I found several opposition articles and will post the high points....
Posted By: Observer on 2007-10-06
In Reply to: Sorry to keep bringing it up - SCHIP - DW
and actually I was surprised to see that there were some common concerns and actually very little concerning *a move toward socialized medicine.* This is what I found:
Proposals to expand coverage to children from families earning three or four times the federal poverty limit ($61,940 and $82,600, respectively, for a family of four) also highlights the question of just how many should be subsidized, necessarily at others' expense. The $61,940 eligibility limit would cover median-income families in 14 states, and the $82,600 limit would do so in 42 states. Parents earning such incomes do not need additional subsidies for their children to get health care.
************************
Baucus, Grassley Comment
Senate Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and the committee's ranking Republican Chuck Grassley (Iowa) jointly requested the CBO study but "had divergent views of its findings," according to CQ Today.
Baucus, who supports spending $50 billion over five years to expand SCHIP, said the report validates the program. CQ Today reports that Baucus "expressed little concern" that people would leave private insurance plans to enroll in SCHIP, saying that every public health insurance program provides coverage to some people who might be able to obtain private health insurance (CQ Today, 5/10). Baucus said, "The fact that uninsurance for children in higher-income families has stayed about the same means that SCHIP is helping the lower-income families it's meant to serve."
Grassley said the report supports his argument that SCHIP eligibility should not be expanded beyond 200% of the poverty level. He said, "This report tells us that Congress needs to make sure that whatever it does, it should actually result in more kids having health insurance, rather than simply shifting children from private to public health insurance" (CongressDaily, 5/10).
****************************
SCHIP is a joint state-federal program that provides health coverage to 6.6 million children from families that live above the poverty line but have difficulty paying for private insurance. Already, the program is generous. A family of four with an income of more than $72,000 (350% of the federal poverty level) is eligible for SCHIP's subsidized insurance. Now, Congress wants to expand coverage even further, to families making up to 400% of the federal poverty level ($82,600 for a family of four). But, according to the Congressional Budget Office, 89% of families earning between 300% and 400% of the federal poverty level already have coverage. The CBO estimates that some 2 million kids already covered under private insurance would be switched over to government insurance. The only purpose of all of this seems to be to turn children's health insurance into an outright entitlement — part of the Democrat's broader push to move all of America's health-care industry under government control.
Along with expanding SCHIP coverage to include people higher and higher up in the middle class, the Democrats' bill would also give states incentives to sign up aggressively new "clients," by loosening requirements to join the program and encouraging states to market the program (anyone who rides the New York City subway knows how active the Empire State is already being on this front). How is all of this to be funded? Well, the bill would impose a 61-cent increase in the 39-cent a pack federal cigarette tax, bringing it up to an even dollar. We've written before on how corrupt is the government's interest in the cigarette business. It turns out that the government needs to keep people smoking; the Heritage Foundation estimates the government would need to sign up some 22 million more Americans to take up smoking by 2017 to fund this increase in SCHIP. To add to the irony, most smokers are low-income Americans, meaning that the poor essentially will be funding the health insurance of the middle class. Mr. Bush would be right to veto it while working to increase access to private insurance through tax breaks and deregulation.
****************************
So, it would appear to me that the major problems some have against it are: it will shift children who are now covered by private insurance onto a program unncessarily; it will allow for more adults on the program, something that was never intended; that paying for it with a tobacco tax targets the very people who need the assistance, the lower income families as statistically that is where the most smokers are...essentially shifting the burden for adding middle class families to the lower income families...and I think we can all agree that is not a good thing.
In my research I also found something VERY interesting...
I am sorry to say I did not know the particulars of the President's proposal regarding insuring children...only his proposal extends to everyone, not just children...sure have not seen the media report it....
Opposing view: President's plan is better
Extend SCHIP program without spending billions to expand it.
By Mike Leavitt
We all want to see every American insured, and President Bush has proposed a plan to see that everyone is. Congress, instead, is pushing a massive expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) that grows government without helping nearly as many children.
The president's plan, announced last January, would fix our discriminatory tax policy so that every American family received a $15,000 tax break for purchasing health insurance. If Congress acted on the president's plan, nearly 20 million more Americans would have health insurance, according to the independent Lewin Group.
