He/she passed first lesson - lie.
Posted By: Bush would have loved this one. on 2009-04-24
In Reply to: JTBB wrote 7 lines, you say she conflated them into - give me a break!!!
NM
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
I could take a lesson from you in cut and paste perhaps....
.
Thanks for the geography lesson. nm
nm.
You could take a lesson from your last four words.
Sarah Palin has infintely more class that you exhibited.
Pub lesson on how to win friends and
This must be some sort of new maverick style of reaching across the aisle and getting that bipartisan cooperation Americans are so anxious to see again...he just left out the part about looking at his opponents down two barrels of a shotgun.
Thank you for the history lesson!
That was hilarious! Especially the girlie-man part - boy, do I know some of those liberals! =)
I don't need a history lesson
I majored in it in college. I know there's discrimination and I know there are people who will discriminate in this election - either for or against Obama. But I think it's just a shame that you think Democrats are all above this. I live in a pretty hick town in southeastern Ohio where there are MANY Democrats who are voting McCain simply because they won't vote for a black man, plain and simple. And if you think that southeastern Ohio is the only place this kind of mentallity is, you'd be wrong. Discrimination is a terrible thing, but don't think it's just a Republican thing.
We need to do a little history lesson
Israel DID create the situation. Gaza is landlocked on all it's borders by Israel. They are not allowed in and out. Dr. Ron Paul had made a comment about concentration camp state; that is accurate. They have no means to get supplies in and out. A lack of supplies doesn't meant the leaders are starving their people. Supply and demand. Simply economics. Those who can afford things get them. That wouldn't be the case if the market was allowed to flow within Gaza, but that will never happen because as of now Israel has them in a full nelson and at their mercy. Mercy isn't something Israel abounds with. Barely anything is allowed in, so the supply is small. That lack of food you talk about to feed families isn't the fault of the leaders. Demand is high, supply is low, so yes, the rich SOBs running the joint will do what rich people do -- buy what they can afford because no one else can.
Hamas was created by Israel as a counter to the PLO. Much like we go about the world creating little counter-revolutions everywhere, so does Israel in the middle east. They create groups to do their bidding, using useful idiots who might actually BE extremists or just idealistic people, then when the group deteriorates away from their original purpose, Israel doesn't like that and starts crying that they're being persecuted by everyone around them. Poor little Israel can't get a break. Always getting pushed around by the big mean Arabs. Yeah, the Arabs with AK-47s that are 50 years old. You know, the same Israel who would just assume firebomb entire neighborhoods, killing anything and everything around. Mossad is active in every country in the world in the same fashion that the CIA is. Slapping around a bee's nest only invites them to sting you to death. That's what's occuring.
Hamas has eventually become a tool of the people around and has been elected into governments. Israel doesn't like that. It's a threat to their tyranny.
Extremism exists on all sides. Not just the poor idiots that get talked into blowing themselves up. Zionism has been a blight that has existed for generations and will continue to exist as an excuse to kill millions of innocent people in the name of God.
Thanks for the lesson on the constitution, however ...
There are TWO fundamental flaws in your premise.
1) The provision for Congress to declare War is for the purpose of STARTING a war where none exists. If "the other guy" starts one, no such declaration is needed nor appropriate. For example, if Canada invades, guess what? We're at war with Canada and Congress need not legislate to determine if this reality in fact exists. That is applicable to the present because SADDAM started a war in 1991 that was never concluded until the 2003 invasion. (There's been a Stability And Support Operation since then).
2) Congress DID declare war against Iraq. (redundantly, since as per #1 above, we already WERE at war.) There is nothing in The Constitution nor US Code that spells out specific language such declaration must utter. The fact that no resolution was passed with the words, "we declare war" or whatever you imagine it has to say, does not alter the inescapable fact they DID expressly vote to use military force against Iraq, specifically authorizing the invasion, in fact. You can claim that's not a declaration of war if you like but no honest person will join you.
The lesson I learned is that Sam has class...you are
3rd grade civic lesson
Posted by Don Rasmussen of CampaignForLiberty. com on 10/30/08
Special thanks to my mom for sending this along.
The most eye-opening civics lesson I ever had was while teaching third grade. The presidential election was heating up and some of the children showed an interest. I decided we would have an election for a class president. We would choose our nominees. They would make a campaign speech and the class would vote.
