Home Contact Us

Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

I like equality and fairness.....like most grown-ups...nm

Posted By: Elecampane on 2006-09-18
In Reply to:

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

There needs to be equality and fairness in congress
Don't shoot me - these are only my observations. Granted I have been very busy with work only catching the news in between, but what I have seen over the past few days or a week is that the republicans are not being treated fairly by the democrats. I voted for Obama because I believed that he would be the best choice and like he said he would be able to get the republicans and democrats to be able to work together. I didn't see that with McCain. I didn't vote for Obama because of his plans because I knew it was just campaigning and all a bunch of garbage. No president yet to this date has ever fulfilled their campaign promises. But I voted for Obama because I believed he would unite the two parties together and maybe something could get done in Washington to help the people. What I have seen so far is just too sad beyond words. More failed promises. I was truly hoping for some "class", but I don't see it happening and I'm not sure if it's worse than it was before. Granted it's only been a couple weeks and I keep hoping things will turn around, but seems like all the people Obama is picking for his cabinet members are democrats (and crooked ones at that) with maybe one or two republicans to give the illusion that he is giving fairness to both sides. As for the congress, all I see on the news is they are acting like a bunch of spoiled children. They are blatantly ignoring republicans as thought they are children saying "we won and you didn't nana nana na na. We don't have to listen to you now nana nana na na" (remember that little song you used to do as kids). There many great republicans and many great democrats. My husband keeps telling me we have to have check and balance. He said these republicans represent part of the country too. Not every person in this country is a democrat and if we give full reign to them that is when you have a dictatorship (tyranny or whatever you want to call it) and they will pass anything they want to paying back all the people who bought them and they promised favors to.

The last administration was certainly not one of the best, but neither was the Clinton or Carter either. DH and I were talking about it last night and he said during Carter administration it was so bad that the only thing out there was the military to join, and that it what I am seeing starting to happen here.

I don't think anything should be "given" to either one side or the other, but the republicans deserve to be treated with the same respect that people are demanding they treat the democrats with. There are good ideas on both sides and if congress is filled with people lining their own pockets then maybe they need to be fired now so we can start again with people who care about the American people and what is happening to the country.

I believe that congress should be filled with people from outside of washington. There are so many good politicians in each state (ones we have never heard of yet), who do good things. Maybe it's time to get rid of people like Pelosi, Reid, Kerry, and all the "stable" washington crowd and replace with people who have a proven record of doing good for our country.

I am all for equality....

but I just do not see how it will every come to be because there is such animosity still out there. Racism is such an ugly thing and yet it continues to rear its ugly head. Some parents have literally passed down their hatred of other races to their children. I'm all for knowing your past and your heritage. I think people should know where they come from and the trials there ancestors went through. On the flip side, I think we need to let it go. Some people feel they are owed because their ancestors suffered. Well.....whose ancestors didn't suffer? Does it make me better than someone else if I go around spatting how my ancestors suffered and how I deserve something because of that......of course not.

Look at what happened to Native Americans. Look at what has happened to the Jews. Look at what has happened to African-Americans and on and on. Does that make one better than the other? No. I think we as Americans need to learn from the past but stop living in the past and embrace our fellow Americans no matter what color their skin is.......but I just don't foresee that happening. The races are too busy crying foul play and playing the race card when convenient. Yes, there is racism and it goes both ways, but sometimes I think the race card is played when race has nothing to do with anything. For example, if Obama should lose, all we will hear about is how he lost because he is a black man. Who cares if he is black. In my opinion, he should lose because I don't think he is the man for the job. I'm sure some people will not vote for him because he is black and I'm sure some people will vote for him just because he is black.......but that doesn't hold true for everyone. I'm a white woman who isn't voting for a black man because I don't think he is a good candidate or the man for the job but if he loses (which I hope he does) the race card will be played to its fullest extent.