In contrast, Democrats in Congress would more than double government spending on SCHIP and extend the program to families earning as much as $83,000 a year. But their plan would add fewer than 3 million children to SCHIP, and many of the newly eligible children already have private insurance. So instead of insuring nearly 20 million more Americans privately, Congress would spend billions of dollars to move middle-income Americans off private insurance and onto public assistance.
The Democrats' plan has other problems. It would fund SCHIP's expansion with a gimmick that hides its true cost. It would allocate billions of dollars more than is needed to cover eligible kids. And it would allow states to continue diverting SCHIP money from children to adults. This is a boon for the states but costs the federal government more.
Ideology is really behind the Democrats' plan. They trust government more than the free choices of American consumers. Some in Congress want the federal government to pay for everyone's health care, and expanding SCHIP is a step in that direction.
SCHIP is part of the fix for low-income children, and Congress should put politics aside and send the president a clean, temporary extension of the current program. Expanding SCHIP is not the only way or the best way to insure the uninsured. The president's plan is better. It would benefit many more Americans. It would focus SCHIP on the children who need help most. And it would move us more sensibly toward our common goal of every American insured.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I think a $15,000 tax break would help more American families afford health insurance, thereby covering more kids AND adults, which is the goal, right? And no raising of taxes or targeting the lower income families with a tobacco tax...sounds like a win-win. I don't care if it is Bush's idea or the Democratic Congress' idea...it is a good idea. This time it happened to be Bush's.
Just my take on it.
If you want to find the articles, just put *expanding SCHIP* in a Google search. I read several articles in support of both sides. I did not see much about the income leveling, except in one article, which did mention that New York had a "sliding scale." It did not define it, but I am thinking it is at the purview of the states, and if New York did it others probably could too?
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
Oh please. We just post articles of Obama
x
Excuse me, but you will not dictate whether or not I include articles in my post.
I post articles here in order to encourage a debate about the articles. In your limited Israel-is-always-right-and-anyone-who-questions-that-is-worthy-of-a-rabid-attack attitude, you can't see that and once again wish to control everything, even how people communicate with each other.
All you want to do is tear down, not build anything. I gave my reasons for posting this article. In those reasons I expressed some skepticism about Hezbollah's sincerity. Instead of offering an intelligent response to those reasons, you once again slammed the door of dialogue and showed that your abilities to communicate are so limited that all you can do is berate and insult. To call me anti-American only highlights your ignorance. I am absolutely pro-American, and I'm very fearful where President Bush is leading us. It's the duty of every American to question what he or she sees as failures or inadequacies in the administration that is in power regardless of party affiliation. I felt the same way during the Clinton administration, and I feel the same way now.
If I were to come on here and say that Hezbollah is rebuilding Lebanon and now the Bush administration wants to compete with them, I would get responses that demand I provide my source, and rightly so. That is the reason I post the entire article itself. I want to gauge if it brings the same questions to the minds of other (repeat once again) LIBERALS as it does to me.
You're free to have your opinion of me, but you come off as pompous and controlling, demanding that everyone bow down and kiss Israel's feet. The mere suggestion that Israel may be even slightly wrong elicits anger and rage from you, and you have shown that repeatedly.
No, you are not obligated to engage in debate with anyone here, but don't whine and complain that you're unable to when someone offers you the opportunity. Your failure to do so when invited only proves how angry and full of rage you are.
For the record, I have never said you were sent to shut down the board. It's laughable to even imagine you have the power to do that. You are no more important or influential than I am or than any other poster on this board is. Get over yourself already.
And, no, I have no idea which sentence of the original article you find disturbing. I personally found several of them disturbing, but I refuse to engage in any guessing games with you.
Am I paranoid? I sure am these days. I'm pro-peace and I'm living in a country run by a President who is trigger happy and who has done nothing but incite the world.
If looking at Israel objectively is anti-Israel according to your definition, then so be it. You said previously on this board that just because Israel didn't bother to send any troops to Iraq didn't mean they're an ally. Please enlighten me. With the BILLIONS of dollars we give Israel every year, along with weapons, we are definitely an ally to Israel. Please explain how Israel is an ally to us. Is it because they grace us with their agreement to take our money and then spy on us? (I could post a number of articles regarding the spying, but since you don't like it when I do that, feel free to Google it on your own.) What have they done for us in return?