To simplify the process, candidates were nominated by other class members. We discussed what kinds of characteristics these students should have. We got many nominations and from those, Jamie and Olivia were picked to run for the top spot.
The class had done a great job in their selections. Both candidates were good kids. I thought Jamie might have an advantage because he got lots of parental support. I had never seen Olivia’s mother. The day arrived when they were to make their speeches. Jamie went first. He had specific ideas about how to make our class a better place. He ended by promising to do his very best. Every one applauded. He sat down and Olivia came to the podium. Her speech was concise. She said, “If you will vote for me, I will give you ice cream.” She sat down. The class went wild. “Yes! Yes! We want ice cream.
”
She surely would say more. She did not have to. A discussion followed. How did she plan to pay for the ice cream? She wasn’t sure. Would her parents buy it or would the class pay for it. She didn’t know. The class really didn’t care. All they were thinking about was ice cream. Jamie was forgotten. Olivia won by a land slide.
Every time Barack Obama opens his mouth he offers ice cream, and fifty percent of America reacts like nine year olds. They want ice cream. The other fifty percent know they’re going to have to feed the cow.
Recent history lesson....(sm)
Before Prop 8 gay marriage was legal in Calf.....therefore, a RIGHT. Prop 8 took that RIGHT away.
Neither will be passed so they can say
whatever they want. Congress is going to be dangled a big carrot by insurance companies and nothing will change. We need a huge change in insurance practices, that would be a great start. Insurance companies are a joke now, not like they were when you actually had some coverage. We need to start doing something about the cost of healthcare - Does a doctor really need to charge me $100 for a 10-minute exam to tell me that I have a sinus infection. I told them that when I went in and just needed a Rx.
I am a bit jaded on this today as I have been dealing with some insurance/doctor crap lately. Regardless, healthcare costs and insurance practices need the overhaul.
Even if it had passed, it would have been...
voluntary. Bush was smart to at least give us the opportunity to take it away from Congress so they would freakin' STOP borrowing it!! I would much rather they coughed up the total I have put in so I could put it in a CD where Congress would keep its grubby paws off it! And incidentally it was courtesy a Dem controlled congress when the decision was first made to raid social security. But they were going to pay it back they said...yeah right. They chuckled into their armpits like Raines, Gorelick, Howard, and Johnson did when they walked away from Fannie Mae. They made out like bandits and WE are on the hook. Are you real proud of them? They did more harm to our economy that Bush ever THOUGHT about doing.
Yak, yak, yak indeed. If we weren't ALL on the hook I would say it served you Dems right.
It Passed 263 to 171 (nm)
x
It already did - they passed it
x
Just taking a page out of sam's lesson plan.
nm
The lesson here is...not everything people "believe" is correct! (nm)
xx
Learn to spell lesson first before you preach right
--
Only 11 more votes and it would have passed. nm
.
But, the first bailout passed because
the dems had the majority of votes. Am I right or did I lose my mind? DON"T ANSWER THAT QUESTION, PLEASE. LOL
SCHIP Passed
11,000 million children will be covered.
The only problem is...they are raising the cigarette tax to $.61 a pack. According to Glenn Beck, we will need 21,000,000 NEW smokers to cover the program. Kinda ironic....use something that is unhealthy to give coverage to keep the kids healthy.
I don't know what they are thinking. I think the government has their heads in the sand. Every time they tie a new program to smokers, more smokers quit. How are they ever going to cover all these children if another couple thousand people quit smoking?
I absolutely think this program will not work like they think and in a couple years, if not next year, they will be raising taxes on everyone because of the shortfall in the planned coverage.
Sheesh! How did these people ever complete college????? They have no sense.
It passed the Senate........... sm
Now it's on to the House-Senate negotioations. I just hope we can stand this as a nation.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29119293/
Nothing has been passed except the budget. sm
The budget funds Volunteer America, and includes a provision to set up a commission to STUDY whether or not "mandatory volunteerism" should be established. My prediction is that it won't happen.
Budget has NOT been passed yet....sm
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/ny-stbudg0112604697mar31,0,2797230.story
It's about to be passed people!!!
Democrats have apparently reached an agreement to move forward with a House vote on the huge cap-and-trade energy tax known as Waxman-Markey this week.
The monstrous bill has already grown from the 946-page version passed by the House Energy and Commerce Committee to an even-heftier 1201-page version released by House Democratic leadership last night.