So much for unity and equality.
Obama adviser: White males need not apply

.Robert Reich tells House panel stimulus package should emphasize 'social return' over worker skill

� 2009 WorldNetDaily

A top economic adviser to President Obama has told a
congressional panel the billions of dollars in the proposed economic
stimulus plan should be allocated with social issues in mind, to make
sure the money doesn't go to just "white male construction workers" or
the highly skilled.Robert Reich, who served as labor secretary
under President Clinton, was speaking to the House Steering and Policy
Committee Jan. 7 about funding infrastructure projects across the
nation."It seems to me that infrastructure
spending is a very important and good way of stimulating the economy.
The challenge will be to do it quickly, to find projects that can be
done that will have a high social return, that also can be done with
the greatest speed possible," Reich said.

"I am concerned, as I'm sure many of you are, that these jobs not
simply go to high skilled people who are already professionals or to
white male construction workers," he said.

Reich's statements were highlighted in a video by NakedEmporerNews, which is embedded here:

The hearing took place two weeks before Obama was inaugurated.

"I have nothing against white male construction workers," Reich
said. "I'm just saying there are a lot of other people who have needs
as well.
"There are ways in which the money can be, criteria can be set
so the money does go to others, the long term unemployed, minorities,
women," he said.
Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., appeared to agree, suggesting federal money be directed to specific groups of people.

The federal government, he said, must "remove the discretion"
about where the funds go, or what projects would be involved, even to
the point of eliminating any input from governors or state legislatures.Reich agreed: "Governors ought to be, should be given a choice of signing on the bottom line or not."

Then Rangel noted the "middle class" would be unlikely to create any opposition to funds directed to minorities.

"One thing that you can depend on, you don't have to be worried
about what the middle class is going to do. Things are so bad, they
have to put food on their tables, get clothes for their kids, get them in school," he said.

Who
is Barack Obama REALLY? Get the book that says his "change" is designed
to uproot American culture and replace it with the failed, secular,
socialist policies of the past.

Commentator Michelle Malkin said Reich's statements expose "the
lie that the Obama administration is actually interested in
revitalizing basic infrastructure for the good of the economy."
"No, what Team Obama really wants is to ensure that the least
skilled, least qualified workers get jobs based on their chromosomes
and pigment," she said.
Malkin cited Reich's own blog,
where the Obama adviser wrote of the economic stimulus plan: "I'd
suggest that all contracts entered into with stimulus funds require contractors

to provide at least 20 percent of jobs to the long-term unemployed and
to people with incomes at or below 200 percent of the federal poverty
level."
This, Malkin wrote, is "spoken like a true-blue wealth
redistributor. The 'needs' (read: demands) of politically protected
minorities trump the need for competently build roads and bridges."

..

..

Reich's blog headline

On his blog, Reich makes his case for, "The Stimulus: How to
Create Jobs Without Them All Going to Skilled Professionals and White
Male Construction Workers."
"At least 2 percent of project funds should be allocated to such training.
In addition, advantage should be taken of buildings trades
apprenticeships -- which must be fully available to women and
minorities," he wrote.
Race already has become an issue several times in the Obama administration.

As WND reported, Democratic Party strategist Donna Brazile admitted she swiped Obama's complimentary blanket
from his inauguration ceremony and then joked it was not a criminal
offense because, "We have a black president ... this was free."
Outrage also erupted over the inauguration
benediction by Rev. Joseph Lowery, the 87-year-old civil rights pioneer, for
asking God to help mankind work for a day when "white would embrace what is
right."

Obama reacted to the benediction with a smile.

Equality.....yeah right.

People will never be equal because the black community wants to dominate over the white community. It would be their final revenge to whitie. They don't want to be equal to white people.....they want to dominate and look down on white people. We haven't seen the worst of this yet. It is truly scary to think what Obama will allow as far as racism goes.....that is as long as it is racism again the white folk.

But......he's not trying to promite equality and unity
@@

They are his children, grown or not. sm
It is their choice and I don't think they should sign up because of the security reasons, just my opinion. And, yes I think he would talk them out of it.

