I don't mind you asking. I grew up north of ...
Posted By: sam on 2008-10-29
In Reply to: If you don't mind my asking s/m - gourdpainter
Sallisaw, Oklahoma. About 23-24 miles from Fort Smith down Interstate 40. Arkansas border to the north at Siloam Springs...to the east Fort Smith. Beautiful part of the country. I hope to go back some day.
Never been to the casino at Siloam, but I have been gone from that area quite awhile. There was an antique/flea market kind of place there in Siloam I used to like to go to...browse for hours. lol.
As to Buy American...yep, and they tried to keep it that way for a long time. And I know you don't want to hear this...but every time Democrats got control of congress taxes went up, especially on corporations...and you have to do something to compete.
And you have to face it...there would be millions of Americans without jobs if it weren't for Wal-Mart. They are a huge part of the American economy. :)
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 used to know it all, just like you, then I grew up (sm)
and realized I was wrong. You will too. Let's hope our country is still free by that point in time so you can still express your views, once you have truly learned what your views are.
I grew up on..............sm
peas grown in my Dad's garden and cornbread cooked in my mom's stove.
My Dad was the sole breadwinner in our family of 4 and Mom was a magician when it came to stretching Dad's paycheck to provide the family with all that we NEEDED. We learned early on in life that there was a large distinction between our NEEDS and our WANTS. Our menu was very basic, like yours, beans and cornbread, peas, chicken and dumplings, etc. The only time we had steaks was when Dad had a steer butchered when he had cattle. We also raised hogs at one time for meat. My mother made every stitch of clothes I wore almost until I left home, including my prom dresses. She would have made my wedding dress, but we lived on a red dirt road and she just knew that my white dress would no longer have been white had she made it. But we did find the perfect dress at a bridal shop on sale for $100.....remember this was 1978, LOL. She could not have sewn it for that, even if we had lived on a paved road!
Still, with all that, I never knew I grew up poor until I was well past grown and looked back over some of the events of my childhood. We were rich in love and family and faith in God.
Part of the problem with the welfare system, and America in general, is that we have been offered so many choices for so long, that we have become greedy and feel entitled to have anything we want, regardless of whether we can afford it or not. That, I fear, is not something that welfare reform or legislation can change.
Yes, my income grew after 2001...nm
Moved home, and I took my primary account home with me as an IC, and then promptly found two other accounts. I've always worked more than one job, and being at home is no different. And it's always been just me doing the work, no one else.
However, in the last two years, since dems have had control of Congress, my income has plummeted by 20,000. The most I ever made was close to $80,000 a year, and that was working 12 hours a day, every day, seven days a week.
Now, I have to work more day, get paid less, and make somewhere around $55 or 60,000.
I'm an IC MT/editor/QA type person, who does all three, for different clients, depending on who I work for.
Not an MTSO, but took advantage of all the tax breaks for small businesses, as well as HSA account for health purposes, just for my husband and myself.
Soooo...to answer your question to sam....Yes, I did well in the first four years after 9/11. I work my butt off, to be able to live where I do. We're middle class America....but dropping fast.
I cannot afford to have more taxes. I cannot afford to pay for more social programs for those who do not work.
As someone said recently on this board. Why should I work my butt off to make $60,000 a year, to be told I am in an upper middle class bracket, and have to dole out thousands more in taxes to the people who refuse to work? (And if they can't work, there are progrmas for them) I'd do just as well working only 40 hours a week, instead of the 80 to 100 I do work.
Do not believe for a moment, that Obama knows what he's doing for the economy. It's all a subterfuge to raise taxes anything that isn't tied down, and then some. A one time tax rebate to lower and middle America, to buy their votes. Then tax, tax, tax.
No thanks.
She actually grew up middle class
and made her own money. Then married Sir Rothschild. Why couldn't I have found a guy like that?!?