And they aren't done yet. Negotiations continue between Pelosi and her ally, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (both D-Calif.) on one side and House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) on the other.
The apparent breakthrough, which paves the way for a floor vote on Friday or Saturday, is a big giveaway for rural electric co-ops -- a big Peterson priority. Peterson may also extract other big-ticket concessions before a vote happens on the House floor. And why not? What's a few billion dollars between friends when you have a multi-trillion-dollar energy tax hike to divvy up?
That's what's so outrageous about this whole process. Cap-and-trade imposes massive new hidden energy taxes on American consumers. The taxes are hidden in higher prices for gasoline, electricity, and every product in the economy that's grown, shipped, or manufactured. All the revenue, the last estimate from the Congressional Budget Office has the pot at $846 billion over just the first 8 years, so it will clearly be many trillions over the 38-year duration of the program goes into a big pot that politicians can use to buy off opposition and advance other big-government objectives.
Senator Barbara Boxer, the biggest Senate proponent of cap-and-trade and the one who will dole out the billions of dollars on the Senate side if the bill makes it through the House, candidly explained how this works a couple of weeks ago:
There's so much revenue that comes in from a cap-and-trade system that you can really go to a person in a congressional district and get enough votes there by saying, "What do you need? What do you want? You can really help them."
This disastrous bill, which will send energy prices skyrocketing while having no discernible impact on global average temperature will only get worse as even more special interests are bought off at the expense of taxpayers. It's a scam, an enormous tax-and-spend bill concealed in a cloak of green political correctness. The real purpose of the plan is to dramatically enhance the power of Washington politicians by giving them control over vast swaths of the U.S. economy.
Think of this as the death blow for our already teetering rule of law and free market economy. Just as we've seen politicians make arbitrary decisions in banking and the automobile industry, this new central planning of energy will let them exercise similar control over all aspects of the U.S. economy. This type of control, while perhaps well-intentioned, we saw in the 20th century inevitably fails and often leads to despotism.
The outcome in the House is still in doubt. House Blue Dog chairwoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-S.D.) said in an interview with Energy and Environment Daily last week that Blue Dogs will not vote for the bill if it's brought up this week. She said:
"Many will insist that we have a number of days to review the language ourselves, to have back and forth with our constituencies and stakeholder groups, to understand how the system with a significant manager's amendment will work. Yes, absolutely, we need to chew on this awhile."
Obviously, Nancy Pelosi is ignoring the concerns of the Blue Dogs, and of all the Democrats from Middle America whose constituents will be slammed with vastly higher energy prices under the plan. Constituents who don't share the smug self-satisfaction that coastal elites will enjoy, that warm, green feeling that's supposed to make it all worthwhile.
If these so-called moderate Democrats fall in line behind the radical leadership of Nancy Pelosi and Henry Waxman, if they vote for a cap-and-trade tax that President Obama famously said will cause energy prices to necessarily skyrocket, they will expose themselves as radical leftists and out of touch with their districts.
Every American who cares about affordable energy and economic freedom needs to contact his or her member of Congress before this vote and demand a no vote on cap-and-trade. The House switchboard is 202-225-3121 or you can use this form on the AFP web site. If they vote for this, they deserve the full political consequences.
Dissent during WWII - A history lesson the right forgot....sm
Dissent during WWII - A history lesson the right forgot.
Posted by ChrisSal on Wednesday June 28, 2006 at 3:04 pm MST [ Send Story to Friend ]
One of the right’s favorite things to do is to compare the Iraq invasion to WWII and Saddam Hussein to Adolph Hitler. They claim that anyone who opposes the war is an appeaser, a terrorist sympathizer, or a traitor. This rhetoric is absolutely laughable not only because it is a huge stretch, but also because Republicans have obviously forgotten their own history.
Following the rejection of the League of Nations treaty in 1919, America developed a strong isolationist foreign policy. This was, perhaps, in response to the expansionist policies put in place by Teddy Roosevelt and the abject horror experienced in WWI. The citizenry wanted nothing more to do with sending its men to fight in foreign conflicts.