I have always believed Israel was the underdog in the Middle East and have always favored them. This is the first time I have ever questioned their actions. We here in America still have freedom of thought and speech, whether you like it or not. You know nothing of me, including how I believe. Your assessment of me is not only wrong, it's absurd and only proves how you interact with people who disagree. I am very relieved that you are not representative of all Israelis, as it gives me a small sense of hope.
I doubt your sincerity in stating that I'm not worth the time to answer, considering all the time you spent doing just that. Another example of your hypocrisy. No doubt you will waste your time once again responding to this with more hatred and insults, only this time I will let you have the last word, since you are now no longer worth the time it takes to respond.
Yes, let's post articles to mother's of military. So helpful. Geez. nm
Nice post piglet. All your points are well made.
I agree 100% with what you had to say. Too many Americans have been brainwashed by fear, and I think many Americans who are against universal healthcare are just buying into the Chicken Little syndrome that is so prevelent in this country lately. The sky will fall if all of our citizens have access to affordable healthcare!
As you said, using France's system as a model does not mean we have to do everything exactly as France has, but they are a great example of a system that is working.
Nope. I don't just post talking points. I back it up.
see above.
I found you post interesting!
Setting any views you may have aside, you admitted Hillary was at least good at handling herself!! That is the main reason why I still think she's in the race. I was shocked that she faltered at the last debate, so I'm glad she redeemed herself at least a little at this one. Other than that, I missed it so I can't comment.
Overall, I think Senator Biden says some very powerful things, but the debates are the only time I see him. If he would've been able to get out there as much as the other three, he might've done well.
Really, really good points, just shows how complicated it all is! provocative thoughtful post, than
nm
Hi, Your llink did not show up, only 'page not found.' so I post my link inside...sm
NewsWorld newsIran
Tehran braces for crackdown as protesters vow to defy KhameneiSupreme leader warns Mousavi supporters against bloodshed
guardian.co.uk, Friday 19 June 2009
Iran's opposition faces a critical test of resolve and the country an uncertain future tomorrow after the Islamic regime's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a blunt warning to those involved in mass protests over last week's "stolen" presidential election that they would "bear the responsibility" for any bloodshed.
Khamenei rejected accusations of fraud in the poll, confirmed the incumbent, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as the winner, and gave no ground to the millions of Iranians demanding their votes back.
Mir Hossein Mousavi, who claims he beat Ahmadinejad in the race, was said by an ally to have no plans for unauthorised rallies tomorrow following the warning, but supporters vowed to go on protesting.
Fears grew tonight of an intensifying crackdown on media and opposition activists. Students at the fine arts faculty of Tehran University – where scores of students were injured and some reported killed after raids by security forces earlier this week – announced an indefinite sit-in starting tomorrow.
Khamenei's closely watched speech at prayers at Tehran University could hardly have been tougher. It had been hoped he might adopt a more conciliatory tone that would help defuse the gathering crisis, the worst in Iran's 30-year post-revolutionary history. But he warned: "If there is any bloodshed, the leaders of the protests will be held directly responsible. The result of the election comes from the ballot box, not from the street. Today the Iranian nation needs calm."
Tens of thousands of worshippers cheered as he told them: "It is your victory. They cannot manipulate it."
Mousavi, a moderate former prime minister whose "green" movement scared the regime with the support it was attracting, ignored a call to attend the prayer meeting and now faces a dilemma over his next step. Ignoring Khamenei's message risks bloodshed on a far larger scale than the eight people killed last week. Accepting it means surrender to the regime.
The reformist cleric Mehdi Karroubi, another candidate for the presidency, added to the pressure tonight by also calling for the election to be annulled. "Accept the Iranian nation's will by cancelling the vote and guarantee the establishment's survival," he urged.
Khamenei attacked opponents at home but also lambasted Iran's enemies abroad in hardline remarks that bode ill for any opening to the US, where Barack Obama is seeking talks to tackle worries over Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Britain was attacked as "the most evil", but the US, Israel and "Zionist-controlled" media were also abused, as was Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state. "The enemies are targeting the Islamic establishment's legitimacy by questioning the election and its authenticity before and after [the vote]," said Khamenei.
The speech underlined the sense of profound crisis, since the supreme leader usually only speaks in public at the end of Ramadan and on the anniversary of the 1979 revolution.