I grew up in extreme poverty myself - I am only 40 - I know (sm)
I know what the world is really like. I am not superficial. You just have no idea what you are talking about. I AM being a resonsible American and this is not nonsense. That is the confusion here.
It didn't say he grew up in Pakistan
Big difference.
I grew up with guns in the house.
My father had gun racks and he always kept one rifle loaded in case someone tried to break into the house. All three of us kids knew it and we also knew not to touch it. My dad taught us how to shoot, the safe way to use guns, and what NOT to do with a gun. I think the problem with a lot of gun related accidents is that parents hide the guns and don't teach their kids the dangers and how to properly handle guns.
If you take guns away from the law-abiding citizens....it won't stop the criminals from getting them and then we will have nothing to protect ourselves with. That is common sense really. It will just create an even bigger black market for guns and only the unlawful citizens will buy them illegally like that which will leave the lawful citizens unprotected from criminals.
Question: When the economy GREW the 4 years after
Job security? Standard of living? Most likely not, unless you happen to live in India.
I grew up Baptist, and we thoroughly studied both books
And, as always, we picked and chose that which we would apply to our lives, and how we would interpret what it said.
You know the only things I took away from my childhood religion?
"Love your sisters and brothers."
"Judge not, lest ye be judged."
"Do unto others as you would have done to you."
And having studied the Nag Hammadi library, which gave much, much more insight into what Jesus recommended, it seems as if that - believe it or not - is exactly what he meant.
So when you say someone is "wrong," you are judging them. When you are asking someone to change their lives to accommodate your beliefs, you are doing unto them something you're asking not be done to you. And I believe we can agree that love is unconditional (something I believe 1 Corinthians 13:1-13 alluded to), regardless of what other's choices are - even if you disagree with them.
I grew up in California and it is a real problem...
They end up closing down emergency rooms because they can't turn away illegals who need medical help and most don't pay. Don't know anything about PA, but it seems to be pretty bad here in Nebraska where I have been lioving since December.
Well, I say good for him! 'Bout time somebody grew
--
What makes you think that everyone who believes in Jesus grew up in the church?
I most definitely did not, and it is an absolute MIRACLE that I even came to the Lord. My parents are as far from Christ as can be. I literally came to Christ "kicking and screaming". I did not want to believe in him. Mostly because I did not want to have to follow HIS rules. But I am here, and I am saved, and I thank God that I am! It is the best thing to ever happen to my SOUL.
Ollie North
Ollie North - that man should have been court martialed and jailed for what he did regarding the Iran Contra horror. I know more veterans and active military persons who are far more deserving of any accolades than he could ever be.
Oliver North......................................sm
I've said it before, and I'll say it again.
Oliver North took the fall for his country and his president. Ask any veteran, like my husband, who knows what he did and what he gave for his country.
An true honorable American hero.
http://www.heroism.org/class/1980/north.htm
ollie north
YOU said it much better than I....Oliver North indeed...enough to make anyone gag..and yes, John McCain got his hands dirty and lined his pockets too during the Iran-Contra debacle....at that time many of our young American soldiers died because of Iran-Contra
Actually North Korea HAS WMD
Bush had no reason to send troops to Iraq.
North Korea, on the other hand, is already in possession of nuclear arms and is ready to strike a pre-emptive strike towards America.
Would you suggest we do nothing?
This has nothing to do with whatever side of the aisle you are on, it is about saving humanity from a mad man with nuclear arms.
north to home, are you seeing this
somebody else is using the E word!
Pro North Korea? (sm)
I didn't say I was pro N. Korea. You obviously need to hone your psychic skills. What I am saying is that yes, I am anti nukes. I am also anti "let's jes kill 'em all" mentality that we've had to put up with for the previous 8 years.
Another thing you might want to consider is that N. Korea is not completely without allies. Unless we're willing to catch one of those nukes, I would think it best if we didn't start playing hot pototoe with them.
