How long a truce?
Posted By: gt on 2005-09-18
In Reply to: This is no contest. We called a truce last night. - sm
Okay, lets see how long your ************ truce********* lasts, LOLOL..Humor me..Lets read your posts under a ********truce******..Wanna bet how long they will last from you one of the Queens of Judgment?? Can I call your arse to task when you step off your ******* truce*******..You bet I will..So, honey, keep posting good posts, debate posts and you will be **in**, jump off that and your arse is fried..
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
Truce? Not in my eyes
SM, I have not called a truce with you..just because another liberal has..she/he has every right to but not I..you have repeatedly over a few months attacked me personally and ideologically..you have started off debating and then after a few posts of debate have attacked me..I want nothing to do with you..a truce? For how long a day? and then you will start to attack again? Give me a break..There were many times you posted here and the posts were genuine, I thought, and then before you knew it..you could not stand it..the other poster was getting to you..so you would attack like a mad dog..like a fool and attack personally..I dont trust you..frankly, I dont like you..go back to the conservative board where you can attack liberal ideology and pat each other on the back, cause you cant handle really true debate with ideologies other than your own, your previous posts prove it..The only way you could prove to me you want a ****truce**** is to post a few posts that are not attacking and understanding that ALL AMERICANS HAVE A RIGHT TO DIFFERENCE IN OPINION AND DIFFERENT IDEOLOGIES AND NOT ALL BELIEVE IN CONSERVATIVE VIEWS AND YOU STILL RESPECT THEM AS AMERICANS..I dont think you can do it..You dont have it in you..You are obsessed with changing peoples opinions and ideologies and it isnt gonna happen, not through attacks and hateful posts, as you have done..
Your post below about the truce says you can't
speak for other conservatives. Yet in your post above you feel you can speak for and control other liberals. You and all the voices in your head could hurt someone someday. Please. Get help before it's too late.
There was a truce. Hamas broke it and sent
nm
Add 3 more to the nameless troll category. So much for a truce. nm
YOU BROKE THE TRUCE, YOU FRIGGING MORON!
In case you're not aware, you are on the LIBERAL BOARD. How can she blow a truce if she is on the LIBERAL BOARD, not visiting the conservative board, but YOU REFUSE TO LEAVE THE LIBERAL BOARD? YOU ARE THE ONE WHO IS BREAKING THE TRUCE, YOU IDIOT.
As far as being respectful, you simply don't know the meaning of the word.
This is no contest. We called a truce last night.
And I respected that until gt attacked me for no reason. But you are too busy gloating over some silly game you are playing to realize that something was actually accomplished here last night. I don't respect your game. I was pointing out that your silly game actually caused harm. But far be it from a roach to teach you anything. By the way, roaches have been around since the beginning of time, are remarkably resilient and adaptive creatures and have managed to survive despite eons of attempt at extermination. I would hardly call them weak.
Oops. This should be posted under "Thre was a truce."
Sorry.
In case you didn't notice, gt, we called a truce, which you just blew. sm
I have been off this board a long time and was just discussing with another poster here calling a truce and I was VERY respectful in these posts, but, of course, you had to start up again. To the other poster who I made the truce with, can you see now why there can never be a truce here?
You'll be waiting a long, long time, then, cuz she's going to do
He died a long, long time ago! (If he was ever
Don't force your beliefs on others. It further devalues your faith in the eyes of others.
how long
back and forth through my working day about 20 minutes or less.
Very long and quite sad
At least she got to go home to Ireland.
The Sunday Times October 09, 2005
Ireland: I wanted to slap him
George W Bush was so upset by Carole Coleman’s White House interview that an official complaint was lodged with the Irish embassy. The RTE journalist explains why the president made her blood boil
With just minutes to go to my interview with George W Bush, I was escorted to the White House library, where a staff member gave instructions on how to greet the president: “He’ll be coming in the door behind you, just stand up, turn around and extend your hand.”
I placed my notes on the coffee table, someone attached a microphone to my lapel, and I waited. The two chairs by the fireplace where the president and I would sit were at least six feet apart; clearly I would not be getting too close to him.
*
The room was well-lit, providing the kind of warm background conducive to a fireside chat. Several people had crowded in behind me. I counted five members of the White House film crew, there was a stenographer sitting in the corner and three or four security staff. I was still counting them when someone spoke. “He’s coming.”
I stood up, turned around to face the door and seconds later the president strode towards me. Bush appeared shorter than on camera and he looked stern and rather grey that day.
“Thanks for comin’, Mr President” I said, sticking out my hand. I had borrowed this greeting directly from him. When Bush made a speech at a rally or town hall, he always began by saying “Thanks for comin’” in his man-of-the-people manner. If he detected the humour in my greeting, he didn’t let on. He took my hand with a firm grip and, bringing his face right up close to mine, stared me straight in the eyes for several seconds, as though drinking in every detail of my face. He sat down and an aide attached a microphone to his jacket.
Nobody said a word. “We don’t address the president unless he speaks first,” a member of the film crew had told me earlier. The resulting silence seemed odd and discomforting, so I broke it. “How has your day been, Mr President?” Without looking up at me, he continued to straighten his tie and replied in a strong Texan drawl, “Very busy.”
This was followed by an even more disconcerting silence that, compounded by the six feet separating us, made it difficult to establish any rapport.
“Will Mrs Bush be seeing any of our beautiful country?” I tried again, attempting to warm things up by adding that I had heard that the taoiseach would be keeping him too busy for sightseeing on his forthcoming trip to Ireland.
“He’s putting me to work, is he? Have you not interviewed Laura?” “No, I haven’t met your wife.” I suggested that he put in a good word for me. He chuckled. By now he seemed settled and the crew looked ready, but still nobody spoke. I was beginning to worry that the clock may have already started on my 10 minutes.
“Are we all ready to go then?” I asked, looking around the room. The next voice I heard was the president’s. “I think we have a spunky one here,” he said, to nobody in particular.
MC, a White House press officer whom I’ve decided not to identify, had phoned me three days earlier to say that President Bush would do an interview with RTE. “Good news,” she had said. “It goes this Thursday at 4.20pm. You will have 10 minutes with the president and Turkish television will talk to him just before you.”
My initial excitement was dampened only by the timing, much later than I had hoped. The interview would take place just three hours before I was to fly back to Ireland to cover his arrival at the EU summit at Dromoland Castle in Clare and just 15 minutes before the start of RTE’s Prime Time programme on which the interview would be broadcast. It would be practically impossible to have the president on air in time for this.
“That’s fabulous,” I gushed, “but is there any way I could go before the Turks?” I had previously explained about the Prime Time programme, so MC knew the situation. “I’ll look into it,” she offered.