They are not children. They are grown women.
It's their choice. Can you say with certainty that if one of them or both of them came to George Bush and said I am joining the Marines he would talk them out of it? I just don't see it that way. At any rate, again, they have a mind of their own.

I am grown up...60 years. "I dont think much
nm

This thread is worthwhile for grown ups.
No way, no how can you lay the abysmal Bush/republican response to Katrina at the feet of the DNC, Obama, Biden, Hillary, Bill or the Hope Train, so the best you can do is make a childish joke and dismiss it? You really ae just as cold blooded as your leaders.

Imagine this. It's Monday night, and the opening speaker of the RNC takes his place behind the podium. He is the very same guy that McCain is desperately trying to distance himself from. The media is trying to cover the event AND a category 3, 4 or 5 hurricane, as it makes landfall just west of New Orleans, placing it on the dirty side of the storm.

What will the media do? Perhaps the best they can�.they cover the speech and split the screen with streaming video and scenes of the levies bursting at the seams or the FEMA trailers being smashed to smitherines as huge chunks of metal siding are being blown around like sheets of paper, slamming into buildings, trees being uprooted, and cars disappearing under flood waters raging through streets/canals of the city.

Meanwhile, GW is preaching to the choir and singing the praises of the party as he promotes the candidacy of the RNC's best pick. It will not be that easy for the TV viewing audience to block out the image of Bush and McCain eating cake last time around while New Orleans drowns again. So this beg the question�.what sort of damage control do you think they can pull out of their magic hats to make it go away?

Yes, lets all act like grown-ups and make the
nm

We who support Obama have grown weary of
.

You home-grown terrorists cant see past your
m

THere's no need to give orders either. Lila, you have grown tiresome and

You are insulting at times (and then deny it) and you are quite a pest. Nuff said.

In all fairness. sm

This isn't your list. It's copied and pasted from BuzzFlash. Link below. I only mention it because there was a time some time back when you guys went ballistic on some on the conservative board for doing this.

In all fairness
One thing I agree with you on, if Obama is elected, I fully believe there will be an assassination or at least an attempt. God forbid that should happen. I would far prefer Biden in the Oval office instead of Gov. Airhead. "Experience" in Washington means nothing to me, in fact I would prefer NO Washington experience, provided the Gov. had anything between her ears besides air.

In all fairness. s/m
Someone mentioned Obama's voting record. Has anyone actually looked at his voting record...or McCain's? Obama didn't vote 46.3% of the time. McCain didn't vote 64.1% of the time!!! I find where Obama missed 1 important vote, McCain missed many. In fact, McCain looks like he hardly voted at all in the last couple of years except to speed to Washington to make sure his Wall Street buds got their bail-out. In all fairness, many of the votes both failed to vote on were nothing than motions for cloture (or however you spell that word).

In all fairness
People overseas can vote via e-mail. While I understand that not all of them do and all votes should be counted, there is an alternative to whatever mail problems exist. They only need to go to the FVAP web site. That being said, not everyone in Iraq is lucky enough to have internet access and, from what my husband says, the e-mail voting is quite a pain in the behind because things have to be faxed and all kinds of stuff.

In all fairness...
I am sure that nobody has the time to read every e-mail that he will get. I am sure that they filter them for threats and such, but I doubt he will ever read it unless it is a real standout! Nothing against you, just can't imagine how many e-mails he must get.

And in all fairness
They had to have them disinfected from the Clinton administration. I had heard that it just oozed with cooties.

In all fairness, gourdpainter,

I don't really think Obama is going to come right out and admit that he is friends with Ayers - that would spell disaster for his campaign and plans. I have learned I cannot trust what is fed to me, so I watch all of the stations, including Fox, and I read through tons of information on the internet and make up my own mind instead of letting the media make it up for me.