Very well stated. LOL. I have always like Ollie North. nm
nm
Who would ever guess North Dakota would be #1?
xx
NORTH AMERICAN UNION
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T74VA3xU0EA
Ollie North, the 'true hero' - whatever....
Yep, sure am old enough to remember. My husband is a veteran, and he met Col. North...
...a few months back, in an airport, and was coming off a flight and had to rush to a connecting one, and who was sitting there in the lobby typing on a laptop, was Col. North.
My husband saw him, stopped abruptly, walked up to him and said, "Col. North?" To which, Col. North stood up immediately.
My husband held his hand out and introduced himself. They shook hands. My husband only had time to thank him for his service to our country. Then my husband had to run to his connecting flight.
Col. North is a real American hero, in every sense of the word.
The retired military hold Col. North in high esteem, to this day. They know what he did, and how he stood up to congress and took the fall for the good of the country, way back then, for the Iran mess.
North Korea: This is not good news
I was surfing a bit this morning and found this news article from N. Korea. I doubt things will cool off for a long time, if ever. The article headlines state: "Lee Myung-Bak's Group Military Provocations Blasted. From there, it calls him a puppet war monger and states how Myung-Bak outbursts "over the non-existant provocation (my emphasis) by the North."
http://www.kcna.co.jp/index-e.htm
Russia against sanctions for Iran and North Korea. Therefore:
U.S. and Russia to Enter Civilian Nuclear Pact
Bush Reverses Long-Standing Policy, Allows Agreement That May Provide Leverage on Iran
By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 8, 2006; A01
President Bush has decided to permit extensive U.S. civilian nuclear cooperation with Russia for the first time, administration officials said yesterday, reversing decades of bipartisan policy in a move that would be worth billions of dollars to Moscow but could provoke an uproar in Congress.
Bush resisted such a move for years, insisting that Russia first stop building a nuclear power station for Iran near the Persian Gulf. But U.S. officials have shifted their view of Russia's collaboration with Iran and concluded that President Vladimir Putin has become a more constructive partner in trying to pressure Tehran to give up any aspirations for nuclear weapons.
The president plans to announce his decision at a meeting with Putin in St. Petersburg next Saturday before the annual summit of leaders from the Group of Eight major industrialized nations, officials said. The statement to be released by the two presidents would agree to start negotiations for the formal agreement required under U.S. law before the United States can engage in civilian nuclear cooperation.
In the administration's view, both sides would benefit. A nuclear cooperation agreement would clear the way for Russia to import and store thousands of tons of spent nuclear fuel from U.S.-supplied reactors around the world, a lucrative business so far blocked by Washington. It could be used as an incentive to win more Russian cooperation on Iran. And it would be critical to Bush's plan to spread civilian nuclear energy to power-hungry countries because Russia would provide a place to send the used radioactive material.
At the same time, it could draw significant opposition from across the ideological spectrum, according to analysts who follow the issue. Critics wary of Putin's authoritarian course view it as rewarding Russia even though Moscow refuses to support sanctions against Iran. Others fearful of Russia's record of handling nuclear material see it as a reckless move that endangers the environment.
You will have all the anti-Russian right against it, you will have all the anti-nuclear left against it, and you will have the Russian democracy center concerned about it too, said Matthew Bunn, a nuclear specialist at Harvard's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.
Since Russia is already a nuclear state, such an agreement, once drafted, presumably would conform to the Atomic Energy Act and therefore would not require congressional approval. Congress could reject it only with majority votes by both houses within 90 legislative days.
Administration officials confirmed the president's decision yesterday only after it was first learned from outside nuclear experts privy to the situation. The officials insisted on anonymity because they were not authorized to disclose the agreement before the summit.
The prospect, however, has been hinted at during public speeches in recent days. We certainly will be talking about nuclear energy, Assistant Energy Secretary Karen A. Harbert told a Carnegie Endowment for International Peace event Thursday. We need alternatives to hydrocarbons.