The interview sounded like quite a production. We wouldn’t be able to just saunter in there with a camera. It would be filmed by a White House crew, which would then hand over the tapes to me to be copied and returned the same day.
MC asked me for a list of questions and topics, which she said was required for policy purposes in case I should want to ask something that the president needed to be briefed on. The request did not seem odd to me then. The drill had been exactly the same for an interview I had conducted six months earlier with the then secretary of state, Colin Powell.
“What would you ask the president of the United States?” I enquired of everyone I met in the following days. Ideas had already been scribbled on scattered notepads in my bedroom, on scraps of paper in my handbag and on my desk, but once the date was confirmed, I mined suggestions from my peers in RTE and from foreign policy analysts. I grilled my friends in Washington and even pestered cab drivers. After turning everything over in my head, I settled on a list of 10 questions.
Securing a time swap with Turkish television ensured that I saw the president 10 minutes earlier, but there was still less than half an hour to bring the taped interview to the production place four blocks away in time for Prime Time.
Still, with the arrangements starting to fall into place, the sense of chaos receded and I returned to the questions, which by now were perpetually dancing around my head, even in my sleep. Reporters often begin a big interview by asking a soft question — to let the subject warm up before getting into the substance of the topic at hand. This was how I had initially intended to begin with Bush, but as I mentally rehearsed the likely scenario, I felt that too much time could be consumed by his first probable answer, praising Ireland and looking forward to his visit. We could, I had calculated, be into the third minute before even getting to the controversial topics. I decided to ditch the cordial introduction.The majority of the Irish public, as far as I could tell, was angry with Bush and did not want to hear a cosy fireside chat in the middle of the most disputed war since Vietnam. Instead of the kid-glove start, I would get down to business.
*
On Thursday June 24, Washington DC was bathed in a moist 90-degree heat, the type that makes you perspire all over after you have walked only two blocks. Stephanie and I arrived at the northwest gate of the White House that afternoon, and were directed to the Old Executive Office building, Vice President Dick Cheney’s headquarters, and were introduced to MC, whom I had spoken to only by phone. An elegant and confident woman, she was the cut of CJ, the feisty White House press secretary on The West Wing television drama.
A younger male sidekick named Colby stood close by nodding at everything she said and interjecting with a few comments of his own every now and then. Colby suggested that I ask the president about the yellow suit the taoiseach had worn the previous week at the G8 Summit on Sea Island in Georgia. I laughed loudly and then stopped to study his face for signs that he was joking — but he didn’t appear to be. “The president has a good comment on that,” he said.
The taoiseach’s suit had been a shade of cream, according to the Irish embassy. But alongside the other more conservatively dressed leaders, it had appeared as a bright yellow, leaving our Bertie looking more like the lead singer in a band than the official representative of the European Union. It was amusing at the time, but I was not about to raise a yellow suit with the president. “Really?” I asked politely. But a little red flag went up inside my head.
Then MC announced that she had some news for me. “There may be another interview in the pipeline for you,” she said.
“Me?”
“We’re not supposed to tell you this yet, but we are trying to set up an interview with the first lady.”
She indicated that the White House had already been in contact with RTE to make arrangements for the interview at Dromoland Castle, where the president and Mrs Bush would be staying. As an admirer of Laura Bush’s cool grace and sharp intellect, I had requested interviews with her several times previously without any reply. Now the first lady of the United States was being handed to me on a plate. I could not believe my luck.
“Of course, it’s not certain yet,” MC added. And then her sidekick dropped his second bombshell. “We’ll see how you get on with the president first.”
I’m sure I continued smiling, but I was stunned. What I understood from this was that if I pleased the White House with my questioning of the president, I would get to interview the first lady. Were they trying to ensure a soft ride for the president, or was I the new flavour of the month with the first family?
“I’m going to give the president his final briefing. Are there any further questions you want to pass on to him?” MC asked.
“No,” I said, “just tell him I want to chat.”
Stephanie and I locked eyes and headed for the ladies’ powder room, where we prayed.
Mr President,” I began. “You will arrive in Ireland in less than 24 hours’ time. While our political leaders will welcome you, unfortunately the majority of our people will not. They are annoyed about the war in Iraq and about Abu Ghraib. Are you bothered by what Irish people think?”
The president was reclining in his seat and had a half-smile on his face, a smile I had often seen when he had to deal with something he would rather not.
“Listen. I hope the Irish people understand the great values of our country. And if they think that a few soldiers represent the entirety of America, they don’t really understand America then . . . We are a compassionate country. We’re a strong country, and we’ll defend ourselves. But we help people. And we’ve helped the Irish and we’ll continue to do so. We’ve got a good relationship with Ireland.”
“And they are angry over Iraq as well and particularly the continuing death toll there,” I added, moving him on to the war that had claimed 100 Iraqi lives that very day. He continued to smile, but just barely.
“Well, I can understand that. People don’t like war. But what they should be angry about is the fact that there was a brutal dictator there that had destroyed lives and put them in mass graves and torture rooms . . . Look, Saddam Hussein had used weapons of mass destruction against his own people, against the neighbourhood. He was a brutal dictator who posed a threat that the United Nations voted unanimously to say, Mr Saddam Hussein . . .”
Having noted the tone of my questions, the president had now sat forward in his chair and had become animated, gesturing with his hands for emphasis. But as I listened to the history of Saddam Hussein and the weapons inspectors and the UN resolutions, my heart was sinking. He was resorting to the type of meandering stock answer I had heard scores of times and had hoped to avoid. Going back over this old ground could take two or three minutes and allow him to keep talking without dealing with the current state of the war. It was a filibuster of sorts. If I didn’t challenge him, the interview would be a wasted opportunity.
“But, Mr President, you didn’t find any weapons,” I interjected.
“Let me finish, let me finish. May I finish?”
With his hand raised, he requested that I stop speaking. He paused and looked me straight in the eye to make sure I had got the message. He wanted to continue, so I backed off and he went on. “The United Nations said, ‘Disarm or face serious consequences’. That’s what the United Nations said. And guess what? He didn’t disarm. He didn’t disclose his arms. And therefore he faced serious consequences. But we have found a capacity for him to make a weapon. See, he had the capacity to make weapons . . .”
I was now beginning to feel shut out of this event. He had the floor and he wasn’t letting me dance. My blood was boiling to such a point that I felt like slapping him. But I was dealing with the president of the United States; and he was too far away anyway. I suppose I had been naive to think that he was making himself available to me so I could spar with him or plumb the depths of his thought processes. Sitting there, I knew that I was nobody special and that this was just another opportunity for the president to repeat his mantra. He seemed irked to be faced with someone who wasn’t nodding gravely at him as he was speaking.
“But Mr President,” I interrupted again, “the world is a more dangerous place today. I don’t know whether you can see that or not.”
“Why do you say that?”