However, in 1935 Italy invaded Abyssina, which provided the first real test of America’s isolationist foreign policy. Congress passed the Neutrality Act, applying a mandatory ban on the shipment of arms from the U.S. to any combatant nation. FDR vehemently opposed the bill, but signed it under intense Congressional and public pressure. Two years later, Japan invaded China starting the Sino-Japanese war. As China was our ally and public opinion was favorable, FDR found ways to circumvent the Neutrality Act and assist China. Another two years later Germany invaded Czechoslovakia and began their conquest of Europe.
In May 1940 Germany overran the low countries, which left Britain open to invasion. By the end of 1940, Britain was financially ruined and the isolationist support was beginning to rapidly erode. 1941 brought about the Lend-Lease act and a more aggressive US posture in the Atlantic. Some claim, with some validity, that FDR provoked both Germany, with the US Naval presence in the Atlantic, and Japan, with support to China and crippling embargoes, particularly the oil embargo, into war. For the purpose of this discussion, that is neither here nor there.
As it became more apparent that the US involvement in WWII was going to deepen, a group named ‘America First’ organized to put pressure on FDR to keep America out of the war. “America First” garnered the support of people from across all shades of the political spectrum, but it was the GOP, who hated FDR and everything he did, that started the ball rolling. Twelve days after Pearl Harbor, Sen. Taft (R-OH) gave a speech to the Executive Club in Chicago. He railed against US intervention into WWII and spoke on the need for dissent, particularly during wartime.
As a matter of general principle, I believe there can be no doubt that criticism in time of war is essential to the maintenance of any kind of democratic government ... too many people desire to suppress criticism simply because they think that it will give some comfort to the enemy to know that there is such criticism. If that comfort makes the enemy feel better for a few moments, they are welcome to it as far as I am concerned, because the maintenance of the right of criticism in the long run will do the country maintaining it a great deal more good than it will do the enemy, and will prevent mistakes which might otherwise occur. - Sen. Taft (R-OH) December 19, 1942
So, the next time a rabid right winger claims that opposition to the war is unpatriotic and treasonous, remind them that as Germany rolled through Europe, Japan rolled through the Pacific, and before the fires of Pearl Harbor were extinguished it was conservative Republicans that took the lead in opposing FDR and the American entry into WWII.
A civics lesson in the Constitution of the United States
Our country's highest governing document, The Constitution, has been our guiding light throughout most of this country's history and has provided protection and equal treatment of the citizens of this country for over 200 years. Now, some people are saying that it needs to be changed, amended or done away with because it is "old-fashioned" and out of date. What I think these people want done away with is just the parts that they don't find fits their particular needs or desires at the moment, in particular, it would seem, the 14th Amendment and its definition of who is a natural citizen of this country and eligible to run for the office of President of the United States.
Let's look at the constitutional requirements for President of the United States, the 14th Amendment which further defines a natural citizen and the law which fills in the gaps and makes the explanation whole and more easily understood.
Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?
The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"
- Anyone born inside the United States
- Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
- Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
- Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
- Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
- Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
- Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
- A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.
Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such as Puerto Rico (8 USC 1402), Alaska (8 USC 1404), Hawaii (8 USC 1405), the U.S. Virgin Islands (8 USC 1406), and Guam (8 USC 1407). Each of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date, and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date. For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952). Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States. Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive.
The law contains one other section of historical note, concerning the Panama Canal Zone and the nation of Panama. In 8 USC 1403, the law states that anyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother and/or father who is a United States citizen, was "declared" to be a United States citizen. Note that the terms "natural-born" or "citizen at birth" are missing from this section.
Some have theorized that because John McCain was born in the Canal Zone, he was not actually qualified to be president. However, it should be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply. McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(c): "a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person." Not eveyone agrees that this section includes McCain - but absent a court ruling either way, we must presume citizenship.
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html
If one group of people who want to see Obama in office manage to do away with the 14th Amendment, then what is to keep another faction of people from doing away with any of the other constitutions? The Constitutions, its Amendments and Articles were put in place not to oppress the American people but to protect them and their rights and freedoms. What if all the men in the country decided they wanted to do away with the 19th Amendment? I bet we would see some really mad women in this country. Or how about doing away with the 22nd Amendment which limits the number of terms that a President can serve? Can we say "dictatorship?"
I'm afraid my history lesson disqualifies your argument.
be a smartass and ask what has changed since his statement. I simply stated the obvious answer. What has changed is his MIND. If he didn't feel qualified, he would not have run. Evidently, 65,431,955 citizens agreed with this chane of heart. You cannot argue away the fact that GREAT presidents have held office with much less experience than Obama...and I look for him to be adding his name to that list of the BEST our country has to offer in short order.
