I don't know the whole situation, so won't judge his decision nm
Posted By: nm on 2008-10-24
In Reply to: Obama's grandmother and the media coverage - sm
nm
Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old. To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
what decision?? nm
nm
Well, are you saying it should be O's decision? (nm)
x
Not O's decision...(sm)
the supreme court's decision.
Obviously, the right decision. I'm sure you still
Here, the cruel choice would have been to let this poor infant go to term.
Let not your heart be troubled; this child is with God and has been made whole. You'll be reunited one day, I'm sure.
This is not a situation that can
...be simplistically reduced to a quarrel over "doom and gloom" or not, IMHO. Top military brass has tried repeatedly to bring the message home to this administration that we don't have the troops or planning necessary to "win" anything in Iraq and this has created a terrorist hotbed and training ground where none existed before. This is just a fact that no amount of "can-do" attitude can fix.
Of course, if the intention is simply to create a state of chaos that can enable thieves to steal with impunity, the job is more than fixed.
Also you might want to note that the 1700 casualty figure is grossly understated. Only combat deaths that occur in Iraq are counted. Those whisked out of the country to Germany or elsewhere and die en route or at the destination hospital are NOT counted. This is official US policy - a Bush policy. Ask yourself why they would have this policy.
I agree with MTME about the lying - I am sick of it myself. I would like the truth for once, instead of more spin and more efforts to divide the American people (more chaos, more cover for thieves).
If she (or anyone in that situation) sm
had kept her legs together she wouldn't be in this predicament. Simple solution.
and I am sorry for your situation!
x
what situation?
nm
But who and how would that decision be made
From a legal perspective? Say "convenience" abortions are made illegal. I get pregnant and decide I want to have a "convenience" abortion. However, I know these are illegal, so I say the guy raped me. Who gets to pick in which cases abortion is permitted and in which cases it's not?
This is my main concern. You're preaching to the choir on the rest of it, because it used to disgust me when I would type reports and a woman would've had 15 abortions. I do not agree with that at all, and I don't think there are many who do. But, logistically speaking, again, it's either legal or illegal.
Seems like a logical decision
to reject a man who would guarantee that the election would be lost. There is a lot at stake here. I think that is a good example of him putting Country First, not his own personal preference, if indeed his preference was Lieberman.
making right decision
This is my first post on the Politics board. I'm struggling with my decision between voting D or R.
I'm a registered Democrat and have been pro O'Bama 100%... until this past week when I read "They Must Be Stopped" by Brigitte Gabriel, founder of ACT! For America at www.actforamerica.org.
First, I am in no way saying O'Bama is Muslim, I do not believe that, but I am concerned with his voting record regarding bills that would protect us here at home. I'm middle class and believe me, I want to support the tax cuts and programs he is talking about...
I do not understand why either side will not stand up and call the "War on Terror" what it really is. I see the American traditions I grew up with disappearing and being replaced with "politically correct" traditions. A supposedly holy book (Koran) calling for my death or to strip me of my rights as a woman. On and on and on.
I haven't seen anything mentioned about this issue and I am interested in how other women/men feel.
I'm happy for you and that your decision
Had your family or the father tried to force you to abort, you would have acted accordingly and not listened to them, rather to your inner voice. There is no one-decision-fits-all when answering this question. For that reason, it is only fair that each woman is given the same consideration, to listen to their own gut and act in accordance to what it is telling her. She too will face the outcome, regardless of what the resolution will be and that is as it should be. If you are "tired" of hearing "my body, my right," don't listen. You made your choice. Let others have the same.
I have made my decision -
I have tried to educate people about Obama and his christianity - the fact that he is NOT muslim, his health care plans - the fact that it is NOT universal healthcare he is proposing, his tax programs - the fact that he is NOT going to write a check to people who are not working... and it is NOT working. They just do not want to believe. And for the most part, it is not even the economy people are picking on him about now - everyone is still on this muslim crap, mad because he is getting his girls a dog, just nitpicking! It is ridiculous.
I will no longer try to help people see the truth. If they want to be miserable and think bad thoughts and harbor suspicion and hatred in their hearts, then it is their life and nobody can change those folks anyway. I am sure it is not just the election that makes them mean and nasty - probably are that way in every aspect of their lives...
I myself choose to look on the bright side of things and the hope that this country is turning around and will be AMERICA THE GREAT once again!!! The America that other countries envy and want to be!
But it isn't your decision to make, is it?
Trot yourself down to DC and make a REAL difference if you feel so strongly about it. It is an attorney's job to represent his client's INTERESTS. Get it? They are in it for the money - just like you work for money. I'm not too worried about his moral compass after witnessing Larry Craig, Foley, Abramoff, Libby......need I go on?