I will tell you, when this campaign first started, I was so excited to hear what he had to say about the issues and to think he has young kids, etc., etc., but the more I have researched (just facts with proof), I have decided that I cannot vote for this man. He is not who I believe will take America forward. His policies most definitely I don't agree with but I cannot accept a man whose character is questionable.

If you are really concerned about fairness -
I don't understand you folks. I am very concerned about the military having their say in the voting process - I have a son in the military and I want his vote counted (even though he voted for McCain), I have an exhusband in Iraq (who I am sure would not waste his time voting for anybody), but I want their votes counted; however, if you want to be fair then even the homeless people "who do not contribute anything" have the right to vote. Being homeless does not take away their basic rights in this country. You are all talking about how Obama is going to take away this, or take away that, or do this, or do that to the people, but now you are advocating not letting a homeless person vote becaues they don't have a permanent address.

You know what, I have come close to being homeless several times in my life due to unfortunate situations - one of those time when my husband was a SOLDIER and the Army did not pay us for a whole month - and I don't think that homeless people are the scum of the earth and should just be discounted. Any one of us could find ourselves right there on that park bench beside them at any time. If the United States were a better place, then we would not have homeless people sitting on those benches anyway!

I cannot believe the lack of compassion that people in the United States are now showing toward their fellow countrymen!

It doesn't. Now in all fairness....
the campaign says they "had nothing directly" to do with that. Like they had nothing directly to do with Acorn and then had to return 800G. And like they did not provide a list of maxed out donors so Acorn could hit them for get out the vote contributions and registration efforts. Like Acorn is not in the tank for Obama.

Sounds more like the old USSR than the USA.

Then fairness should go on the other hand
Just skip over the posts you don't like.

In all fairness, it won't matter if they
do want to attend to anything with a dem majority. Think Pelosi will get that private plane now? LOL. The party needs to reboot, that's for sure. This is exactly why I don't like a one party majority. We need those checks and balances from both sides, brilliantly set up by our forefathers.

Fairness Doctrine

oh no its not. Geez. Please watch the actual news programs.

Thank you for your fairness and tolerance......nm
nm

The Fairness Doctrine
No one in the Democratic party ever seriously considered restoring the Fairness Doctrine. Someone occasionally will bring it up, but it never goes beyond committee and it dies there. It's not on the Democratic agenda nor will it be. It's yet another canard invented by the right-wing noise machine.

More Fairness Doctrine
The Senate voted to approve a bill granting representation to Washington DC in congress. However, Senate Republican Steering Committee Chairman Jim DeMint (S.C.) and Senate Republican Conference Vice Chairman John Thune (S.D.) added a totally unrelated amendment to the bill prohibiting reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine. The Senate passed the measure 87-11.

In response, Senate Majority Whip D*ck Durbin (D-Ill) proposed an amendment that called for the FCC to encourage diversity in media ownership. This proposal simply re-stated current existing law. It passed 57-41 despite the fact that every single Republican in the Senate voted against it.

So to summarize, the Senate passed an amendment to allow congressional voting privileges for Washington DC, but Senate Republicans added a totally unrelated amendment that prohibits reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, which the FCC wasn't considering and the Obama administration never supported. Nevertheless, the Democratic-controlled Senate overwhelmingly passed it anyway 87-11. Then, when a Democrat introduced a measure to "encourage diversity in media ownership," every single Senate Republican voted against it.

DeMint told reporters that Democratic efforts to legally encourage diversity in media ownership would open a "back door to censorship."

Uh, okay Jim. Whatever you say. Could this be because the vast majority of the mass media in this country are owned by Republicans? Liberal bias in the media? Gimme a break.

Once again, gt, you are not thinking from a base of fairness.
But I didn't expect you to. And when another poster actually did, you responded with HOW COULD YOU. I expected that, as well. So much for philosophical conversation, exploring intent, and misspeaking. I notice you never mentioned Maher, which, again, is typical. I drew a cogent correlation and you dismissed it completely. Again, expected. Thank you, Gadfly, for the conversation.