“There are terrorist bombings every single day. It’s now a daily event. It wasn’t like that two years ago.”
“What was it like on September 11 2001? It was a . . . there was relative calm, we . . .”
“But it’s your response to Iraq that’s considered . . .”
“Let me finish. Let me finish. Please. You ask the questions and I’ll answer them, if you don’t mind.”
His hand was raised again as if to indicate that he was not going to tolerate this. Again, I felt I had no choice but to keep quiet.
“On September 11 2001, we were attacked in an unprovoked fashion. Everybody thought the world was calm. There have been bombings since then — not because of my response to Iraq. There were bombings in Madrid, there were bombings in Istanbul. There were bombings in Bali. There were killings in Pakistan.”
He seemed to be finished, so I took a deep breath and tried once again. So far, facial expressions were defining this interview as much as anything that was said, so I focused on looking as if I was genuinely trying to fathom him.
“Indeed, Mr President, and I think Irish people understand that. But I think there is a feeling that the world has become a more dangerous place because you have taken the focus off Al-Qaeda and diverted into Iraq. Do you not see that the world is a more dangerous place? I saw four of your soldiers lying dead on the television the other day, a picture of four soldiers just lying there without their flak jackets.”
“Listen, nobody cares more about death than I do . . .”
“Is there a point or place . . .”
“Let me finish. Please. Let me finish, and then you can follow up, if you don’t mind.”
By now he was getting used to the rhythm of this interview and didn’t seem quite so taken aback by my attempt to take control of it. “Nobody cares more about death than I do. I care a lot about it. But I do believe the world is a safer place and becoming a safer place. I know that a free Iraq is going to be a necessary part of changing the world.”
The president seemed to be talking more openly now and from the heart rather than from a script. The history lesson on Saddam was over. “Listen, people join terrorist organisations because there’s no hope and there’s no chance to raise their families in a peaceful world where there is not freedom. And so the idea is to promote freedom and at the same time protect our security. And I do believe the world is becoming a better place, absolutely.”
I could not tell how much time had elapsed, maybe five or six minutes, so I moved quickly on to the question I most wanted to ask George Bush in person.
“Mr President, you are a man who has a great faith in God. I’ve heard you say many times that you strive to serve somebody greater than yourself.”
“Right.”
“Do you believe that the hand of God is guiding you in this war on terror?”
This question had been on my mind ever since September 11, when Bush began to invoke God in his speeches. He spoke as if he believed that his job of stewarding America through the attacks and beyond was somehow preordained, that he had been chosen for this role. He closed his eyes as he began to answer.
“Listen, I think that God . . . that my relationship with God is a very personal relationship. And I turn to the Good Lord for strength. I turn to the Good Lord for guidance. I turn to the Good Lord for forgiveness. But the God I know is not one that . . . the God I know is one that promotes peace and freedom. But I get great sustenance from my personal relationship.”
He sat forward again. “That doesn’t make me think I’m a better person than you are, by the way. Because one of the great admonitions in the Good Book is, ‘Don’t try to take a speck out of your eye if I’ve got a log in my own’.”
I suspected that he was also telling me that I should not judge him.
I switched to Ireland again and to the controversy then raging over the Irish government’s decision to allow the use of Shannon Airport for the transport of soldiers and weapons to the Gulf.
“You are going to meet Bertie Ahern when you arrive at Shannon Airport tomorrow. I guess he went out on a limb for you, presumably because of the great friendship between our two countries. Can you look him in the eye when you get there and say, ‘It will be worth it, it will work out’?”
“Absolutely. I wouldn’t be doing this, I wouldn’t have made the decision I did if I didn’t think the world would be better.”
I felt that the President had now become personally involved in this interview, even quoting a Bible passage, so I made one more stab at trying to get inside his head.
“Why is it that others don’t understand what you are about?”
He shrugged. “I don’t know. History will judge what I’m about.”
I could not remember my next question. My mind had gone completely blank. The president had not removed me from his gaze since we had begun and I wanted to keep up the eye contact.
If I diverted to my notes on the table beside me, he would know he had flustered me. For what seemed like an eternity, but probably no more than two seconds, I stared at him, searching his eyes for inspiration. It finally came.
“Can I just turn to the Middle East?”
“Sure.”
He talked about his personal commitment to solving that conflict. As he did so, I could see one of the White House crew signalling for me to wrap up the interview, but the president was in full flight.
“Like Iraq, the Palestinian and the Israeli issue is going to require good security measures,” he said.
Now out of time, I was fully aware that another question was pushing it, but I would never be here again and I had spent four years covering an administration that appeared to favour Israel at every turn.
“And perhaps a bit more even-handedness from America?” I asked, though it came out more as a comment.
The president did not see the look of horror on the faces of his staff as he began to defend his stance. “I’m the first president to have called for a Palestinian state. That to me sounds like a reasonable and balanced approach. I will not allow terrorists determine the fate, as best I can, of people who want to be free.”
Hands were signalling furiously now for me to end the interview.
“Mr President, thank you very much.”
“You’re welcome,” he replied, still half-smiling and half-frowning.
It was over. I felt like a delinquent child who had been reprimanded by a stern, unwavering father. My face must have been the same colour as my suit. Yet I also knew that we had discussed some important issues — probably more candidly than I had heard from President Bush in some time.
I was removing my microphone when he addressed me.
“Is that how you do it in Ireland — interrupting people all the time?”
I froze. He was not happy with me and was letting me know it.
“Yes,” I stuttered, determined to maintain my own half-smile.
I was aching to get out of there for a breath of air when I remembered that I had earlier discussed with staff the possibility of having my picture taken with the president. I had been told that, when the interview was over, I could stand up with him and the White House photographer would snap a picture. Not wanting to waste the opportunity, I stood up and asked him to join me.
“Oh, she wants the photograph now,” he said from his still-seated position. He rose, stood beside me and put an arm around my shoulder. Taking his cue, I put an arm up around his shoulder and we both grinned for the cameras.
In my haste to leave I almost forgot the tapes and had to be reminded by the film crew to take them. I and my assistants bolted out to the street. We ran, high heels and all, across Lafayette Park. Running through rush-hour traffic, I thought that this had to be about as crazy as a journalist’s job gets.
I had just been admonished by the president of the United States and now I was turning cartwheels in order to get the interview on air. As I dashed past a waste bin, I had a fleeting urge to throw in the tapes and run home instead.
At the studio I handed over the tapes. My phone rang. It was MC, and her voice was cold.
“We just want to say how disappointed we are in the way you conducted the interview,” she said.
“How is that?” I asked.
“You talked over the president, not letting him finish his answers.”
“Oh, I was just moving him on,” I said, explaining that I wanted some new insight from him, not two-year-old answers.
“He did give you plenty of new stuff.”