Analysts and commentators were dismayed by its implications. Sadegh Saba, chief analyst for BBC Persian TV, said: "Mousavi wants the protests to continue but Khamenei is saying if they do there might be bloodshed – and it will be on your hands."
Issa Saharkhiz, a Tehran-based pro-reformist commentator, said Khamenei's speech had transformed the crisis from a conflict over the election result into a trial of his own political authority, which was now being openly questioned. "Now the issue is that the supreme leader's sense of justice, management and competence is under question," he told Deutsche Welle. "The leadership of the country cannot be left in the hands of such a person, who for the sake of preserving himself and his own power, threatens people with mass murder."
Crucially, Khamenei ruled out any cheating in the election, apparently dashing hopes that a partial recount ordered by the guardian council, a supervisory body of senior clerics, will mitigate the crisis.
Khamenei's call for Mousavi and Karroubi to confine their protests to legal avenues prompted mockery. "This means that Imam Hossein [the third most revered figure in Shia Islam], instead of making a last stand at Karbala, [should have] pursued his grievances through the legal process," one blogger said on the Farsi blogsite Balatarin.
Balatarin was flooded with messages voicing outrage at Khamenei's warning that opposition leaders would be held responsible for further unrest and bloodshed. One correspondent wrote: "Mr Khamenei, the direct responsibility for any damage to people's lives or property from now on lies with you."
In Washington, the House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to condemn Tehran's crackdown on demonstrators. It was the strongest message yet to Iran.
So you brook no opposition. I see. sm
Although I was totally respectful in my post, you viciously attacked me. I see that is a pattern for you no matter what. Rest assured, this is a board I will not visit again.
I don't see where she said "our opposition"
or where she said she spoke for the liberal board. Can you cite your source for this information?
I took her post to mean she was speaking for other like-minded folks, whether on this board or not. I should think you would have guessed that but perhaps you were too busy laughing hysterically. You seem to enjoy laughing at other people.
If you would be as honest in your postings to opposition..
as you are in postings to those who agree with you, and post in a civil manner the same way you post to Lurker...i.e., you state above (I know we TRY to take care of our poor)...but you certainly did not say that to me. You made it sound like we do nothing to take care of our poor. I personally think it should the be responsibility of individual Americans through private donations to take care of our poor, not the responsibility of the government through taxation. The reason that does not work is that while many pay lip service to the poor, they are not willing unless forced to do just that. And that happens on both sides of the aisle. It is not a political party thing. It is a human nature thing. In a perfect world, if you could trust exactly what people say is what they would do, then the Democrats in this country alone could take care of the poor through personal donations. I do not mean they should do it alone...I am trying to make a point here. It should not be necessary to tax people in order to take care of the less fortunate. We should also not put in place, in my opinion, a welfare system that keeps people impoverished and beholden to the government for everything. I believe every program ought to have a job and responsibility attached to it...in other words, no freebies. If there is no incentive to better yourself, why should you? That is in full obvious view to anyone in this country who cares to actually go visit the poor neighborhoods and actually talk to those involved. If you want some real enlightenment, you should work in the welfare offices for awhile. You would get a much better picture of the real story out there.
I do not say this to be hateful, but I think it would behoove you to, along with reading your books and doing your research, that you try to talk to someone other than me, because obviously you think I am a demon from the nether world, but perhaps someone without a political agenda who has worked for years in welfare (as I have) and get a real picture of how it works. To use your words, it is a great disservice to people to keep them in poverty through programs instead of trying to help them to a better life off a check. The problem is Teddy...there are thousands if not millions who prefer the life on the check. And that is no one's fault but yours and mine and everyone else's who has not sought to really help them...to provide the checks and balances you described.
The opposition is going to fight the other side...
no matter who it is. George Washington was the only president that did not face opposition to his being the president - at least for the first term. Mind you, he was not elected to his first term and after his first four years when he was asked to serve another four, he was beaten down from both sides so much so that he swore he would never enter into politics again. This is the father of our country - the man who helped win our freedom from England! If he can't escape from being shot down at every turn, what makes anyone else who runs for president think they can? It's the nature of the beast and comes with the job.
What's the old saying? You can make some of the people happy some of the time, but you can't make all of the people happy all of the time.