I think he made the right decision...
in not releasing the alleged abuse photos yesterday.
Other than that, I've not been his biggest fan and have to agree with A. Nonymous as to where he's taking this country.
And you should understand the situation more. nm
come on bush, help with the oil situation
And here comes the winter..Im sure Bush with all his power can find ways to help America through the winter with oil prices but..nah..he has to pay back his oil cronies..OMG, if we can influence countries to stop nuclear production we surely can influence companies to help us through the oil crisis. The profits the oil companies are making is obscene..I have a friend who lives in Bakersfield, an oil town. He and his wife divorced and she married the head of a major oil company in the Bakersfield region. Not gonna say the name of the company but it is one of the biggest in America..He told me she lives in extreme luxury..I bet, especially in Bakersfield where prices are relatively low anyway..These oil barons are living high and we are, as my aunt used to say, *robbing peter to pay paul*. Ummm.do I smell and feel a revolution arising..sure hope so..
It's a no-win situation for Bush with you
The 9/11 commission criticizes his lack of a security plan pre-9/11(that's just barely 8 months after he enters office BTW). Then he's criticized for doing wiretaps in the name of national security which the FISA act gave the authority to do.
Okay, then which one is it--he's not tough enough on National Security or he's too tough bordering on some perceived legal violation?
Wait a minute, I know your answer Well, it's both. Sheesh...
It is a weird situation, for sure...
...but not really getting a good in-depth report on it from the news, have to think there MUST be more to the story - though can't think what in the world could explain such an attitude as prison is not going to help this offender (heard the judge himself say that). Whoever said prison was to HELP anybody? It's PUNISHMENT!
But then again, have never gotten the whole story- you never do on TV news, and have caught O'Reilly in numerous fabrications and exaggerations and grossly slanted panel discussions before, so who the heck knows!
From *The Situation* last night.
And Tucker Carlson is hardly a liberal.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13459509/
But first to a story horrifying even by the coarsening standards of Iraq, the brutal murder and torture of two U.S. soldiers.
Privates first class Kristian Menchaca and Thomas L. Tucker went missing Friday after an attack on a checkpoint they were manning south of Baghdad. Their bodies were found on Monday night. They were reportedly so badly mutilated they were tentatively identified by tattoos and scars. The corpses were also booby-trapped, an apparent effort to kill recovery teams.
Al Qaeda‘s new leader in Iraq has claimed responsibility for the soldier‘s slaughter.
In the face of brutality like this, is Iraq worth the cost in American lives? Here to answer that question, Brad Blakeman. He‘s the former deputy assistant to the president. He joins us tonight from Washington.
Brad, thanks for coming on.
BRAD BLAKEMAN, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Tucker.
CARLSON: So we have spent untold billions of dollars, 2,500 American soldiers killed, all in an effort to bring democracy and prosperity to Iraq. In return, they torture and murder and mutilate our soldiers. Remind me why this is a good bargain?
BLAKEMAN: Well, Tucker, look, this is a tough thing, and our hearts go out to every soldier who has made the ultimate sacrifice so that we can live in freedom.
But Iraq is worth fighting for. The region is worth fighting for. It‘s in our interest. These terrible, brutal dictatorships must be brought down when they become a threat to our national security. You know...
CARLSON: OK. But that‘s not the rationale the president has offered. He has said now, because as you know, and not to rehash the whole war, but no weapons of mass destruction were found. And he‘s said now this is worth doing because it‘s worth bringing freedom to the Iraqi people. They yearn for freedom, and it‘s our duty to give them the freedom they yearn for.
My question is how have they earned our sacrifice to bring them that freedom? What about Iraq justifies the death—brutal deaths of American soldiers? Why should we feel like it‘s worth it to bring these people democracy when they behave like animals like this?
BLAKEMAN: We‘re focusing on the animals and not the good and decent people of Iraq. The vast majority of Iraq is peaceful.
CARLSON: Is that right? I don‘t think—I don‘t think there‘s any evidence of that.
BLAKEMAN: There are 12 million people who went to—who went to the polls. They have four successful elections. They have a new government. We tend only to focus on the very bad, on the insurgencies, and the evil people. But the vast majority of Iraqis want to be free.
You know, if we took your attitude...
CARLSON: Is that true? Is that true?
BLAKEMAN: Hold on, Tucker. If we took your attitude, we would have turned back at the beaches of Normandy when all those people...