Some specialists said Bush's decision marks a milestone in U.S.-Russian relations, despite tension over Moscow's retreat from democracy and pressure on neighbors. It signals that there's a sea change in the attitude toward Russia, that they're someone we can try to work with on Iran, said Rose Gottemoeller, a former Energy Department official in the Clinton administration who now directs the Carnegie Moscow Center. It bespeaks a certain level of confidence in the Russians by this administration that hasn't been there before.
But others said the deal seems one-sided. Just what exactly are we getting? That's the real mystery, said Henry D. Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center. Until now, he noted, the United States has insisted on specific actions by Russia to prevent Iran from developing bombs. We're not getting any of that. We're getting an opportunity to give them money.
Environmentalists have denounced Russia's plans to transform itself into the world's nuclear dump. The country has a history of nuclear accidents and contamination. Its transportation network is antiquated and inadequate for moving vast quantities of radioactive material, critics say. And the country, they add, has not fully secured the nuclear facilities it already has against theft or accidents.
The United States has civilian nuclear cooperation agreements with the European atomic energy agency, along with China, Japan, Taiwan and 20 other countries. Bush recently sealed an agreement with India, which does require congressional approval because of that nation's unsanctioned weapons program.
Russia has sought such an agreement with the United States since the 1990s, when it began thinking about using its vast land mass to store much of the world's spent nuclear fuel. Estimating that it could make as much as $20 billion, Russia enacted a law in 2001 permitting the import, temporary storage and reprocessing of foreign nuclear fuel, despite 90 percent opposition in public opinion polls.
But the plan went nowhere. The United States controls spent fuel from nuclear material it provides, even in foreign countries, and Bunn estimates that as much as 95 percent of the potential world market for Russia was under U.S. jurisdiction. Without a cooperation agreement, none of the material could be sent to Russia, even though allies such as South Korea and Taiwan are eager to ship spent fuel there.
Like President Bill Clinton before him, Bush refused to consider it as long as Russia was helping Iran with its nuclear program. In the summer of 2002, according to Bunn, Bush sent Putin a letter saying an agreement could be reached only if the central problem of assistance to Iran's missile, nuclear and advanced conventional weapons programs was solved.
The concern over the nuclear reactor under construction at Bushehr, however, has faded. Russia agreed to provide all fuel to the facility and take it back once used, meaning it could not be turned into material for nuclear bombs. U.S. officials who once suspected that Russian scientists were secretly behind Iran's weapons program learned that critical assistance to Tehran came from Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan.
The 2002 disclosure that Iran had secret nuclear sites separate from Bushehr shocked both the U.S. and Russian governments and seemed to harden Putin's stance toward Iran. He eventually agreed to refer the issue to the U.N. Security Council and signed on to a package of incentives and penalties recently sent to Tehran. At the same time, he has consistently opposed economic sanctions, military action or even tougher diplomatic language by the council, much to the frustration of U.S. officials.
Opening negotiations for a formal nuclear cooperation agreement could be used as a lever to move Putin further. Talks will inevitably take months, and the review in Congress will extend the process. If during that time Putin resists stronger measures against Iran, analysts said, the deal could unravel or critics on Capitol Hill could try to muster enough opposition to block it. If Putin proves cooperative on Iran, they said, it could ease the way toward final approval.
This was one of the few areas where there was big money involved that you could hold over the Russians, said George Perkovich, an arms-control specialist and vice president of the Carnegie Endowment. It's a handy stick, a handy thing to hold over the Russians.
Bush has an interest in taking the agreement all the way as well. His new Global Nuclear Energy Partnership envisions promoting civilian nuclear power around the world and eventually finding a way to reprocess spent fuel without the danger of leaving behind material that could be used for bombs. Until such technology is developed, Bush needs someplace to store the spent fuel from overseas, and Russia is the only volunteer.