Yeah, right. Hamas squelches any opposition, so you can't
really call their elections democracy in action.
Yeah, right. Hamas squelches any opposition, so you can't
really call their elections democracy in action.
"Our opposition.." You are the voice of the liberal board?
Guffaw.
kyoto, one of many articles
INDEPTH: KYOTO
Kyoto Protocol FAQs
April 13, 2005
Depending on who you talk to, the Kyoto Protocol is either a) an expensive, bureaucratic solution to fix a problem that may not even exist; or b) the last, best chance to save the world from the time bomb of global warming.
Those are the extremes in what has become a polarizing debate that has engaged governments, consumers, environmental groups and industry all over the world for more than 20 years.
The problem the Kyoto Protocol is trying to address is climate change, and more specifically, the speed at which the earth is warming up. Whether Kyoto can accomplish this is very much a matter of debate.
For the record, the Kyoto Protocol went into effect Feb. 16, 2005, with 141 countries signing on, including every major industrialized country – except the United States, Australia and Monaco. The U.S. is responsible for about a quarter of the emissions that have been blamed for global warming.
Two of the world's biggest – and growing – polluters also have not signed on. India and China don't have to – they're considered developing countries and are outside the protocol's framework.
First, the science behind Kyoto.
Is the climate changing?
The United Nations certainly thinks so. And so do most (but not all) scientists who study climate. The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) summarizes the work of 2,000 of the world's top climate experts. Its latest report (2001) makes for some sobering reading.
Yes, the world is getting warmer, the report concludes. The IPCC says the average global surface temperature has risen by about 0.6 degrees Celsius since 1900, with much of that rise coming in the 1990s – likely the warmest decade in 1,000 years.
The IPCC also found that snow cover since the late 1960s has decreased by about 10 per cent and lakes and rivers in the Northern Hemisphere are frozen over about two weeks less each year than they were in the late 1960s. Mountain glaciers in non-polar regions have also been in noticeable retreat in the 20th century, and the average global sea level has risen between 0.1 and 0.2 metres since 1900.
Simply put, the world is getting warmer and the temperature is rising faster than ever.
What are the very long-term climate predictions?
The IPCC predicts more floods, intense storms, heat waves and droughts. Its study forecasts a rise of 1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius in the global mean surface temperature over the next 100 years, with developing countries most vulnerable.
Other studies are even more apocalyptic. A report commissioned by the World Wildlife Fund predicts dangerous warming of the earth's surface in as little as 20 years, with the Arctic warming so much that its polar ice could melt in the summer by the year 2100, pushing polar bears close to extinction.
The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment predicts that caribou, musk ox and reindeer would find their habitats severely reduced. Northern aboriginal peoples around the world would find their way of life changed forever, the study said.
What is causing the world to warm up?
The 6 greenhouse gases Kyoto targets |
Carbon dioxide.
Methane.
Nitrous oxide
Sulphur hexafluoride.
Hydrofluorocarbons.
Perfluorocarbons.
|
Most scientists blame industrialization. Since the 19th century, the richer countries of the Northern Hemisphere have been pumping out ever-increasing volumes of heat-trapping greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. Industrial societies burn fossil fuels in their power plants, homes, factories and cars. They clear forests (trees absorb carbon dioxide) and they build big cities.
Greenhouse gases allow solar radiation to pass through the earth's atmosphere. But after the earth absorbs part of that radiation, it reflects the rest back. That's where the problem lies. Particles of greenhouse gas absorb the radiation, heating up, and warming the atmosphere. The increasing levels of greenhouse gases are causing too much energy to be trapped – the so-called greenhouse effect.
Greenhouse gas emissions targets apply to 38 industrialized countries and economies in transition
|
For a list of these countries and their emissions targets, click here:
UNFCCC
|
Isn't there a lot of debate over the whole issue of climate change?
While scientists tend to agree that the earth is warming, not all agree that rising greenhouse gas emissions are the culprits. A vocal minority say the earth's climate warms and cools in long cycles that have nothing to do with greenhouse gases.
Some dispute the data concerning rising sea levels and rising temperatures. Others dispute the projections, which are based on computer models. But again, those views are those of a minority. Most climatologists agree that global warming is causing unprecedented climate change…and that things will get worse unless something is done.
What does the Kyoto Protocol require?