CARLSON: Spare me the tired, hackney, cliched World War II analogies. Let‘s get to the war in progress, and that‘s Iraq. There are decent people there. I have been there. I‘ve met decent people there. I know firsthand.
However, your claim that most people want peace is bosh as they say.
Let me show you...
BLAKEMAN: It is not.
CARLSON: It certainly is. A poll undertaken by the ministry of defense from Great Britain, part of the coalition, said 65 percent of Iraqi citizens support attacks on U.S. citizens.
Our own polling, done by World Opinion, public opinion, 47 percent approve attacks on U.S. forces, 88 percent of Sunnis, 88 percent approve of attacks on U.S. forces.
These are—are these—these are the people our sons and daughters are dying to make rich and free? How does that work?
BLAKEMAN: It is our responsibility. We brought down this dictator, this evil dictator...
CARLSON: How are we responsible?
BLAKEMAN: ... who used weapons of mass destruction against his own people. Now, it‘s our responsibility to bring democracy to these people. We can‘t cut and run and defeat the dictator and then leave...
CARLSON: Why is it our responsibility? There are countries across the world who live in shackles.
BLAKEMAN: We are the freest nation on earth. That‘s why it‘s our responsibility. We‘re the freest nation on earth. We brought down the dictator, and now it‘s our responsibility...
CARLSON: How does that work? They have not done one thing for us. Look—look, think of the implications of what you are saying. I don‘t know if you have thought this through.
BLAKEMAN: I‘ve thought it through very well.
CARLSON: Nation after nation after nation, starting with Mugabe in Zimbabwe, moving all the way to communist—still communist, still unfree China, people who are living in fetters who are unfree, who are oppressed, is it our, as you put it, obligation as a free a nation to free those nations? Do you really want to play this?
BLAKEMAN: Is it—do you know what our obligation is? It‘s to bring freedom to those people who yearn to be free. And China has come a long way.
CARLSON: So it‘s your obligation to sent your son, my obligation...
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: ... people I‘ve never met in countries that hate us? You‘ve got to be kidding. It‘s my obligation to do that?
BLAKEMAN: Yes, it is our obligation. Was it our obligation to go—was it our obligation.
CARLSON: Where does the obligation come from? I didn‘t sign up for that obligation.
BLAKEMAN: It‘s our obligation. Was it our obligation to go—was it our obligation to go into Europe where we weren‘t attacked? No, Europe let a dictator get so strong that collectively they couldn‘t take him down, and we had to come down.
CARLSON: We got in war when we were attacked.
BLAKEMAN: We lost 400,000 Americans in that war. We lost—a million people were wounded in that war.
CARLSON: Right. And there were...
BLAKEMAN: But was it worth it?
CARLSON: Let me just remind you, we entered that war on December 7, 1941, when our soil, the protectorate of Hawaii, was attacked by a foreign nation and thousands of Americans died. We went to war on that day, and not before. OK? So the overall principle you are stating here, that we have a moral obligation to free the unfree, think it through, man. It‘s...
BLAKEMAN: I didn‘t say that, Tucker. I said when we took down the dictator, when we made an obligation to risk our soldiers to free a country, we just can‘t cut and run. We have to establish a government for them. We‘ve got to give them the opportunity to succeed. That‘s our obligation.
CARLSON: And you may be right as far as that goes. But the blanket obligation that Bush implies, and you just stated, that we have to go free the world, to send our sons and daughters to go...
BLAKEMAN: No, we don‘t have to free the world
CARLSON: ... die for other people‘s freedom, people who hate us, it‘s a scary thing.
BLAKEMAN: Well, then you know what? Didn‘t the Japanese hate us?
Didn‘t the Germans hate us? Do they hate us today?
CARLSON: They attacked us first. We had no choice.
BLAKEMAN: They‘re our allies. They our allies, and they stand shoulder to shoulder with us. Should we have waited to get attacked by the Iraqis? No.
CARLSON: You know, I thought—when I supported the war initially, I thought that they were capable of attacking us, and it turns out, as you know, and I‘m sad to report, that we weren‘t.
BLAKEMAN: They were pretty capable of attacking us if they wanted to.
CARLSON: Brad Blakeman, thanks a lot.
BLAKEMAN: You are welcome.
It depends on the situation
I voted for Bush the first term. He was running against Gore. The country could not afford another 4 years of Clintons. I voted for Bush and I'm proud I did because it helped keep a known bafoon who didn't know squat diddly out of the white house. After Bush was elected a lot changed. I didn't want to vote for him again, yet the best the dems could do was give us Kerry???????? There were so many qualified people running. How that ninny got in there (must have been all those purple hearts). So I voted for Bush again. However I wasn't voting for Bush, I was voting against Kerry. That doesn't make me and others morons, it makes us well-informed voters. If it meant four more years with Bush in there then so be it, but I'll tell you something. With everything that has happened in the world these past eight years the US is lucky that Gore and Lerch were not in office. That's the way a lot of people feel.