Okay, in all fairness, the link does not work for me either. nm
x

Well by all means, in the usual fairness...
of the as-far-from-democratic-Democratic Party...guilty until proven innocent, bash, belittle, and then turn right around in the SAME post and accuse someone else of the same. You need to get a new schtick. YOur number one does not have as much experience as the Repub #2. Yet you keep bringing experience into the conversation.

As to self destruct, not seeing it. Got a little bounce and sucked ALL the air out of the britney spears stage speech.

I am not at all underestimating the clintons....your #1 is, and the DNC is.

Yes, by all means, toe that party line. lol.

As far as your last line...THANK GOD for that!! And may i remind you, on the issue of experience...when Hillary Clinton ran for her NY state senate seat, she had NO experience in government whatsoever, unless you consider running around behind Bill cleaning up his messes experience. She had held absolutely NO legislative positions but I am sure you would agree she has been an effective senator...right?

Puhlezzzzz. Double standard is SHOWING. And all Bill had done before he became Prez was be a governor. Double standard is SHOWING.

geeeez. lol.

It is called the Fairness Doctrine Act
s

Fairness Doctrine, cont.
Did Pelosi write or sponsor or introduce a bill regarding the Fairness Doctrine? Is it on the Democratic Party platform? Is there pending legislation in the House or the Senate?

The Fairness Doctrine was started in 1949 when media outlets were very limited. It was stopped in 1987 and is unenforceable. Again, the right-wing noise machine takes a remark out of context and tries to build an issue where none exists.

It's ridiculous that the president actually had to announce the fact that Democrats have no intention of trying to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=68d07041-7dbc-451d-a18a-752567145610

Fairness Doctrine is Alive and Well

DH told me it's in our paper today, that Schumer is promoting it, but I couldn't find anything on line.

I did find a few articles and the one posted below is the most recent (by Sen. Inhofe) that I could find:

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/93765

In all fairness, your posts were attacking and unkind. sm
And may have even been unfounded. I believe both of you were off base with the posts. I have once again posted a reminder at the top of the board.

You lefties are so fair....the fairness is staggering...
attack him for not paying attention to hurricane and then attack him for paying attention to hurricane. Just proves that all you want to do is attack, attack, attack.

In all fairness, the O rarely voted at all since his campain started

Go check his record on the government site, but in all fairness, McCain didn't vote much either since this campaign. Still I think he voted more than the O. Correct me if I'm wrong.

AND NO BASHING. Serious question here. I don't have time to count every vote and I did try to do that a month ago and posted my results.

Obama opposes Reinstating Fairness Doctrine

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/18/white-house-opposes-fairness-doctrine/

Why is fairness in taxation considered a handout? This isn't welfare... it's paying the right
o

Pelosi Erases Gingrich's Long-Standing Fairness Rules....sm

Pelosi Erases Gingrich's Long-Standing Fairness Rules
by Connie Hair
01/05/2009

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi plans to re-write House rules today to ensure that the Republican minority is unable to have any influence on legislation. Pelosi�s proposals are so draconian, and will so polarize the Capitol, that any thought President-elect Obama has of bipartisan cooperation will be rendered impossible before he even takes office.

Pelosi�s rule changes -- which may be voted on today -- will reverse the fairness rules that were written around Newt Gingrich�s �Contract with America.�

In reaction, the House Republican leadership is sending a letter today to Pelosi to object to changes to House Rules this week that would bar Republicans from offering alternative bills, amendments to Democrat bills or even the guarantee of open debate accessible by motions to recommit for any piece of legislation during the entire 111th Congress. These procedural abuses, as outlined in the below letter obtained by HUMAN EVENTS, would also include the repeal of six-year limit for committee chairmen and other House Rules reform measures enacted in 1995 as part of the Contract with America.