The Kyoto Protocol was adopted in late 1997 to address the problem of global warming by reducing the world's greenhouse gas emissions. It is considered a first step and is not expected to solve the world's climate change problems by the time its first commitment period ends in 2012.
Kyoto sets out an agenda for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 5.2 per cent from 1990 levels (although economies in transition, like Russia, can pick different base years). Some reports say the lower target is to be met by 2010. But that's shorthand for the actual target date, which is to achieve those emission cuts over a five-year average (2008 to 2012).
All countries are not treated equally by Kyoto. Canada, for instance, has committed to chopping its greenhouse gas emissions by six per cent. The U.S. target was a seven per cent reduction. But in 2001, one of the first acts of newly-elected President George W. Bush was to formally withdraw the U.S. from Kyoto. Bush said the U.S. would not ratify the treaty because it would damage the U.S. economy and major developing nations like China and India were not covered by its provisions.
Kyoto also allows some industrialized countries to make no cuts, or even to emit more greenhouse gases that they did in 1990. Russia's and New Zealand's emission levels are capped at their 1990 levels. Iceland can emit up to 10 per cent more greenhouse gases, Australia eight per cent more. (Like the U.S., Australia has announced it won't ratify Kyoto). Developing nations are not subject to any emissions reduction caps under Kyoto.
Much of the criticism around the Kyoto Protocol is over political realities and the limitations of the treaty. Critics say a five per cent cut will accomplish little, especially with the United States not on board. Some Canadian critics say our economy will pay a heavy price for meeting our Kyoto commitments because we'll have to compete with an American economy that faces no such restrictions. Many doubt that Canada's target cuts can be reached in Kyoto's first phase that ends in 2012.
Others say the money to implement Kyoto would be much better spent on improving land usage and infrastructure in poor countries.
How are emission targets met?
Emission targets can be met several ways. The most obvious way is to actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions – more fuel-efficient cars, fewer coal-fired power plants. But Kyoto also allows for three other mechanisms.
Countries can buy emissions credits from countries that don't need them to stay below their emissions quotas. A country can also earn emissions credits through something called joint implementation, which allows a country to benefit by carrying out something like a reforestation project in another industrialized country or economy in transition. There's also what's called a clean development mechanism that encourages investment in developing countries by promoting the transfer of environmentally-friendly technologies.
Each developed country must develop its own strategy to meet its Kyoto commitments. Industrial countries that ratify Kyoto are legally bound to see that their emissions do not exceed their 2008/2012 targets.
What happens if a country fails to reach its Kyoto emissions target?
The Kyoto Protocol contains measures to assess performance and progress. It also contains some penalties. Countries that fail to meet their emissions targets by the end of the first commitment period (2012) must make up the difference plus a penalty of 30 per cent in the second commitment period. Their ability to sell credits under emissions trading will also be suspended.
Articles 39 and 42 of the U.N. Charter
permit the Security Council to determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and to authorize the use of force to maintain or restore international peace and security.
I read your articles - all of them - and...
In the first link you provided, the fourth paragraph in the gray box says, "Both Mr. Kahl and a senior Obama campaign adviser reached yesterday said the paper does not represent the campaign’s Iraq position."
Also, in this article it clearly states that Obama still plans to withdraw in the 6th paragraph:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/07/mccain_obama_position_on_iraq.html
Also, Obama's website still states the same information of 16 months -
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/
There are several articles...goggle it....see inside...
this is just one.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view/2008_09_13_Obama_s_female_staffers_shortchanged:_He_s_no_great_equalizer/
Many interesting articles on this site...
http://clintondems.com/2008/09/obama-admits-dual-citizenship-with-kenya/
There have been numerous news articles......sm
stating that Obama's mother was a self-proclamed atheist. You can find them if you Google and check out news web sites.
The beliefs of the Catholic church are very different in some respects than those of most Christian denominations. Catholics, as I understand, believe that without baptism (infant christening) that even a baby is not saved. Most mainstream Christian denominations believe that a person makes a choice to believe in Christ and accept him as Savior once they reach the age where they have the capability of making that decision. I am not saying all this to get into a long theological discussion with you but simply to point out the differences between the two. If you want to discuss religion, we have been asked to use the Faith board to do that.