She estimated that I had interrupted the president eight times and added that I had upset him. I was upset too, I told her. The line started to break up; I was in a basement with a bad phone signal. I took her number and agreed to call her back. I dialled the White House number and she was on the line again.
“I’m here with Colby,” she indicated.
“Right.”
“You were given an opportunity to interview the leader of the free world and you blew it,” she began.
I was beginning to feel as if I might be dreaming. I had naively believed the American president was referred to as the “leader of the free world” only in an unofficial tongue-in-cheek sort of way by outsiders, and not among his closest staff.
“You were more vicious than any of the White House press corps or even some of them up on Capitol Hill . . .The president leads the interview,” she said.
“I don’t agree,” I replied, my initial worry now turning to frustration. “It’s the journalist’s job to lead the interview.”
It was suggested that perhaps I could edit the tapes to take out the interruptions, but I made it clear that this would not be possible.
As the conversation progressed, I learnt that I might find it difficult to secure further co-operation from the White House. A man’s voice then came on the line. Colby, I assumed. “And, it goes without saying, you can forget about the interview with Laura Bush.”
Clearly the White House had thought they would be dealing with an Irish “colleen” bowled over by the opportunity to interview the Bushes. If anyone there had done their research on RTE’s interviewing techniques, they might have known better.
MC also indicated that she would be contacting the Irish Embassy in Washington — in other words, an official complaint from Washington to Dublin.
“I don’t know how we are going to repair this relationship, but have a safe trip back to Ireland,” MC concluded. I told her I had not meant to upset her since she had been more than helpful to me. The conversation ended.
By the time I got to the control room, the Prime Time broadcast had just started. It was at the point of the first confrontation with the “leader of the free world” and those gathered around the monitors were glued to it. “Well done,” someone said. “This is great.”
I thought about the interview again as I climbed up the steps to RTE’s live camera position at Dromoland Castle to account for myself on the 6pm news next day. By now the White House had vented its anger to the Irish embassy in Washington. To make matters worse for the administration, the interview had made its way onto American television and CNN was replaying it around the world and by the end of the day it had been aired in Baghdad.
Had I been fair? Should I just have been more deferential to George Bush? I felt that I had simply done my job and shuddered at the thought of the backlash I would surely have faced in Ireland had I not challenged the president on matters that had changed the way America was viewed around the world.
Afterwards I bumped straight into the taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, who was waiting to go on air.
“Howya,” he said, winking.
“I hope this hasn’t caused you too much hassle, taoiseach,” I blurted.
“Arrah, don’t worry at all; you haven’t caused me one bit of hassle,” he smiled wryly.
I don’t know what he said to the president, who reportedly referred to the interview immediately upon arrival, but if the taoiseach was annoyed with me or with RTE, he didn’t show it.
When I returned to my little world on the street called M in Washington, I felt a tad more conspicuous than when I’d left for Ireland. Google was returning more than 100,000 results on the subject of the 12-minute interview. The vast majority of bloggers felt it was time a reporter had challenged Bush.
At the White House, the fact that I had been asked to submit questions prior to the interview generated enquiries from the American press corps. “Any time a reporter sits down with the president they are welcome to ask him whatever questions they want to ask,” Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, told the CBS correspondent Bill Plante.
“Yes, but that’s beside the point,” replied Plante.
Under repeated questioning, McClellan conceded that other staff members might have asked for questions. “Certainly there will be staff-level discussion, talking about what issues reporters may want to bring up in some of these interviews. I mean that happens all the time.”
I had not been prevented from asking any of my questions. The only topics I had been warned away from were the Bush daughters Jenna and Barbara, regular fodder for the tabloids, and Michael Moore — neither of which was on my list.
Moore did notice RTE’s interview with the president and in the weeks that followed urged American journalists to follow the example of “that Irish woman”.
“In the end, doesn’t it always take the Irish to speak up?” he said. “She’s my hero. Where are the Carole Colemans in the US press?”
© Carole Coleman 2005
BOOK OFFER
This article is extracted from the opening chapter of Alleluia America! by Carole Coleman, to be published by The Liffey Press on October 14 at €14.95.
Okay, as long as....SM
you don't mind you, your loved ones, or someone else's loved ones to be killed BEFORE we take action, we can sit around and see who attacks us next. But then of course, if Saddam had ordered an attack, or slipped the goods to someone to carry that attack out, you would have blamed Bush for not acting on all that intelligence we had before the war. You simply cannot have it both ways. In light of the fact that 3000 people perished in a couple of hours, I'm not afraid to stand behind a president brave enough to stand up to any threat.
What took them so long????
I heard the 34% was down to 29% for Bush and 18% for Cheney. It has taken this complete break down of our government for people to finally see what most of us have known all along. BUSH IS NOT QUALIFIED TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE ROTARY CLUB, LET ALONE THE U.S. The words incompetence and tin ear and arrogance are now coming out of the mouths of the staunchest of Republicans, senators, congressmen, strategists, advisors, etc. And the outright lies are finally coming to light, thanks to videotape. Of course we only have the pre Katrina tape but it shows those who absolutely refused to entertain the thought that his president was anything than honorable is, in fact, just a greedy arrogant politician like so many others. As I said before, time to storm the Bastille and throw them out, the whole sorry lot of them or we can always sell the country to the UAE. They would probably do a better job of running it than this poor excuse for an administration. As Isabel from Florida said on Lou Dobbs the other day, I could run this country better from my kitchen table. I believe her.
that is a long
string of words that is so illogical I just slap my rump and shout hallelujah. Not much more can be done other than that.
so as long as you don;t have to
pay for other people's children . . . you're okay with teenagers raising babies.
I come from a long
line of Twaddles, and we are a prominent family in our community.
Wow - how long did it take you to think of that one?
You should be one of Obama's political advisors. You know, you bein' so SMART an' all.
And your message was posted by: "?"
Does that stand for clueless or just 'can't spell my own name?'
I love Obama supporters. They're like children. Or really, really slow-learning monkeys. :)
Oh yes....and how long
did people scream and shout about how we were losing the surge in Iraq while we were successful? Obama didn't even want to admit we were successful when there was no way to dispute the fact. Just once, I would like to see you post something that isn't totally one-sided liberal, kool-aid drinking BS.
I think as long as there is anything
other than Islam, they will always perceive a threat to Islam. The threat is our very existence. Whether radical Muslims kill others outright - or breed, recruit/convert and infiltrate us out of existence, we are not to be tolerated as we are. They are not content to live side-by-side and allow everyone to worship whatever god (or no god) we wish in whatever way we please. The American ideal off Christians, Jews, Muslims and other religious living as neighbors along the same street is horrifying to these people. There is only one right choice!