Exactly...well, they did manage to write and get passed...
one piece of legislation...the "reform" bill that was supposed to straighten out Fannie/Freddie...instead was the straw that broke the camel's back...forced them to offer those floating rate mortgages to low and moderate income people and the creditworthiness of said people was not to be an issue. The floating rates went UP, and a bazillion people went into foreclosure, and if the Bush admin had not stepped in and taken over, the economy could very well have collapsed. The "reform" bill, plus the crooked Dems at the top of Fannie/Freddie, just about did us in this time. Other than that piece of legislation, they have not done a blessed thing in the year they have been in charge. That is why their approval rating is in the tank.
He has already passed these tests. Get real. nm
.
The Dems could've passed this last wk. sm
They had the votes before they started. They hoped to use the Rs to help this disaster, who got shut out at the end of this thanks to Pelosi, who has no control over her caucus, anyway. The drivebys won't report this.
Second, many Dems are scared ** about not getting elected again. Other Dems waited until the very end of voting to cast their vote to play the game to win both ways. Mine, for ex., is all for this mess, but has been saying how he'll vote it down. That's b/c he's got a strong opponent and he can't afford something this risky.
Think of it this way. You have surgery to repair your left leg and the doc cuts off your right one instead. So you go back to the same doc who screwed it up to fix it. That's exactly what you have here. You wouldn't do this in your private life, so why would it be okay for those on The Hill to behave in the same way?
Their Oct. surprise failed (for now).
Just a few more votes on their part would have passed it. nm
.
Kentucky just passed a 6% tax on liquor and
raised tax on cigarettes another 30 cents on a pack.
Another new bill passed today. sm
Link below. Comments about the earmarks in the article.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090225/ap_on_go_co/congress_spending
time is passed for placing blame
It is time to stop placing blame and time to start looking for the solutions. The finger pointing is not constructive. No one is going to agree on it and it is not going to change. It is time for constructive efforts NOW.
So...how's "cap & trade" like the House just passed
Here's an eye-opening article:
http://www.aim.org/don-irvine-blog/cap-and-trade-woes-in-europe/
So enlighten us, I love to learn, the past 8 years were a hard lesson indeed.....nm
nm
Some states have passed compassionate euthanasia already, Oregon. nm
x
The House just passed the bill??? No wonder the earth was shaking, that was the new crator...sm
 the country is falling into!
States with pending/passed 10th Amendment Sovereignty resolutions. sm
These resolutions are important to prevent the Federal government from usurping State Sovereignty. This is a partial list as other states are jumping on board the last few months. Colorado is one and New Hampshire just failed to get one passed thanks to partisan problems.
To read one of the resolutions, here is a link to one from the state of Arizona:
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/hcr2024p.htm
2009: Arkansas - 9th Amendment, 10th Amendment, Funding Issues
2009: Arizona - 9th Amendment, 10th Amendment
1994: California - 10th Amendment
1995/96: Georgia - 10th Amendment
2009: Georgia - 10th Amendment
2009: Kansas - 10th Amendment
[NEW] 2009: Kentucky - 10th Amendment
1997/98: Louisiana - Sovereignty Constitutional Amendment
2009: Michigan - 10th Amendment
2009: Minnesota - 10th Amendment
2009: Missouri - Freedom of Choice Act (Abortion), 10th Amendment
2009: Montana - 9th Amendment, 10th Amendment, 2nd Amendment
2009: New Hampshire - 9th Amendment, 10th Amendment, Federal Reserve, Taxes, Martial Law, 2nd Amendment, Draft/War, Patriot Act, Labor Camps, 1st Amendment
2008: Oklahoma - 10th Amendment, (Other Legislation: No Child Left Behind, Real ID Act)
2009: Oklahoma - 9th Amendment, 10th Amendment, Funding Issues
2009: South Carolina - 9th Amendment, 10 Amendment, Martial Law and Related, 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment
2009: Tennessee - 10th Amendment
2009: Texas - 9th Amendment, 10th Amendment, Funding Issues
1995: Utah [Number: HJR003, Session: 1995] - 10th Amendment
2009: Utah - Real ID Act
2009: Washington - 10th Amendment
|