There are all sorts of articles; just google
x
I won't read these articles - the last time I did so,
No thanks!
I read articles on this fellow......... sm
during the campaigns before the election. His predictions are not very promising and I believe we are in for a long, rocky ride. The government bailouts are just the beginning of government owning America, lock, stock and barrel.
I live in a rural, rather economically depressed area now and wonder how quickly my area will start seeing these changes. I wonder if it will be one of the first and hardest hit or if the more affluent areas of the country that enjoy a wider variety of jobs and better paying jobs will be more adversely affected first.
My 18-year-old son and I were discussing his future last night. Although he is a junior in high school, I told him that it is time that he started looking at the job markets in our area and deciding on a job that would pay well and would be in demand for a few years, at least. He won't be going to college, partly because of financial issues, but mainly because he is just not "college material" but I do want him to investigate trades-type schools and trades jobs in which he will be able to provide for himself as an adult in an economy where blue-collar workers struggle at best. 
Personally, I am not spending any more than is absolutely necessary to survive at this point. I guess I'm being "unAmerican" by not stimulating the economy, but right now I'm more concerned about what my future holds and whether I will be able to keep my home than whether I have a big-screen TV or an iphone. Times are indeed getting scary.
Articles of impeachment filed on Cheney sm
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), the former mayor of Cleveland who is seeking the 2008 Democratic nomination for president for the second time, introduced articles to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney Tuesday, basing his decision on Cheney's initial push to send the United States into war with Iraq.
The vice president is beating the same drums of war against Iran that he beat against Iraq under false pretenses, and he's doing it all over again, against Iran, Kucinich said. And I say that it's time to stand up to that. Our country couldn't afford this last war. We can't afford to go into another one. And somebody has to challenge the conduct of this Vice President.
See: http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/04/kucinich-takes-steps-to-impeach-cheney.html
Excuse me. Did you bother to read the articles and
In every single reference I provided for you, the phrase "OFFICE of the President Elect" appears....in 1969, 1989, 2000 as well as in the language of the Act. Don't care what your fringe sites say....especially Malkin. Wouldn't be the first time they invented phoney outrage over fairy tales they spin, and it won't be the last. Read the language of the ACT that created the OFFICE of the President Elect, then the articles I provided, and you might see what I mean....or NOT. You seem to have an affinity for make-believe.
BTW, I know my history, but I believe you were trying to ask me specifically about civics. The electoral college makes the election official. However, it has always been customary to refer to the successful candidate on the Nov 4 election as the President Elect. The media is not the driving force behind this...tradition is.
She posted articles about the big 3 in Europe, not European car cos.....(nm)
Lots of articles on Churchill and Henry Ford and sm
Jews and communism. It doesn't matter if the pillars were made of salt (of course, history tells us that they were eventually). It matters that historically this was what Hitler built his Reich on. This is indisuptable and absolute. Henry Ford's hatred for Jews was legendary, BECAUSE of communism.
It means you're good at paraphrasing articles others
nm
Lies? What we show are facts, links, articles.
What about poor Palin? She is a human being and look at the ATTACKS on her. By the way, she is a republican and I would say Dem's are bashing. We are not bashing Obama, we try to show you articles, links from CNN who by the way supported Obama, and you state we are bashing Obama.
A very intelligent and honorable man, but the articles leans severely to the right.....sm
I tipped over twice reading it. I am not trying to be mean or facetious, I think sometimes people feel so strongly in their beliefs,and I agree with many of his beliefs, that they comes get "tunnel vision", they lose their peripheral vision for that part of humanity that has been good and honest, but has been dealt some very bad, unfair blows and needs help. In my own heart and opinion, there is a difference between radical, fundamentalist Muslims, and mainstream, peaceful, truly religions Muslims, and have have met and worked with many with lovely families. Basically, the author seems to want to cling onto an idealistic life where everything is fair, the good guys always win, and there is only black and white. Well, there are lots of shades of gray in between, and like it or not (and I grew up in the Beaver Cleaver generation), the earth has moved on, time has moved on, and we have to deal effectively with WHAT IS. Yup, I am tired too, especially since my husband and I both have health issues, we certainly aren't kids anymore, and retirement is looking more and more like a pipe dream, even though we invested, sacrificed, and saved. But whining or wishing will not solve anything, as Americans we are famous for pulling ourselves up by the bootstraps and getting the job done, and our job now is to work together, search out viable answers, care for each other, and pull through this depression INTACT AND WHOLE. Off my ratty soapbox now!
high five!