They do not wish a settlement of the Palestinian issue, because this is the catalyst to stir up old conflicts when things seem to be settling down. I do not believe you can achieve peace through any amount of niceness and talking, or anything other than victory - and neither do they.
The best we can hope for is a temporary detente from time to time. This is not to be perceived as the end of the show, but intermission while they think of some other way to achieve their goals, (as we should be.) But instead, we get a Palestiniann and an Israeli to shake hands at Camp David, then start singing Ding-Dong The Witch is Dead. I have to wonder if it naivete or arrogance on our part.
That's just how it is and how it has been for a long time.
Doesn't seem to be anything we can do about it. As someone has said, it's a privately owned board and the political alliance appears to be very right-wing evangelical Christian. The Religion board used to be even worse than the Politics board until it got renamed Christian (now at least it's named for what it really is). I don't even look at that board anymore.
I haven't been here that long but
long enough to see clearly how immaturely they operate. PHEW!
Freepers have been around for a long while...
And I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you about the posts on FreeRepublic. I have the site bookmarked and I look at it pretty often. It's true that you can find liberals ranting on their own sites and some of that gets pretty hateful and scary sometimes too - but I can understand why. They've been threatened once too often and they're just not going to take it anymore.
Freepers don't have that excuse. Many of them are hateful and aggressive as a way of life and love spreading it around. What is their excuse for threatening the lives of liberals as often as they do? - a liberal might give them HEALTH CARE? Yeah I guess that's a killing offense.
But anyway if you haven't noticed any threatening posts by Freepers, obviously, you're not looking for them - and that must be a full-time job. Either that or you agree with the worst of them, in which case what's not to like?
Kudos to the Freepers for raising money for Katrina - puts them on par with the many liberal and bipartisan groups doing the same. It should be a group effort.
Now if they'd stop supporting torture, religious discrimination and intrusive anti-Constitutional government policies as well, maybe they'd lose their dumb-butt reputations.
This has been around a long time. sm
How and why someone would assemble WTC and the flight victims this way is beyond me. Oh well, to each his own, but I am thinking SOMEONE has a little too much time on their hands!
I don't think you can equate the two. (Long - sorry)
A tubal pregnancy is a medical emergency endangering the lives of both mother and embryo. Unfortunately, modern medicine does not yet provide any capacity to salvage the embryo, but the mother can be saved by removal of the blocked tube or removal of the embryo from the tube.
I've read articles describing nontubal ectopic intraabdominal pregnancies in which the embryo was able to implant near a blood-rich source such as the liver; in this rare instance, the fetus could be maintained long enough for successful delivery via laparotomy. If that were the case, I would certainly try to maintain the pregnancy for as long as possible to allow the fetus to reach viability. Interesting article here about an abdominal pregnancy not diagnosed until 38 weeks gestation - http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3225/is_n1_v41/ai_8773331.
Just as a side note, the Catholic Church, which is officially staunchly anti-abortion despite the behavior of some of its members, makes an interesting distinction in terms of tubal pregnancies. It is considered morally licit - okay - to treat a tubal pregnancy with salpingectomy because the death of the embryo is considered an unfortunate side-effect but not the intent of the intervention, which is to remove the blocked section of tube to prevent rupture. The use of methotrexate to induce passage of the embryo, however, is considered illicit because this is considered to imply a direct intent to kill/abort the embryo. I've never been able to see a moral difference between the two, as the fetus cannot survive and either option saves the mother. Does anyone here believe one is more morally correct than the other?
probably won't be silent for long....nm
nm
In the long run it has everything to do with peace
As it disrupts the global economy and the ability of this planet to feed its population it will have very much to do with peace. Power struggles, especially over oil/food/usable land = wars, historically.
This is long, but when you have time...
read this with an open mind. Do not think about what any media person or pundit or anyone else has said about anything to do with the campaign. I will not even share what I think. In fact, do not think about the person who said them, just think about the message.
*****
PHILADELPHIA - "We the people, in order to form a more perfect union."
Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America's improbable experiment in democracy. Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787.
The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation's original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least twenty more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations.
Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution - a Constitution that had at is very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.
And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part - through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk - to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.
This was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this campaign - to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America. I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together - unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction - towards a better future for of children and our grandchildren.
This belief comes from my unyielding faith in the decency and generosity of the American people. But it also comes from my own American story.
I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton's Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas. I've gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world's poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners - an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.
It's a story that hasn't made me the most conventional candidate. But it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts - that out of many, we are truly one.
Throughout the first year of this campaign, against all predictions to the contrary, we saw how hungry the American people were for this message of unity. Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the whitest populations in the country. In South Carolina, where the Confederate Flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African Americans and white Americans.
This is not to say that race has not been an issue in the campaign. At various stages in the campaign, some commentators have deemed me either "too black" or "not black enough." We saw racial tensions bubble to the surface during the week before the South Carolina primary. The press has scoured every exit poll for the latest evidence of racial polarization, not just in terms of white and black, but black and brown as well.
And yet, it has only been in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn.
On one end of the spectrum, we've heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it's based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. On the other end, we've heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.
I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely - just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.
But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country - a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.
As such, Reverend Wright's comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems - two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.
Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way
But the truth is, that isn't all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God's work here on Earth - by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.
In my first book, Dreams From My Father, I described the experience of my first service at Trinity:
"People began to shout, to rise from their seats and clap and cry out, a forceful wind carrying the reverend's voice up into the rafters….And in that single note - hope! - I heard something else; at the foot of that cross, inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion's den, Ezekiel's field of dry bones. Those stories - of survival, and freedom, and hope - became our story, my story; the blood that had spilled was our blood, the tears our tears; until this black church, on this bright day, seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations and into a larger world. Our trials and triumphs became at once unique and universal, black and more than black; in chronicling our journey, the stories and songs gave us a means to reclaim memories that we didn't need to feel shame about…memories that all people might study and cherish - and with which we could start to rebuild."
That has been my experience at Trinity. Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety - the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. Like other black churches, Trinity's services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.
And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions - the good and the bad - of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.
I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.
These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.
Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.
But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America - to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.
The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we've never really worked through - a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American.
Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point. As William Faulkner once wrote, "The past isn't dead and buried. In fact, it isn't even past." We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country. But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.
Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven't fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today's black and white students.
Legalized discrimination - where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments - meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today's urban and rural communities.
A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one's family, contributed to the erosion of black families - a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods - parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement - all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.
This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted. What's remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.
But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn't make it - those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations - those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright's generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician's own failings.
And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright's sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.
In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience - as far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything, they've built it from scratch. They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.
Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren't always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.
Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze - a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns - this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.
This is where we are right now. It's a racial stalemate we've been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy - particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.
But I have asserted a firm conviction - a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people - that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice is we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.
For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances - for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives - by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.
Ironically, this quintessentially American - and yes, conservative - notion of self-help found frequent expression in Reverend Wright's sermons. But what my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change.
The profound mistake of Reverend Wright's sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It's that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country - a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know -- what we have seen - is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope - the audacity to hope - for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.
In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds - by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.
In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world's great religions demand - that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother's keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister's keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.
For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle - as we did in the OJ trial - or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.
We can do that.
But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.
That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, "Not this time." This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can't learn; that those kids who don't look like us are somebody else's problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.
This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don't have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.
This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; it's that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.
This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should've been authorized and never should've been waged, and we want to talk about how we'll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.
I would not be running for President if I didn't believe with all my heart that this is what the vast majority of Americans want for this country. This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected. And today, whenever I find myself feeling doubtful or cynical about this possibility, what gives me the most hope is the next generation - the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history in this election.
There is one story in particularly that I'd like to leave you with today - a story I told when I had the great honor of speaking on Dr. King's birthday at his home church, Ebenezer Baptist, in Atlanta.
There is a young, twenty-three year old white woman named Ashley Baia who organized for our campaign in Florence, South Carolina. She had been working to organize a mostly African-American community since the beginning of this campaign, and one day she was at a roundtable discussion where everyone went around telling their story and why they were there.
And Ashley said that when she was nine years old, her mother got cancer. And because she had to miss days of work, she was let go and lost her health care. They had to file for bankruptcy, and that's when Ashley decided that she had to do something to help her mom.
She knew that food was one of their most expensive costs, and so Ashley convinced her mother that what she really liked and really wanted to eat more than anything else was mustard and relish sandwiches. Because that was the cheapest way to eat.
She did this for a year until her mom got better, and she told everyone at the roundtable that the reason she joined our campaign was so that she could help the millions of other children in the country who want and need to help their parents too.
Now Ashley might have made a different choice. Perhaps somebody told her along the way that the source of her mother's problems were blacks who were on welfare and too lazy to work, or Hispanics who were coming into the country illegally. But she didn't. She sought out allies in her fight against injustice.
Anyway, Ashley finishes her story and then goes around the room and asks everyone else why they're supporting the campaign. They all have different stories and reasons. Many bring up a specific issue. And finally they come to this elderly black man who's been sitting there quietly the entire time. And Ashley asks him why he's there. And he does not bring up a specific issue. He does not say health care or the economy. He does not say education or the war. He does not say that he was there because of Barack Obama. He simply says to everyone in the room, "I am here because of Ashley."
"I'm here because of Ashley." By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough. It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children.
But it is where we start. It is where our union grows stronger. And as so many generations have come to realize over the course of the two-hundred and twenty one years since a band of patriots signed that document in Philadelphia, that is where the perfection begins.
-Barack Obama
March 18, 2008
It's been out there for a long time
The LA Times (just one of the papers) told its bloggers to not touch this story. The rest of the media did the same. The Enquirer talked about this last November. As things come out in just this one story, everyone reading this should question their news providers. No need to argue with me. Just let it play out if you don't believe me. Better yet, venture out on your own and find your own answers before flaming away. I give no one a free pass in the news biz.
You're right, I was 16 once and not that long ago...
And I did have rumors spread about me in a similar fashion. I had to have ultrasounds, was wearing baggier clothes and that is the first thing that was said was that I was pregnant. I didn't give one fig what was said because I knew the truth. All of my friends and family knew the truth. It was the people who were saying such things that looked bad when month after month went by and I had no baby.
I just need to say this...(long post)
Hi Everyone
First let me say I am not trying to start a war here. I just feel the need to say this. I have been following along on this board for awhile, trying to get a sense of politics. I never used to follow them, I always figured the ones with all the money would be the ones who made the decisions, but then I decided if I didn't learn and vote, I had no right to be upset when things didn't go my way.
I guess I would call myself an independent, as I can't align myself 100% with either side.
On the democrats side, I like the idea of change, but I feel that sometimes to much change can also be a bad thing. One extreme to the other I guess. Plus, I have some moral issues there, things I believe in that democrats don't I guess.
On the republicans side, I feel that things may not change enough. But they tend to align with my ideas of morals and what not, so I guess I'm leaning that way.
Really for me I feel like I'm picking the lesser of two evils this election. I don't think Obama and Mccain could be anymore opposite from each other.
Anyways so that's my political views. The second thing I want to talk about is about the constant hate I see towards Christianity. Don't worry, I'm not going to go all psychoreligious here, just want to state my view for what it's worth.
I recently became a Christian about a year ago. I toyed with it on and off during my teenage years, and then decided I didn't need it. I think it was more because I wanted to be "free" and do what I wanted to without obligation, and I knew that I couldn't do that and claim to be a Christian (unfortunately, many Christians do). Another reason was because I observed the hypocrisy of the church and its members. How could these people claim to be followers of Christ while they talked behind each others back, stole, cheated, lied, etc? I couldn't believe it.
Lucky for me I ended up marrying the preacher's son (haha) and yes, they are as bad as they say. He proposed to me in a bar. Every girls dream, right? Anyways, the honeymoon ended pretty quickly and I figured we were headed for a quick divorce. At the time we had been "playing church" to appease his father, but never really cared or paid attention. One night I just lost it and I finally said "Ok God, you've got my attention, what?" Slowly he started to show me things that I needed to work on. and slowly our marriage improved. Today, we work with a youth group at our little church and I love those kids (which is crazy for me, because I really never liked being around kids or small children, they always annoyed me). I'm even thinking I may want one of my own some day! (eek!)
Anyways that's my testimony. I wrote that to say this:
I understand why a lot of people hate us (Christians). The majority of our group can be hypocritical. A lot of us lack the tact that it takes to talk with someone about our faith. A lot of us just want to point fingers and say "you sinner! repent!" and never take the time to get to know the person at all. It seems that a lot of us are just trying to "win souls" and not befriend people. A lot of us think that because we sit on a pew and give money we are doing our job. Others want to get out and tell people about Jesus, but they don't want to do the dirty work it takes to SHOW who Jesus is through their work. It irritates me as much as it irritates you. And I promise there are other Christians who feel the same way. I also promise that there are Christians out there who are sincerely just trying to do the Lord's work, and want to help and be there for you regardless if you come to Christ or not. Do we wish everyone would? Of course. Should we despise or dislike those who don't? No.
I guess what I really want to say in all this is please don't let religion stand in the way of a personal relationship with Jesus. If you feel like there is a hole in your life, maybe He is what you need to fill it. I really believe that everyone feels a bit of emptiness when they don't know Him. I know that's hard to understand if you don't believe in God or Jesus at all. No one can force you to. Some people are going to read this and roll there eyes and call me crazy, and that's fine. But if your someone like me who was sitting on the fence, who felt an empty spot, then why not give Him a chance? I don't think you'll regret it.