Now we're in a totally different election. Both McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden are very different from their usual party people. This year is an unusually difficult election. Times are quite different than they were 4 and 8 years ago.
To tell someone they are a moron because they didn't vote for democrats? The other choice would have been even more moronic to vote for.
With everything that has happened I'll take Bush over Gore or Kerry anyday. And before anyone goes blaming him for everything that's happened - He's just a talking head being told what to do. If you want to blame anyone, blame the bafoons in his party (Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc to include the people who tell Bush what he's going to do).
Every situation is different, but I do know people
nm
my understanding of the situation...
My understanding is that Obama says this is a practice that can be regulated at the state level. The federal government is just making sure that abortion stays legal and then the individual states decide how far their state will go with it.
I have a friend in the same situation...sm
His father worked for GM and died several years ago, leaving my friend a nice trust fund and health care benefits and pension for his widow who currently is in a long-term care facility. My friend, who is an MT and cannot afford insurance and is in bad health himself, told me that when his mom loses her benefits at the first of the year, he doesn't know what they will do.
I don't know if blame the government for this mess as much as I blame mismanagement by the automakers with their big executive salaries and perks and insistence on manufacturing super trucks and huge SUVs. It seems to me that more could have been done to stem this before it got this far.
Yes, it is a no-win situation all the time.
Governing bodies do their budgets on what the expected income will be at that time. Any time anything goes wrong, it throws a monkey wrench into their budgets, then everybody has to fork over extra money.
It's always the taxpayers who lose in the end, no matter what.
My twist on your situation
I was a democrat who became a republican and will probably reaffiliate as an independent in the not-too-distant future. I find the assumptions made on this board amusing and likely as not completely off base.
I think Obama is a likeable guy, but his starry-eyed supporters drive me up a wall. If not for the lunacy surrounding him and his office I probably wouldn't feel as apprehensive and insecure about his presidency as I do. Okay, I don't agree with him on much so far, but I so believe he's intelligent and sincere.
Try not to take the categorizing too seriously; it's just more silliness.
At lest Obama is TRYING to better the situation.
If he will be successful the future will show. At least we should give him some TIME.
The republicans would not have even TRIED to better the situation, but would have trotted along the same path, down into the final abyss.
But I agree with you that discussions about pub : dem AND about pro-life : pro-choice 'suck' and lead nowhere but to personal attacks.
When you say "world situation"....(sm)
and that Obama has played a big part in it, exactly what are you talking about? The economy was in the toilet before he got there, and yes, he's spending a lot of money, but that's in an attempt to try to stop (or at least slow) the progression of this economic downfall.
As far as foreign affairs go, I think we're on better terms with just about everyone now.
So I don't get what you're talking about.
situation in Iran
Iranian opposition leader calls for rally Thursday
because the situation OVER THERE CHANGED,
Taliban in Pakistan is getting stronger!
Think and get more flexible.
Please don't base your decision on who you vote...sm
for on this or any other board. Look at the issues and make your decisions based on them, not personalities or rhetoric.
It shouldn't be. It's a private decision, not one to
.
Roe vs . Wade is a decision handed down...
by the Supreme Court invalidating a state law which made abortion illegal. At that time many states had an abortion law on the books. And from that all abortion law was abolished. The Constitution of this country clearly states that only the legislative branch can enact law. The Supreme Court superceded that and made law. Rowe vs. Wade is unconstitutional on its face and should be overturned. Then, the Congress of the United States can inact a real abortion law, or leave it to the states to decide. It should reflect the will of the people, not a few judges. Of course, the pro CHOICE people run backward at the thought of people actually having a CHOICE as to whether or not carte blanche abortion should be legal. Pro choice...right. Where is the baby's choice in all this?
The fact of the matter is, if put to state discretion, there are several states that would enact carte blanche abortion law. But there are some who would not. As with any law, it should be the will of the majority...is that not what democracy is all about? CHOICE?
There was no decision to be made. I was dealing with a
human life and no way would I ever have killed that baby. We will never agree, so we should probably just agree to disagree on this one. Have a blessed day!