It's a big country - enough sunshine for all of us.
Are you high?
Why don't you blame him for your hemorrhoids while you're at it.
When I was in high school ...
Spanish and French were both offered. They were optional, however. I don't think we should REQUIRE any child to learn a second language. If they want to, fine. And Obama makes the point that most French, Spanish, etc. are bilingual...speaking English AND their native language. Well, duhhh. Of course they do. How else do they cater to American tourists, the lifeblood of several European cities. Or cater to American business. If I moved to France and was going to live there, I would learn French. If Mexicans are going to immigrate and live here, they need to learn English. Where's the rub?
We don't compete with overseas MTs because they are bilingual, trilingual, or multilingual. We complete with them because they will do what we do for a whole lot less money. End of story. Then it has to be run back through American editors to good ENGLISH. Not good INDIAN, FRENCH, SPANISH, et al. Not a real good argument. And I don't know how our children speaking Spanish or French is going to help them unless they plan to move to Spain, Mexico, or France. Last time I checked, speaking Spanish or French did not pay the bills either.
LOL. High regard. nm
nm
high horse?
nm
Oh, get off your high horse.... I'm sure you
have had nothing to say when McCain and Palin are being kicked about here. Your true colors are showing!
I have to say that I did see a lot of high school age...sm
kids standing behind him at his rally yesterday.
Right, because you are too high on the Obama
nm
Prices were very high
There were no bargins this summer. Everything was very expensive. Cheaper to shop in US.
Still in junior high?
Be gone.
How can you have a high rating without doing anything yet?
Oh, I forgot. Dems + hook + line + sinker = Fauxbama for Prez.
Change, change, change.
Hope, hope, hope.
Bull, bull, bull.
Regressive right = junior high
This was just so highly amusing, I couldn't resist I had to share. I hope it makes you smile, it did me!
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/12/21/5933/
mile high stadium
It is a big venue because of the huge number of people who want to be part of the historic event of our first black candidate's acceptance speech. I see it as a defining moment in our history and I am pleased that he wants to include as many as possible. Wish I were there. Still, the flight suit . . .
Were you the bully in high school too?
nm
Don't foget the get'n high part.
Ain't politics grand?
Agreed, The stakes ARE high. nm
nm
High School Politics
So I've kinda realized something lately. The presidential election is very similar to a high school election this time around:
~In high school, you usually have a couple of candidates, but it usually narrows down to two. Usually you have one candidate who will promise the stars and the moon in the form of soda machines, more "senior lunches", more time off, etc. Now we all know full and well that a high school class president can't get these things, but he will say he can. Usually the candidate that can promise the most is the one that wins.
~Don't forget, in high school it's also a popularity contest!
~Oh yeah, and if it's two guys, most of the girls don't care what they say, they just vote on the cutest one.
~90% of the voters never even hear what the candidates have to say. They usually just vote off of what everyone else says or who is their buddy.
~In the end, nothing changes at the school. Still the same amount of vending machines with crappy food, still only get one senior lunch per month, and if anything, you lose a few days off.
Now tell me this doesn't sound at all like what is going on right now?
Better the high horse than the low road....nm
nm
They just want to see us come down from our imperial high horse.
That's all.
I did respect Bush, not in a high-regards, but I did..sm
Everything about Bush's administration was not all bad, but 98% of it was. I did not vote for him for either term, but I did respect him as our country's president. All of the people against President-Elect OBAMA are knocking him before even giving him a chance.
I am thankful for a change. Anything has to be better than what Bush has given us for the last 8 years. People say we are doomed, this country is going down. Bush started that roller coaster ride quite some time ago. President-Elect Obama can now run this country down any more than Bush has already done. Besides, it will take some time to sift through all of the mess that Bush created.
By the way, many have said that Obama will be killed. If no one stepped up to the plate to take first dibbs at Bush for what he has done to this country, Obama will be just fine. He is in God's hands and God will take care of his own.
For once, it would be a great accomplishment if we all came together as Americans instead of being divided, mostly by race. Sad fact is most people are still very prejudice and will never get past the color of one's skin color.
|
