will not come at the barrel of a gun, no matter what has happened in the past.

Yep, I know, I can read. NM

Well, I don't read the

leftist blogs or any other blogs for that matter, too much like talk radio. I also don't need to plagerize anything; I can think for myself, thank you very much.

I have read this one over and over...s/m
What has happened in this country over the years? Why the almost blind acceptance of things, almost anything that is done? Where are the idealistic youth? Their future is at stake, so many, many issues, yet, where are they? Why the banket of almost deafening silence? It scares me.

have you read...
anything written by Michelle Obama? she is truly a racist. Your remarks about her scare me. Make sure you are truly informed. John McCain is a down-to-earth person who would do well in office, but the reality is no president can make the changes outlined above. It takes all the members of the house and senate to begin to make change, not just one man.

Where can we read about this? TIA - nm

can't read and can't

recognize inappropriate behavior in temprament. Oy.

Read it before....
....Opinion section can state anything they want to, and so can you.

So can I.

Seems to me, though, are those three tiny words by Gov. Palin, that are given very little credence here:

"Hold me accountable."

I kinda have the feeling that she doesn't have much to hide here, having read other parts of this story before too.

So bring it on.

I have the feeling that Gov. Palin will come out on top.

And you believe everything you read on the net?
XO

Have you read it? nm
nm

We both must have read something different....sm
Quotes from the first article:

Charity's Political Divide

Republicans give a bigger share of their incomes to charity, says a prominent economist

In Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism (Basic Books), Arthur C. Brooks finds that religious conservatives are far more charitable than secular liberals, and that those who support the idea that government should redistribute income are among the least likely to dig into their own wallets to help others.

Mr. Brooks agreed that he needed to tackle politics. He writes that households headed by a conservative give roughly 30 percent more to charity each year than households headed by a liberal, despite the fact that the liberal families on average earn slightly more.

Most of the difference in giving among conservatives and liberals gets back to religion. Religious liberals give nearly as much as religious conservatives, Mr. Brooks found. And secular conservatives are even less generous than secular liberals.

Well if you read, why do we have to? nm
nm

Then you don't read enough.
nm

Should read 8 above - nm
x

when I read the first one
I was flying to Arizona to visit my daughter. In the book the setting is on an airplane (one of the main characters is the pilot). Suddenly half the people on the plane are gone and all that is left is a little pile of their clothing on the seat when they had been sitting before being raptured. I had to take a quick look around to make sure all the passengers were still on board! But do try to read at least some of it. I think there are now like 10 books in the series but within the first couple you will know when I am talking about. I believe they have a web site and I know the first 2 were made into movies.

Not what I said. Read it again. am
I said/meant collectively, the hardworking/undereducated/less intelligent/mentally or physically disabled/, any of the above, the poor and middle class.

Did you even read what I said?
A. Lincoln: " It is better to be silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt."