I'll agree with you - not on the crow thing
Posted By: Kaydie on 2008-11-19
In Reply to: Do I need to order up more crow? - gourdpainter
But the disturbing fact that he is surrounding himself with the Clintonites. I thought the O kept running on the platform of Change. This is not change. This is the same ol same ol. The Clinton presidency was so nauseating and so much damage was done. Even though I didn't want the O to win I at least had hopes he would bring in new people. Not the same bumbling bubble heads.
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'll agree with you on one thing
the American people are, for the most part, ignorant sheep.
Next thing you know, they'll
because his card isn't religious enough...good grief.
'Holiday' Cards Ring Hollow for Some on Bushes' List
By Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 7, 2005; A01
What's missing from the White House Christmas card? Christmas.
This month, as in every December since he took office, President Bush sent out cards with a generic end-of-the-year message, wishing 1.4 million of his close friends and supporters a happy holiday season.
Many people are thrilled to get a White House Christmas card, no matter what the greeting inside. But some conservative Christians are reacting as if Bush stuck coal in their stockings.
This clearly demonstrates that the Bush administration has suffered a loss of will and that they have capitulated to the worst elements in our culture, said William A. Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights.
Bush claims to be a born-again, evangelical Christian. But he sure doesn't act like one, said Joseph Farah, editor of the conservative Web site WorldNetDaily.com. I threw out my White House card as soon as I got it.
Religious conservatives are miffed because they have been pressuring stores to advertise Christmas sales rather than holiday specials and urging schools to let students out for Christmas vacation rather than for winter break. They celebrated when House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) insisted that the sparkling spectacle on the Capitol lawn should be called the Capitol Christmas Tree, not a holiday spruce.
Then along comes a generic season's greeting from the White House, paid for by the Republican National Committee. The cover art is also secular, if not humanist: It shows the presidential pets -- two dogs and a cat -- frolicking on a snowy White House lawn.
Certainly President and Mrs. Bush, because of their faith, celebrate Christmas, said Susan Whitson, Laura Bush's press secretary. Their cards in recent years have included best wishes for a holiday season, rather than Christmas wishes, because they are sent to people of all faiths.
That is the same rationale offered by major retailers for generic holiday catalogues, and it is accepted by groups such as the National Council of Churches. I think it's more important to put Christ back into our war planning than into our Christmas cards, said the council's general secretary, the Rev. Bob Edgar, a former Democratic congressman.
But the White House's explanation does not satisfy the groups -- which have grown in number in recent years -- that believe there is, in the words of the Heritage Foundation, a war on Christmas involving an ever-stronger push toward a neutered 'holiday' season so that non-Christians won't be even the slightest bit offended.
One of the generals on the pro-Christmas side is Tim Wildmon, president of the American Family Association in Tupelo, Miss. Sometimes it's hard to tell whether this is sinister -- it's the purging of Christ from Christmas -- or whether it's just political correctness run amok, he said. I think in the case of the White House, it's just political correctness.
Wildmon does not give retailers the same benefit of the doubt. This year, he has called for a consumer boycott of Target stores because the chain issued a holiday advertising circular that did not mention Christmas. Last year, he aimed a similar boycott at Macy's Inc., which averted a repeat this December by proclaiming Merry Christmas in its advertising and in-store displays.
It bothers me that the White House card leaves off any reference to Jesus, while we've got Ramadan celebrations in the White House, Wildmon said. What's going on there?
At the Catholic League, Donohue had just announced a boycott of the Lands' End catalogue when he received his White House holiday card. True, he said, the Bushes included a verse from Psalm 28, but Psalms are in the Old Testament and do not mention Jesus' birth.
They'd better address this, because they're no better than the retailers who have lost the will to say 'Merry Christmas,' he said.
Donohue said that Wal-Mart, facing a threatened boycott, added a Christmas page to its Web site and fired a customer relations employee who wrote a letter linking Christmas to Siberian shamanism. He was not mollified by a letter from Lands' End saying it adopted the 'holiday' terminology as a way to comply with one of the basic freedoms granted to all Americans: freedom of religion.
Ninety-six percent of Americans celebrate Christmas, Donohue said. Spare me the diversity lecture.
Diversity has been a hallmark of White House greeting cards for some time, according to Mary Evans Seeley of Tampa, Fla., author of Season's Greetings From the White House. The last presidential Christmas card that mentioned Christmas was in 1992. It was sent by George H.W. and Barbara Bush, parents of the current president.
Seeley said the first president to send out true Christmas cards, as opposed to signed photographs or handwritten letters, was Franklin D. Roosevelt. Merry Christmas From the President and Mrs. Roosevelt, said his first annual card, in 1933.
Like many modern touches, the generic New Year's card was introduced to the White House by John and Jacqueline Kennedy. In 1962, they had Hallmark print 2,000 cards, of which 1,800 cards said The President and Mrs. Kennedy Wish You a Blessed Christmas and 200 said With Best Wishes for a Happy New Year.
Lyndon and Lady Bird Johnson continued that tradition for a couple of years, but it required keeping track of Christian and non-Christian recipients. Beginning in 1966, they wished everyone a Joyous Christmas, and no president has attempted the two-card trick since.
Seeley dates the politicization of the White House Christmas card to Richard M. Nixon, who increased the number of recipients tenfold, to 40,000, in his first year. The numbers since have snowballed, hitting 125,000 under Jimmy Carter, topping 400,000 under Bill Clinton and rising to more than a million under the current Bushes, with each president's political party paying the bill.
The wording, meanwhile, has often flip-flopped. Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter put Merry Christmas in their 1977 card and then switched to Holiday Season for the next three years. Ronald and Nancy Reagan, similarly, began with a Joyous Christmas in 1981 and 1982 but doled out generic holiday wishes from 1983 to 1988. The elder President Bush stayed in the Merry Christmas spirit all four years, and the Clintons opted for inclusive greetings for all of their eight years.
The current Bush has straddled the divide, offering generic greetings along with an Old Testament verse. To some religious conservatives, that makes all the difference.
There's a verse from Scripture in it. I don't mind that at all, as long as we don't try to pretend we're not a nation under God, said the Rev. Jerry Falwell.
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
Most likely, the only thing you'll listen to are
X0X0
Good for Fox - I'm no Fox fan but I'll give them credit for doing the right thing
They say Fair and Balanced but they definitely are more conservative and Sean Hannity really gets on my nerves something awful. He's about as condescening as Rush and treats guests who are liberals as though they are less intelligent than he is.
When I am in favor of conservative viewpoint I will watch them, and when I am in favor of liberal viewpoints I will go to another channel. Never CNN because they praise the Clintons too much. Most of the time I watch MSNBC even though they are more liberal, but at least they are fair and civil to conservatives.
So I give Fox some credit.
One nation, under Stalin....right....you keep pushing that unity thing and we'll be completely
Keep trying to convince yourself.
It's Putin, and Chavez, and Castro that are so proud of us now.
That is, when they're not laughing at us behind our backs.
You are so naive.
You poor thing. I'll say an extra prayer for the demons to leave your heart.
Big hug. 
I'll agree with you on that one....
Hannity is a bit much these days. Can't stand to listen to him rant and rave some days when he gets on his soapbox...go figure those darn conservatives.
On the flip side, Colmes is a real piece of work, liberal that is. They balance each other out pretty well sometimes. But both are hard to watch anymore.
Bye now...
I'll agree with you on that one
Sorry to disappoint you but I cannot stand Bush, etc, but this post was not about Bush.
Sorry, but I'll just have to agree to disagree with you...sm
I'm entitled to my own opinion and feelings and I'm NOT looking to make an issue out of a nonissue. I'm not the only one in America who thinks this is *glaringly* wrong, or else we wouldn't be having this conversation, so you can lay off of chastising me.
I'm smart enough to know that people will think and believe differently and while you can praise these remarks because you *know* everyone is just taking this out of context I don't think so. I think people slip the lip, and especially with his tone, and say what they mean every once and a while. I think Bennett was caught with his pants down.
Yeah, Alan Coombs is intelligent, but also a softy. He debates to politely with people who would just as soon bite his head off. That's what I don't like about him, and this is not just limited to his debate with Bennett.
With people throwing ideas like abortion of a race to reduce crime, I want to hear the the Bill Mahers type to tell them as plain as they can speak, take that trash and shove it.
This is the last post I will respond to about this because there is no sense in us going back and forth about this. I respect your opinion that this man has a right to say what he wants because he was just throwing ideas around and hypothetically speaking, but I don't agree and nothing you can say will make me be OK with it. Sorry.
Yep, I'll agree with you there....he is likable...sm
and goofy...but that's just him. He probably is a great grandfather.
Okay, I'll agree to disagree n/m
Well, I'll agree with you on that, Amanda.
This bail-out stuff should have stopped before it started. After the Wall Street bail-out has the news gotten any better? No. It is worse on a daily basis. It will be the same if the auto industry is bailed out. I say no bail outs. For those of us who make bad decisions we're left to suffer the consequences. Let the businesses do the same. First Wall Street, then auto industry, who's next? It won't be Joe the (honest) Plumber, that's for sure.
One day we'll actually find something we agree on...LOL...(sm)
but not today....
First of all the statement she made about making better decisions than a white man has been taken way out of context. The topic she was speaking about at the time was how she dealt with racial and sexist issues in her position. Granted, it didn't come out very well, but what she was referring to was a quote from Sandra O'Connor -- "a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding case." I don't think her statement is racist in the least.
As far as the firefighter suit, I think she went strictly by the law, and remarkably (and which goes against everything you are saying) she did not let race impact her decision. Here's a little insight into her decision:
http://newmexicoindependent.com/28292/sotomayors-connecticut-firefighter-decision-upheld-civil-rights-law-stanford-prof-argues
This week, President Obama’s U.S. Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor has been called a “racist” by both conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh and former Speaker of the U.S. House Newt Gingrich.
But in a story on Slate, Stanford law professor Richard Thompson Ford argues Sotomayor rejected a discrimination suit brought by white and Hispanic fire fighters in New Hampshire because it “threatened to burn down civil rights law.”
The case is one of Judge Sotomayor’s decisions that has added fuel to conservatives’ fire concerned with a group of firefighters in New Haven, Connecticut, who say that the city discriminated against them when it said it would use the results of a written exam to help choose candidates for promotion, but then threw out the test when none of the black candidates, and very few of the Hispanic candidates, scored high enough on the test.
The firefighters sued and lost, and Sotomayor was part of the panel that heard their appeal. The same case is now before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Professor Ford’s explanation is pretty wonky, but for all of us non-lawyers, it is a fascinating explanation of the way civil rights law works. As he writes:
New Haven’s decision may sound like blatant racial favoritism, but in fact the city rejected the firefighter exam because the test violated Title VII, the federal civil rights law that prevents discrimination in employment. Title VII requires employers to consider the racial impact of their hiring and promotion procedures in order to prevent discrimination that’s inadvertent as well as intentional.
…There are two ways an employer can discriminate according to Title VII. He can intentionally discriminate by making race a factor in employment decisions — choosing a black candidate over a white candidate because he is black. Frank Ricci claims the city intentionally discriminated when it threw out the exam results because most of the people who scored high were white. An employer can also discriminate by using a selection process that has a disparate impact — in other words, that screens out a particular group for no good reason. New Haven claims that the test it tossed out had a disparate impact. Eight black, 25 white, and eight Hispanic firefighters took New Haven’s test for promotion to captain; three black, 16 white, and three Hispanic candidates passed. Nineteen black, 43 white, and 15 Hispanic firefighters took the test to become lieutenant; six black, 25 white, and three Hispanic candidates passed. This result counts as discriminatory under the rules of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. New Haven was right to worry about the possibility of a lawsuit from black firefighters if it accepted the results of the tests.
___________
As for the other junk that's being thrown her way, check this out: I know you hate MSNBC, but this one is worth noting.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/
Change recession to depression and I'll agree with you.
They just signed America's death warrant.
I would agree except for one thing. sm
They are teaching our future generation. Whether I give them power or not, and I don't, they have unlimited reign to spread their propaganda.
That is not the same thing. While I do not agree....
with many of the arcane tax laws we have, redistribution of wealth is taking money from the private sector and directly redistributing that money to people who did not earn it. Not from the tax coffers that every american pays into. To put it more simply...say the government decides to take half of what you have and distribute it to your neighbors who don't have as much as you have. That is what Obama is talking about. Plays on class warfare...taking from the haves and giving it to the have-nots. When we pay taxes into tax coffers it is up to the government (sad to say) how that money is spent. We have control over that. Now what Obama has said he is going to do is bypass the tax and rebate system, choose which private sector company he wants to "tax," and redistribute that money directly back to people who did nothing to earn it.
I agree with you on one thing....for sure....
there are problems in BOTH parties. They have, for the most part, lost touch with us out here in Middle America. I am talking about the upper tier policymakers in the parties, the ones who REALLY run them, not the rank and file members. The Democrats dissed part of their rank and file members this week and I think they will live to regret that. The Repub hierarcy did the same thing, pushing McCain over the others when they should basically stay out of it and let the people decide. Now, if McCain is smart, he will choose a VP who is not a rote party yes person. I will wait for that.
But, BOTH parties need to clean house, and it needs to be back to what the majority of the people want, not what the upper tier of the political parties want. On EITHER side.
I agree with one thing you said. sm
You said:
We need to drop our RELIGION and DENOMINATIONS
I couldn't agree more. We need to drop religion and start thinking like rational human beings before it's too late. Stop believing in fairy tales like the bible. Revelations? Good grief. Try thinking of things in terms of facts, evidence, science, and reason instead of looking in an ancient book of fiction (the bible) and expecting it to predict the future for you.
and I will agree with you on one thing too
Actually my dad lost his job back in the 1970s but it was very difficult for him. he wanted to work longer, but the company was gone and he had no place to turn. So basically he was "retired" about 7 or 8 years before he planned. Fortunately, for him and for us, my parents had always saved well, did not spend money they didn't have and lived within their means so they were able to live fine anyway. What I will agree on is that they stood together on things the way people no longer do. When their company was asking cutbacks (which was got the union going on their strike idea in the first place) several of the younger guys were in jeopardy of losing their jobs. My dad and his three friends had worked there for 40 years, those being the jobs they took when they returned from their service in World War II. People used to stay at jobs and be happy to have them! Anyway, these four men each took a week off every month (voluntarily and without pay) in order to allow one of the younger guys to keep working and not be let go. Now that is admirable. That is how people used to treat one another. Now it's all about ME and no one else matters. That is one of the biggest problems I see today - selfishness. The whole strike issue is too ambiguous. It accomplishes nothing. The workers go on strike. if they succeed, the company gives them what they want (more money, better benefits - again, more money). Then the costs of the goods produced or service rendered goes up so the company can pay these higher salaries and increased benefit costs, and everybody pays more for the goods and services so in the end nobody came out ahead. You may have ended up with a bigger paycheck but had to pay more for the same stuff so what good did it do in the end? It was a union power play, and it hurt many,many people. Sorry, rambled on there. The outsourcing issue is a problem due to business taxation in this country, and we have one candidate who wants to increase business tax. How will that help? NOT.
At least we agree on one thing...LOL....
However....you totally miss the Joe the Plumber point. What difference does it make if he WAS a plant? I do not believe he was, but even if he WAS...this is America for the love of Pete!! Can't an American, Republican or not, ask a candidate a simple question??? No one forced Obama with a gun to his head to give a socialist answer. He did that all by his little ol' self. That goes to show that he BELIEVES that. That is what he BELIEVES. He believes in redistribution of wealth. He is a socialist. Hello. lol. :-)
I do agree with one thing you said about him...
he is intelligent. The rest of it...remains to be seen. I do not see integrity in someone who throws a 20-year relationship under the bus when it becomes a roadblock to the Presidency. Whether he has ALL the peoples' best interests at heart remains to be seen, not an established fact. As to the best and brightest in his campaign...I could not disagree more. Two of his advisors (until he also threw them under the bus) were main orchestrators of the Freddie/Fannie mess. Bring our nation to honor? That certainlyyyy remains to be seen.
The only thing I agree with you on is sm
the fact that he took over a mess. But making a bigger mess??? How did that help tell me please?
The only thing Obama is doing is sitting in Washington giving orders to print more money when there is none....something that the rest of us would go to prison for.
Obama is up there "playing president" for the next four years and making the biggest mess this country has ever seen. Then again, I guess if you are so far to the left you are pretty blind and cannot comprehend common sense.
He is making a laughing stock out of this country. He has no respect for the military. Our enemies are sitting back laughing at us
I'm sure. Who you gonna blame it on when the next attack on this country happens? It won't be Bush's fall, it will be Obamas fault for letting the guard down of this country.
The only thing I agree with you on is sm
the fact that he took over a mess. But making a bigger mess??? How did that help tell me please?
The only thing Obama is doing is sitting in Washington giving orders to print more money when there is none....something that the rest of us would go to prison for.
Obama is up there "playing president" for the next four years and making the biggest mess this country has ever seen. Then again, I guess if you are so far to the left you are pretty blind and cannot comprehend common sense.
He is making a laughing stock out of this country. He has no respect for the military. Our enemies are sitting back laughing at us
I'm sure. Who you gonna blame it on when the next attack on this country happens? It won't be Bush's fall, it will be Obamas fault for letting the guard down of this country.
The only thing I agree with you on is sm
the fact that he took over a mess. But making a bigger mess??? How did that help tell me please?
The only thing Obama is doing is sitting in Washington giving orders to print more money when there is none....something that the rest of us would go to prison for.
Obama is up there "playing president" for the next four years and making the biggest mess this country has ever seen. Then again, I guess if you are so far to the left you are pretty blind and cannot comprehend common sense.
He is making a laughing stock out of this country. He has no respect for the military. Our enemies are sitting back laughing at us
I'm sure. Who you gonna blame it on when the next attack on this country happens? It won't be Bush's fall, it will be Obamas fault for letting the guard down of this country.
I totally agree, and another thing. sm
Despite what liberals may think, Conservatives did not go to the poll and vote for liberals to express their displeaure. They just didn't vote at all. As you said, it was apathy. I voted because it is something I would never consider NOT doing, but I was less than enthusiastic about some of my candidates.
I agree. Another thing I would like to see change is.s/m
Corporations being given incentives and tax breaks to move their businesses to other countries. Workers in the United States need jobs too. I would like to see that repealed, and I hope that it is.
Hey that's the first thing you've said that I agree with
helping the situation.
I agree with one thing....what she did was ridiculous...
inflammatory and downright stupid. She is supposed to be the leader of the house...and what she did was just plain stupid. According to the Republicans interviewed they voted no because that was what their constituents were wanting them to do in ratio of about 99 to 1. Still, when she was supposed to be a leader in a bipartisan effort, to make that silly speech right before the vote...seriously poor judgment and she is 3 heartbeats away from the Presidency.
I don't agree with the entire thing....
X
I agree...have read the same thing. nm
x
I agree with one thing you said. Abortion is
definitely evil.
One important thing we can all agree on:
Please sign this petition regarding HR 427 (Notify Americans before outsourcing information Act), and then forward it to all of your friends and family. It's amazing how many people don't know this is even happening!
After you sign the petition, with one click on the next page you can send the same thing in an email to all of your representatives automatically. The whole thing only takes a few seconds:
http://www.rallycongress.com/support-for-h-r-427-nabopia/1585/support-h-r-427-notify-americans-before-outsourcing-personal-information/
http://www.rallycongress.com/support-for-h-r-427-nabopia/1585/support-h-r-427-notify-americans-before-outsourcing-personal-information/
Agree. The whole thing is just sickening.
x
I agree this would be a good thing if it passes....
but she should move the ethics investigation to Harry Reid next:
REID'S LAST KNOWN NATIONAL MEDIA APPEARANCE: October 18th Trying To Explain His Ethical Issues. Sen. Reid: I bought a piece of land, sold it six years later. Everything was reported. It was all transparent. (CNN's Newsroom, 10/18/06)
[H]arry Reid Has Been Using Campaign Donations Instead Of His Personal Money To Pay Christmas Bonuses For The Support Staff At The Ritz-Carlton ... Federal Election Law Bars Candidates From Converting Political Donations For Personal Use. (John Solomon, Reid Used Campaign Money For Christmas Bonuses At Personal Condo, The Associated Press, 10/16/06)
Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid Collected A $1.1 Million Windfall On A Las Vegas Land Sale Even Though He Hadn't Personally Owned The Property For Three Years ... (John Solomon and Kathleen Hennessey, Reid Got $1 Million For Land He Hadn't Owned For 3 Years, The Associated Press, 10/11/06)
- Harry Reid, The Senate's Top Democrat, Makes Frequent Trips To His Home State Of Nevada. Over The Past Four Years, His Bills At Caesars Palace, Mandalay Bay And Other Las Vegas Establishments Have Totaled More Than $125,000 ... (Brody Mullins, Lawmakers Tap PAC Money To Pay Wide Array Of Bills, The Wall Street Journal, 11/2/06)
That would also be a good place to start.
and you agree with ever single thing Obama says
Knock yourself out--but I prefer to think for myself. I only pick the candidate I think is best--not perfect
Here is one thing dems and pubs can agree on
We're glad its over.
Okay - back to work for me, just thought of that.
Yeah, I agree about the rebellion thing....(sm)
I was talking about Sarah herself being the example, not her daughter. I think politicians should be held to a higher standard. Yeah, I know that Sarah wasn't the one that got pregnant, but in this day and age that doesn't matter too much. I think given the fact that the republican party was going to have a hard time winning the election anyway (considering the war, the economy, Bush, etc), it was just a bad choice to pick someone in that situation as a running mate. Having said that, I'm not sure just how much, if any, that situation actually hurt the ticket. If it did hurt the ticket then I would think that it hurt them more with pub votes more than with dems.
You did a wonderful thing, and I agree with your ultimatums, but....psm
Why do you, and many here, equate being a Democrat to be "weak, whiny, spendthrift, too soft," etc.? Personally, I agree with many of your points, and have always loved the proverb "Give a man a fish, he will eat for one day, teach him how to fish and he can feed himself all his life." But you are lumping together humanitarianism, altruism, etc., with being weak, stupid, socially backward, and perpetuating social ills, and that is not the case, or should I say, when government programs are working correctly with stringent oversight, this does not happen. I have voted Democrat because I believe in the party more than the alternative, but I am open to change, listen and watch and try to learn from each party, and am more Independent then anything. Being part of the Democratic party does not mean being a "bleeding heart liberal," and mmore than being a Republican means being totally cold, selfish, money-driven, fat cat, etc. This is all way too simplistic, and why the parties cannot communicate effectively or get anything done TOGETEHR. I am a Christian, I am very conservative on most social issues, but I am a human, humans are complex, and I am also socially conscious and aware, love the nation, love its people. Please, don't generalize quite so much, it is not good for the country to increase divisions.
LOL! No crow for you, GP!
I looked back to see why you originally offered to eat crow, and it was because of Obama's potential appointment of Hillary for SOS.
Don't worry, though. Since the majority of Obama's appointments seem to be former Clintonites, you (and I) will have plenty to eat once he's finished recreating the Clinton cabinet.
P.S. Thanks to "ms" for the kind wishes to me. I just saw them now (and responded) when I looked back for GP's post.
Nothing to eat crow about since
Thank the Navy Seals.
I agree that a phased withdrawal would be a good thing...
after we have given the surge every opportunity to work and have given the Iraqis every opportunity to step up and take over security of their own country. We cannot afford to leave too quickly and allow AL Qaeda to take it over and use it as a base from which to attack us and I have no doubt they would do just that. As to Iran...I cannot see us invading Iran like we invaded Iraq, for a multitude of reasons. I believe the term surgical strikes would take on a whole new meaning if that became necessary. Honestly, I think if Ahmadinejad persists in this nuclear thing we will not have to do anything, because I believe Israel will handle it. I don't think Israel will stand by and let him get nukes. It would be suicide to do so...because if he attacked, that would be his first target, I would be willing to bet the farm. What I am really afraid of is he will put weapons grade nuc material in the hands of Al Qaeda for a dirty bomb to attack us with. That is why I don't want to abandon Iraq to become a base for such things. However, if the Iraqi govt does not step up...I would agree that we cannot stay there for life everlasting at the strength we are now. As you say, that does impair our safety at home. I think we need to concentrate on controlling our borders better.
On that note, I did see a somewhat encouraging report on illegals. Seems that more and more of them are moving on up to Canada because...get this...it is easier to get on programs if you are illegal and Canada pays more...LOL. Well more power to them I guess. Let Canada deal with them. I bet if we started a sweep to round up illegal aliens they would run north in droves. Which is okay too. Not great for Canada but better for us.
Be well, DW!
hope you like crow
because it truly does look like Obama will win this election so prepare yourself for a large meal consisting of crow when you realize you have missed the point and it is too late to to anything about it. You think JYP is a hypocrite? You ain't seen nothing yet! Or perhaps civil rights just don't matter to you except on your terms.
crow eating
that was me :-P lol
I hope you didn't take it offensively!
How much crow shall we reserve
x
Crow eating s/m
Well, may as well start cooking up the crow. When Obama appoints Hillary SOS I'll start eating. HOWEVER, I still maintain that McCain would also have been more of the same. I fear we're under Bush/Clinton dictatorship and any "change" Obama makes is likely to be just to carry on their agenda which is to sell out American IMHO. Maybe we'd all better develop a taste for real crow as that may be all that's left for us to eat.
Do I need to order up more crow?
I can't remember why I was suppose to eat crow, only something about the election. Whatever it was, I'm gnawing on a crow bone as I speak. I am VERY unhappy with the people Obama is surrounding himself with. Doggone it if I wanted the Clintons back I'd of voted for Billary!!! I think we can safely dispense now with Ayers et al. Clintons and Bushes are still gonna rule and that's a surprise for me.
Another order of crow and please send some more BBQ sauce!! LOL
No reason for anyone to eat crow.
No matter whether we voted for Obama or McCain, we are all in this together now. We just have keep a positive outlook and hope for the best.
Pass the crow, please.......sm
After our rather heated debate tonight, I went off in search of answers to the questions of Obama's qualifications to be POTUS, and here is what I found.
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:"
US Code Title 8,1401 states the following as a qualification of a natural-born US citizen. (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001401----000-.html). This is the only qualification that Obama actually passes to qualify to be POTUS, but one is all that is needed as all the qualifications listed are exclusive of each other.
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
Since this does not specify a particular time frame in which the US citizen parent must live in the US prior to the birth of the child, it must be assumed that any one-year residency would satisfy the requirement.
Somehow crow for Thanksgiving dinner just isn't quite what I had in mind. Please make sure it is well done with lots of BBQ sauce. 
Nope! No crow for YOU...
or GP or me...not today. Today is turkey day!
Tomorrow, the three of us can get back to our crow-eating endeavors. LOL.
Can I cook you that crow now? :)
It's good to see you back! :)
Too bad we can't talk about how great things have gotten lately!
Nope, don't put the crow on just yet
I was just saying that I'm not happy so far, didn't really expect to be from the beginning BUT I will give anyone a chance and I don't see how his plans are going to work for the common good. If the insurance companies are fighting his medical care overhaul, then it's a safe bet that he MIGHT be on the right track. Time will tell. In maybe a year (?) when this stimulus (nonsense to me) has all been spent, there will be time enough to see whether he was right or wrong. I know the day will never come when I will regret voting AGAINST McCain/Palin. McCain himself probably wouldn't have been so bad but I personally wouldn't vote for Palin for dog catcher. Why people (my son included) think she would have saved the world is beyond my comprehension. If the Republicans are dumb enough to run her in 2010, it wouldn't surprise me if she wins and if she does, some of you who supported her may be eating crow.
As for the late abortion issue, I'm dead set against that. HOWEVER, I'll never pass judgment on anyone. I still think that issue belongs with the woman, her doctor and her pastor if she has one.
|