Thank you and I have equal respect for your decision. s/m
We can all only vote for what we hope (there's that word HOPE again) that we have made the right decision. I do have FAITH in the American people that all of us will come together and take it in our hands to clean up this country at some point. Neither candidate nor member of Congress is going to look out for "we the people" until we stand up on our hind legs and DEMAND it. That is our right under the Constitution of the United States of American and I HOPE we will do it. We did it on a small scale after 9/11. I say "small scale" because while everyone came together, it didn't last long and we all went back to business as usual. If the prediction of us being in such dire straits as we are "warned" about on a daily basis if Obama is elected, I think we ain't seen nothing yet as how the AMERICAN people will band together and DEMAND change. However, if McCain gets in the White House, as I think he will, we'll continue right on down the garden path just as we have the last 8 years. AND it won't surprise me if before this election is done Bush declares martial law and then we are for sure in a fine fix. Use your noggins for a change instead of just trying to get McCain elected, we ain't rid of George W. Bush YET.
And if you read the previous decision on this
the judge raled on and on for pages about Berg and frivolous law suits.
Could be, but it's their decision to make, not yours, not the govt
x
I agree with O's decision. Showing this
awful tortures, yes, they were very awful, might endanger the American soldiers, especially if they get caught and might be exposed to the 'same' tortures.
I commend you on a courageous decision
It doesn't sound like it was an easy decision for you to make. But sounds like you did what was right.
you made the right decision, I, too, commend you....nm
nm
sorry, Obama did not make this decision -
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/FTRIALS/conlaw/ButlervPerry.html
It was decided in 1916!
That really isn't for you to judge. sm
This is a chat board. You people perceive lies in the slightly statement. You must have a really really low tolerance to differing viewpoints. I would say, having kept an eye on it, Suzie is probably the only one who has escaped being called a liar, but I remember a post that named her with some others as a liar, so I guess I am even wrong on that one. Wait...maybe I am a liar!
judge not lest
ye also twitch, snort, flinch and giggle.
Who are they to judge?
I won't accept criticism from countries that refuse rights for women, have lax child labor laws, and routinely torture and kill their own people for either religious or political reasons.
As far as I'm concerned, anyone associated with a terroist group has no human rights because they aren't human, IMHO.
Let's not take it on ourselves to judge
Non-Christians are not qualified to judge whether a Christian's faith is genuine, and Christians are strictly prohibited from doing so.
exploring situation from both sides? What?
Exploring the situation from both sides? What two sides? The man stated crime would go down if we aborted black babies. What is the side you are referring to? It is a racist remark, a dumb remark and insensitive hateful remark. No two ways about it..PERIOD..
His bosses handled the situation, as it should be - nm
x
In all honesty, you are the aggressor in this situation (sm)
You came on to a political board and insulted the way everyone on here has behaved. Would you teach your daughter to do that? I'm sorry. I am a very nice person too...I just think you were kind of asking for trouble by doing that.
With the looming financial situation...... sm
I don't think Obama's current "plan" will hold much water. A plan is just that....a plan, and we know what John Steinbeck had to say about that. Even if he could tax the upper crust enough to cover the financial crisis, his redistribution of wealth would be moot point because there would likely be nothing left to distribute.
Whether Obama or McCain were elected would make no appreciabe difference in our tax situation because this huge bailout has to be recouped in some fashion and it will be off the backs of ALL Americans.....at least the ones who pay taxes.
Your the one showing how little you understand about the situation
What part of Hamas and Israel at war don't you understand.
What part of Hamas terrorizing Israel don't you understand.
What part of Hamas slaughtering and killing innocent citizens, women and children don't you understand.
To me it looks like you don't understand any of what is going on over there, therefore should keep your comments to yourself.
I just say thank goodness our incoming President understands it very well.
What was that quote I read that Ben Franklin said "Better to keep one's mouth closed ...".
There is no Biden situation. Therefore, I did not comment.
I replied to a post that also did not comment on the so-called Biden situation but I don't notice you jumping all over that one.
Obama cannot dispatch anyone to anywhere until after Jan 20. As a sworn sitting senator and Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, I think Biden's trip is perfectly appropriate and evidently, so does the Senate.
Another thing I am not in the habit of responding to (besides non-issues conflated only in the imaginations of O haters) would be phoney outrage. It was tiresome during the campaign, is downright boring now and not the least bit compelling.
You may think that gutter-bound gripes and groans are "intelligent" legitimate political dialog, but it's not my thing. Once again, Obama did not send Biden anywhere. In his capacity as Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, that would be the prerogative of the Senate, over which Biden will be presiding as VP, so his relationship with them will be ongoing and, under those circumstances, I appreciate the sense of continuity he is maintaining.
Finally, it is truly laughable in a pathetic sort of way that you are accusing a lib dem of sidestepping issues. Puh-leeze.
|