After decades of Democrat control of the House of Representatives, gross abuses to the legislative process and several high-profile scandals contributed to an overwhelming Republican House Congressional landslide victory in 1994. Reforms to the House Rules as part of the Contract with America were designed to open up to public scrutiny what had become under this decades-long Democrat majority a dangerously secretive House legislative process. The Republican reform of the way the House did business included opening committee meetings to the public and media, making Congress actually subject to federal law, term limits for committee chairmen ending decades-long committee fiefdoms, truth in budgeting, elimination of the committee proxy vote, authorization of a House audit, specific requirements for blanket rules waivers, and guarantees to the then-Democrat minority party to offer amendments to pieces of legislation.

Pelosi�s proposed repeal of decades-long House accountability reforms exposes a tyrannical Democrat leadership poised to assemble legislation in secret, then goose-step it through Congress by the elimination of debate and amendment procedures as part of America�s governing legislative process.

Below is the text of the letter on which the House Republican leadership has signed off.

January 5, 2009

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker of the House
H-232, U.S. Capitol
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Madame Speaker,

We hope you and your family had a joyful holiday season, and as we begin a new year and a new Congress, we look forward to working with you, our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and President-elect Obama in tackling the many challenges facing our nation.

President Obama has pledged to lead a government that is open and transparent. With that in mind, we are deeply troubled by media reports indicating that the Democratic leadership is poised to repeal reforms put in place in 1995 that were intended to help restore Americans� trust and confidence in the People�s House. Specifically, these reports note that the Majority, as part of its rules package governing the new Congress, will end six-year term limits for Committee chairs and further restrict the opportunity for all members to offer alternative legislation. This does not represent change; it is reverting back to the undemocratic one-party rule and backroom deals that the American people rejected more than a decade ago. And it has grave implications for the American people and their freedom, coming at a time when an unprecedented expansion of federal power and spending is being hastily planned by a single party behind closed doors. Republicans will vigorously oppose repealing these reforms if they are brought to a vote on the House floor.

As you know, after Republicans gained the majority in the House in 1995, our chamber adopted rules to limit the terms of all committee chairs to three terms in order to reward new ideas, innovation, and merit rather than the strict longevity that determined chairmanships in the past. This reform was intended to help restore the faith and trust of the American people in their government � a theme central to President-elect Obama�s campaign last year. He promoted a message of �change,� but Madame Speaker, abolishing term limit reform is the opposite of �change.� Instead, it will entrench a handful of Members of the House in positions of permanent power, with little regard for its impact on the American people.

The American people also stand to pay a price if the Majority further shuts down free and open debate on the House floor by refusing to allow all members the opportunity to offer substantive alternatives to important legislation -- the same opportunities that Republicans guaranteed to Democrats as motions to recommit during their 12 years in the Minority. The Majority�s record in the last Congress was the worst in history when it came to having a free and open debate on the issues.

This proposed change also would prevent Members from exposing and offering proposals to eliminate tax increases hidden by the Democratic Majority in larger pieces of legislation. This is not the kind of openness and transparency that President-elect Obama promised. This change would deprive tens of millions of Americans the opportunity to have a voice in the most important policy decisions facing our country.

Madame Speaker, we urge you to reconsider the decision to repeal these reforms, which could come up for a vote as early as tomorrow. Just as a new year brings fresh feelings of optimism and renewal for the American people, so too should a new Congress. Changing the House rules in the manner highlighted by recent media reports would have the opposite effect: further breaching the trust between our nation�s elected representatives and the men and women who send them to Washington to serve their interests and protect their freedom.

Sincerely,

Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio), Republican Leader
Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), Republican Whip
Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), Conference Chairman
Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.), Policy Committee Chairman
Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wyo.), Conference Vice-Chair
Rep. John Carter (R-Texas), Conference Secretary
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas), NRCC Chairman
Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), Chief Deputy Whip
Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.), Rules Committee Ranking Republican

(Click here for a pdf copy of the letter with signatures.)