I'm sorry if this upsets or offends anyone, that isn't my purpose here. I just felt like it was something that needed to be said. There has been a lot of back and forth on this board and things get so trivial sometimes.
I wish the best for everyone! I pray that everyone will soon be out of the crunch that most of us seem to be in and things get better for all of us!
Can you believe how long this show has...sm
been on and always with high ratings? Almost 40 years? It tells us that we need to be not so serious and laugh at ourselves and take a break from being so serious all the time. My favorites are still the originals but haven't watche it much the last few years,
LOL!!! I'm sure if you wait long enough
someone will choose Howling with Laughter too!!! HWL! Oh he--, maybe I'll change to HWL! or H/L. Silly ol' bear.
(long) I have never understood...
...how women have been misled into believing this is a "women's issue." This is a HUMAN RIGHTS issue...no pregnant woman I have ever heard of has ever had anything other than a HUMAN BABY at the conclusion of a pregnancy. That is the end result of a pregnancy, and there is no other conclusion EVER, unless a pregnancy is terminated either voluntarily or spontaneously. Human beings have rights under the Constitution of the United States...the right to LIFE, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Sort of difficult to get the last two if you are deprived of the first one. This country has laws to protect people from being murdered, from having their lives taken from them by another person. I have never understood why babies (and you can call them fetus, fetal tissue, "product" of a pregnancy, whatever you like, but women are pregnant with BABIES) would not have the same right to live as any other human being. There are important issues that women should be fighting for. The right to equal pay for equal work, the right to be treated as equals with regards to credit and housing and financial situations, the right for protection from domestic violence situations, healthy issues, other social issues. THE RIGHT TO KILL YOUR OWN CHILD SHOULD NOT BE A RIGHT WE ARE FIGHTING FOR. Women should stand together and fight for a common goal. This should NOT be that goal.
Don't expect more than a big, long DUH just like the one
you are getting from you other legitimate and quite pertient question about centrist vs right-wing platform. They are too busy conjuring up verbal assassinations against Obama to stop long enough to ponder anything else. Hope somebody steps up to prove me wrong. I have my own ideas about the party orientation, but being an unAmerica, socialist, Marxist, commie Muslim loving deadbeat I thought I should give them first crack at it.
Well, he's not the "change" as long as...
...Bush remains "The Decider." The question is, will Bush leave when it's time, or will he hijack the country, declare martial law and promote himself to "The Dictator," which he "joked" about on three different occasions. He also giggled about World War III, and he stated back in 1999 (TWO YEARS BEFORE 9/11) that if he ever had the chance to invade Iraq, he would.
"You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier." Describing what it's like to be governor of Texas.
(Governing Magazine 7/98)
-- From Paul Begala's "Is Our Children Learning?"
"I told all four that there are going to be some times where we don't agree with each other, but that's OK. If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator," Bush joked.
-- CNN.com, December 18, 2000
"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it, " [Bush] said.
-- Business Week, July 30, 2001
I myself think she was trying to hide it as long as she could -
the night she was first brought out, her daughter held the other baby in front of her all the time with an old blanket draped across her front. At the time, I kept wondering, why she would do that, and now I believe she was trying to hide her stomach from view that night.
Just how long will it take you folks to get over
the fact that the people have spoken, the mandate is in place, the swearing in is around the corner and YOU LOST the race? Apparently, the majority of Americans did not see it that way. Just, the facts, ma'am.
The list is so long, but just to name a
inner peace that comes from with the security of the believer, not constantly worrying about separating religion and politics since that is impossible, having to spend all her free time finding FACTS to support her every word instead having a life of joy with true friends and family, and the list goes on........I guess just basically having a life other than transcribing, hating Bush and proclaiming to be an atheist.
Yes, very informative, but very long.
i hope tihs opens up the eyes of some on this board. I said it before but I was called a liar...now it's in black and white in this paragraph:
"So what do we do now? In 2000, the 106th Congress as its final effort passed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act (CFMA), and, disgracefully, President Clinton signed it. It opened up the bucket-shop loophole that capsized the world's economic system. With the stroke of a presidential pen, a century of valuable protection was lost."
This was so wrong. I agree those at the top of this mess should be prosecuted to the fullest, and not by a slap on the wrist or house arrest. I think the bailout money should be paid back. As it stands, they are being rewarded for failing.
If you or I fail at our job, do we get bonuses? Do we get money from the feds for doing a lousy job? Do we get rewarded for cheating and lying? No...and they shouldn't either.
It sounds like this guy has some faith in Eric Holder, but only time will tell. I doubt Geithner is a good choice and I'm sure if O, Congress and Senate weren't in a such a hurry, they could have chosen more sensibly. What's the rush anywho? The economy is in the dumps and will take a long time to dig out. A few more weeks of looking for the right candidate wouldn't have hurt that much more.
People are still losing their jobs and homes. I don't see anything happening yet except that they want to pass the second stimulus package which STILL does not help the workers that much. Yet they are gung ho to pass it. They just have their mind set on one thing - stimulus, nothing else.
Okay, I'll get off my  again.
Been around long enough to know that this forum
the real world of politics...more like the children's hour, complete with worn out trite catch phrases like the ones that punctuate yours posts.
Oh that's SO funny...how long
did it take to think that one up?
Grow up and stop playing kindergarten games.
Your references to Kool-Aid (proper noun, should be capitalized) is WAY past old.
Please come up with some new entertainment for us. Thank you.
Still too much oink in there (Long)
The emphasized sentences were my doing.
Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I have to say it: The emperor has no clothes. Somebody has to say it. I am referring to this additional bailout, a spending bill that spends everything we have on nothing we are sure about. I have watched with dismay and disgust as this stimulus ballooned from $800 billion to more than $930 billion in only 4 days of debate. Today my colleagues tell me I am supposed to be giddy that we are only spending $827 billion. Frankly, I have had enough of this bailout baloney. Members from both sides of the aisle are taking advantage of taxpayer shell shock and a strident sense of national urgency to pump the recovery package with wasteful spending and unending tax provisions that blatantly fail a crucial yet simple test set by my Democratic colleagues--that the provisions of the stimulus bill would be targeted, timely, and, most important, temporary.
For example, this bill includes billions of new money for Federal agencies. Presumably these agencies will hire new workers. What happens at the end of the fiscal year when the funding for these new hires goes away? Will these new jobs be eliminated? Of course not. We never do. Lawmakers simply come back to the well in a few months and exert even more pressure to maintain the new programs and keep these new jobs and keep the bloated spending that supports them. There is nothing temporary about that kind of spending.