The Russians could make a lot of money importing foreign spent fuel, some of our allies would desperately like to be able to send their fuel to Russia, and maybe we could use the leverage to get other things done, such as getting the Russians to be more forward-leaning on Iran, Bunn said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/07/AR2006070701588.html?sub=new
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
North Korea: Engage, Appease, Oppose
A little bit of history on North Korea and the dilemma. Read the rest of the article from the link below.
"So it's another step backwards again with North Korea.
In defiance of a Security Council resolution (1718) passed after its first nuclear test in 2006, it has now announced a second. It has also implied that it has solved some at least of the problems it encountered in the first.
The actual technical achievement remains to be examined. But the test itself represents a continued belligerency whose destination is unknown. "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8066719.stm
EVERYBODY laughs at the Useless Nations, not just North Korea. nm
nm
So, wait, you're ANTI nukes but PRO North Korea.
Uhhhh...do you see the flaw in your logic?
I didn't think so.
Hindsight is 20/20. The same argument could be made of North Korea if they decide to attack...sm
after Bush's 2nd term has ended.
Clinton and Bush definitely were opposites on foreign policy, but I think he did try - probably didn't do as much as he could. What Bush is doing with the war in Iraq though, I think is irresponsible as well.
Obama has other things to worry about: North Korea! Israel:Palestine etc...
Why are you so interested to know WHO visits the White House in top secret meetings?
This is not what Obama meant when he said...'I will open the White House...!
North Korea threaten to fire missile towards Hawaii on 4th of July
On the 4th of July. How should the US respond?
wrong again - I did not say grew up in Paky, I said "was" in Paky.
.
What mind?
x
Never mind
I thought you were responding to my comments. Now I understand your comment as you were responding to PKs remarks on this board. Sorry...
Never mind. You obviously don't get it.
How can you be so certain this country isn't going to be blown to smithereens? If we're not already in the beginning of WW III, then we're definitely heading for it, and Bush is encouraging it with his love of war.
I'd really appreciate an answer to this, and I would respectfully request that you answer in the format the question was asked: Without any personal attacks directed at me for asking the question, sticking to the issues and no insults.
Please tell me why you think we're safe under Bush and are not on the brink of being blown to smithereens. I welcome respectful, polite debate and sincerely hope you respond.
This is not what I had in mind, exactly. NI
22
maybe in your own mind you have but i'd rather
x
May we just keep in mind that these....
corporations you demonize employ most of the people in this country? And can we keep in mind that huge corporate taxes are generally a big factor in companies moving offshore, closing facilities, downsizing, etc. Corporate tax bills are one the largest things corporations have to pay...and yes, they pay bills just like anyone else...for labor, for benefits, for supplies and materials and on and on.
You speak as if corporations were made up only of executives and they are the only ones who reap benefits...that is just not true.
We do need to keep this real.
no, but i wonder how your mind got so
twisted on the facts. Democrats have a terrible history of spending more money; their theory is always to throw money at a problem (that's OUR money)...and if you TRUST that the bad guys will EVER think we are now good people, you are totally delusional!! AND, there's a big difference between slaughtering of innocent babies and death row immates my friend. Your argument is weird, but to ever disregard taking of innocent life is beyond me. you have too many topics to discuss them all -- but marry your horse huh? like i said, a very twisted state of mind. maybe the right medication or therapy will help you unravel your messed-up thoughts. and all your cheerleaders sure need help as well.
In whose mind, exactly?
Keep in mind
I said both MSNBC and Fox were biased. Then read their posts.
keep in mind
that Clinton passed the Patriot Act. At any rate--I think that we become more tha more and more susceptible to government strong arm every year, and I am not just saying under Democratic control. I personally have a problem with a state controlled medical system and there are many countries with worse health care than ours who offer it. If we take out the free enterprise, the money has to come from somewhere. Either we pay for it with higher taxes or subpar health care or lesser equipment or less research, but one way or another, the bill has to be paid. I grew up near a Naval base and my parents have always been employed by the federal government in one way or another--I think that my father currently has BlueCross/BlueShield insurance, so I am not really sure what plan you speak of, but you actually might know more about this than I do. I do know that you certainly do NOT want TriCare. My fear is that Obama will shuttle us down a path we are already heading at an accelerated pace. I understand that many people disagree with me. I can live with that.