There is also nothing temporary about much of the programmatic spending included in this bill either. For example, the compromise includes $13.9 billion in additional funding for Pell grants to help college students pay for college costs. I am a strong supporter of Pell grants. But we provide funding for them in the normal appropriations process which, incidentally, we haven't passed last October's appropriations yet. I always wonder when we will get around to doing that. We are kidding ourselves that after the stimulus bill, we will be able to return Pell grants to their prestimulus level. If we try to go back to that level, we will be accused of making college unaffordable. The same goes for the IDEA Program. It receives $13 billion in the compromise to improve education for disabled children. We are all for improving education for disabled children. But if we suggest that the IDEA Program go to a prestimulus level, we will be accused of cutting funding for disabled children. They are both good programs, but they should be funded in the normal appropriations process because they are not temporary spending increases. That is $26.9 billion with only those two. That used to be big money around here.
While this bill does not include traditional earmarks, we should all understand that there are earmarks in this bill. There is $850 million--just millions, nothing--to bail out Amtrak; a $75 million earmark for the Smithsonian, a $1 billion earmark for the 2010 census.
In addition to that, thousands of the projects that will be funded from this bill are what the American people would consider to be earmarks. For example, the compromise includes $1.2 billion for Byrne grants that will go to local law enforcement agencies to be spent on basically whatever they desire. This bill is not a stimulus package; it is another bloated appropriations package. That is another $3 billion that used to be real money around here. I wish I had time to cover the thousands of other spending ideas we would not fund in the past. Time does not allow it when you are talking about $800 billion.
I think it is ironic that Congress spent last fall criticizing sub-prime mortgage lenders who sold overvalued homes to people who could not afford them--and created this mess we are in--when we are committing that very same sin today in this ``stimulus'' bill. This Chamber is guilty of trying to sell an overvalued, bloated spending bill to taxpayers who can ill-afford the price tag. But unlike those homeowners who just left the keys and closed the front door, the American taxpayer does not have that option of just walking away when this bill comes due.
It is time to admit that, just like many Americans, the Federal Government has maxed out its credit card. But while most Americans are wisely trimming the fat in their budgets, reexamining their spending patterns, and focusing on what is truly essential, Congress has not smartened up yet. Now is not the time to put every politician's Christmas wish list on the Government credit card.
We are already approaching the debt ceiling with alarming speed. In fact, I will bet most Americans do not know that buried deep in this stimulus bill is the increase to $12.1 trillion in the Federal debt limit. Let me repeat that: a $12.1 trillion debt limit. And that is on top of the trillions already set as a debt ceiling.
The American people want Congress to act now, to act with urgency. They say we do not have time to wait. Well, that is what the party in charge is telling us. My reply is, do we have time to get it right? The American people do not want us to go fast for the sake of being fast. They want us to solve the problem, and they want a solution that makes sense to them. That is what will give the American people confidence, and confident American people are going to make our economy better, not the Federal Government throwing their money around with reckless abandon.
Do not get me wrong, I understand the immediate need to jump-start our economy. The employment numbers released last week were stark evidence that jobs continue to disappear at a fearsome pace. People are frightened, and they feel they have nowhere to turn. But in steering a ship through a crisis such as this, Americans need to be confident that the lawmakers have a steady hand on the tiller and a firm eye on the horizon. And it is clear from the sinking poll numbers that this stimulus bill gives them no such confidence. Americans have had enough bailout baloney too. What we need is a new plan and a new approach.
Alice Rivlin, a former OMB and CBO Director, suggested we split this bill into smaller pieces. I agree, and some of my colleagues agree too. Our first priority should be an antirecession package that can be both enacted and spent quickly.z Elements of this bill should meet very strict criteria: The funds must spend out completely or expire by the end of this calendar year; the funds cannot be used to support permanent obligations such as entitlements or operating budgets; and the funds must be targeted at specific needs.
A second, separate set of packages could be considered without the same urgency after the completion of the antirecession package. These smaller bills would include funds for long-run investments that are not needed to enhance the future growth and productivity of the economy, including infrastructure investment, education, and worker retraining. I have been trying to get that through for 4 years.
Rushing this type of spending through, as we are doing in this bill today, ensures that mistakes will be made, plans will be poorly crafted, and precious taxpayer money will be wasted. This bill's ability to create jobs is dubious at best.
When combined with the outrageous cost of past bailouts for Wall Street and the automakers and bailouts we are told are yet to come for the banking and housing sectors, the only sure thing about this bill is that taxes are going up for everybody--working Americans; senior citizens; businesses small and large; and, as we have mentioned all along, our children and grandchildren. No one will be spared the cost of this stealth expansion of the welfare state. I simply cannot support a future tax increase the size this bill implies and will need. I plan to oppose this bloated bailout, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
As long as prices don't get
outrageously high....that is my concern. I don't mind it going up a bit but not like it was.
This happened not so long ago
To another rancher. I believe that was in Texas. They actually won. They own his land now, a guy and his sister if I remember correctly. Not a small parcel either. I think this was 4 or 5 years ago. Will have to see if I can find it.
Yes, wonder how long...if ever, Americans will
nm
So long Haliburton!
It's about time someone addressed the no-bid contract BS from the previous administration.........
Hold on. This has been going on for as long
as I can remember. DH had a friend who worked for GAO back in the 70s. He told us about it then. It's probably been going on earlier than that. So don't blame just one elected official.
This has been long coming even before
Bushy took over. Bush didn't help by any means but he wasn't the only greedy SOB who contributed to this mess. Our government as a whole is pretty darn greedy and they keep sticking it to the American people and we let them. So what will we say when unemployment continues to rise under Obama's regime? What will we say when his stimulus packages stimulates absolutely nothing? What will we say when the jobs Obama might create are only temporary jobs? What will we say when at the end of his first term things are worse than they are now and the deficit has doubled if not more? What will you say when government has control of everything?
Bush is no longer in office. We now have to hold Obama's feet to the fire. I'm tired of putting blind faith in my president. Obama is not going to turn our country around. In fact, I believe he will finish the job of running it into the ground. Then what? Are you finally going to blame Obama for all the spending he has done in the first couple months of his presidency? When government totally takes over everything, are you going to stop and realize that all of these government programs Obama wants to institute are the cause? No....you will still be whining about 8 years under Bush.
Stop this pub vs dem thing. They all suck!!!!! no group is better. They are all liars and all out for themselves. Stand up to government and make them work for us like they are supposed to.
Dolt!! Just how long
do you figure that elephant gun is going to be legal? HA! the flaw in your whole argument is exposed.
Actually, Obama's volunteer civilian corps (more powerful than the military) will be posted at quarter-mile intervals along all interstates to calmly talk the rhinoceri out of attacking. Said during the campaign that ought to work, and I believe him. More kool-aid, please!
That's right! As long as I agree, "I'm getting it" LOL
nm
|