If you don't mind my asking s/m
where in Oklahoma are you from? We have to be next door neighbors. I was raised halfway between Bentonville and Rogers. Went to school in Rogers, but the farm I grew up on has now been annexed into Bentonville and is a huge subdivision now. Hate going to that area because I'm totally lost. Husband always tells me "you grew up here, you ought to know." Well, when I left there in the early 60's the population was around 5,000. I don't even know what it is now. B'ville, Rogers, Lowell, Springdale and Fayetteville is all just about one big metropolis now, except for signs you can't tell when you leave one and enter the other. One thing is good, this area probably won't suffer as much in a depression as other places.
As for Wal-Mart, I think in the 70s, I was tickled spitless when I saw the sign in Katy, Texas saying Wal-Mart was coming. I shopped there then. Remember Sam's motto was "Buy American?" Now it's "Bring it Home To America." Yup, bring it on home from China or Japan or Tiawan or whereever.
Another thing about Sam Walton......he lived in the same home until the day he died, drove an older pickup truck and was just "one of the good ole boys" who made good in Bentonville, Arkansas. Now there's a success story for ya.
Oh yeah, we go to W. Siloam Springs, Ok to the Cherokee Casino, ever go there?
We all know what is on your mind.nm
x
His mind.
x
Keep in mind that I am not saying...
that I am against helping victims of natural disasters. I only think that at some point, they need to be pushed out of the FEMA or MEMA nest to take care of themselves and find their own homes. I think that one year is long enough. These people have had 3+ years. At some point are they not responsible for helping themselves? The still get Welfare--use that to find a house to rent on section 8 or something. Do they get to double dip forever?
I don't mind but....
How much is enough. 40, 50, 60%?. Should I give 80% of my paycheck to taxes (because welfare is not the only thing taxes go to). Pride is one thing, but should I have to put my bills on credit, and then instead of owing $160 for electricity, I'll now owe $200 when you add in the interest charges. Then because they've raised my taxes (but not pay), I can't pay off the credit card, so now I have to put next months utilities on my credit card. Now my credit card has been charged $320, etc, etc. Each month it will pile up all because the money I would be for my utilities is going to support all the democrat programs and welfare system for people who can work but wont. When is enough. Heck should I be taxed at 100% and not even be able to afford to live anymore and get forced into the street. Maybe that would be good because maybe then I'd quality for welfare.
Also keep in mind ................ sm
that a hefty population of MTs are of an older generation who did not grow up in the technilogical revolution, myself included, and it is those MTs who depend on transcription for their livelihoods. I understand the need to keep up with the changes in the industry, but at the same time it's just so darn hard to take a hit in the pocketbook in order to do so.
What I think you have to keep in mind...(sm)
is the mind set of the people in the middle east. We are basing this idea that it will only anger them on what our own reaction would be, not theirs. I don't claim to know what they think or how they think, but it's my impression that instead of them being horrified by the pics, they may actually respect us for putting them out there. One thing is for certain. When it comes to people in the middle east, they are big proponents of consequences. I think they would look at it as the US owning up to what was done and taking responsibility for it. That would be a big change for the US in their eyes (and rightly so). They would see it as an embarrassment for us, thus being the consequence we pay for having done it. They would also see it as one step closer to punishing the last admin (which they really hate).
As a side note, on Rachel Maddow last night it was noted that Al-Q had put out a plea for financial help. In other words, they're running out of money. That may be the only good thing that comes out of this recession.
I seriously doubt that is who she had in mind. ...
.
reading my mind too?
LMAO! Nope, I dont care, not at all, LOL, gee you are able to read peoples minds too, hun? Attack number one trillion against gt, LOL.
|
