I think I have the other side of the story.
Posted By: Backwards typist on 2008-12-13
In Reply to: Next time, try listening with an open mind. - sm
I've been watching all those other stations for years. I just started watching Fox lately. How much more "open-minded" do you want me to be???
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
The other side of the story....
http://www.newsmax.com/smith/barack_obama_tony_rezko/2008/09/02/126890.html
Other side of the story...
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/09/16/2008-09-16_john_mccain_campaign_releases_troopergat.html
The other side of the story.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Qassam_rocket_attacks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rocket_and_mortar_attacks_in_Israel_in_2008
where is the OTHER side of the story?
Netanyahu agreed to the 2-state solution which was only a pretense under HIS ridiculous conditions for the Palestinians:
Total disarmament for the Palestinian state
The whole of Jerusalem for Israel
No return for the Palestinian refugess
BUT
Illegal settlement in the Westbank should remain.
This is ALL to the gross disdvantage for the Palestinians, therefore Abbas rejected the deal and now Netanyahu started again a massacre in Gaza.
Where is justice? It is Israel who wants the WHOLE of the Westbank, the whole of Jerusalem all for itself.
What else do you expect??? For sure there will be a pro-Israel demonstration in Union Square.
trooper's side of the story
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/05/palin.trooper/
The brother-in-law did not maliciously taser a child. Yes, he exercised poor judgement, but he admits that.
I can tell you in the same situation, my exhusband (a correctional officer/MP) would taser his son in that situation also and not think a second thought about it. I think plenty of "manly mans" would do it and think it was funny - now as a mother and a woman, I think it is ridiculous to think it is okay, but I do not think the BIL was an animal for doing it.
Yep...the other side of the story...makes sense to me...
Global Warming Equals Socialism
Philip V. Brennan
Wednesday, Feb. 7, 2007
There's a very simple question that the global warming scaremongers don't seem to be able to answer in a straightforward, credible manner.
It has to do with the current refrigeration of much of the United States and the claims of the global warming alarmists which appear to be very much at odds.
According to the propaganda campaign being hammered at the people of the world, the polar ice cap is melting and the polar regions are on the verge of becoming a tropical paradise.
I would like to know, if the polar regions are warming, how they able to bestow Arctic weather upon much of the U.S. as they are currently doing?
If the Arctic is the planet's refrigeration system and if that system is losing its coolant due to global warming, how can it continue to bless the U.S. with cold fronts that continue to break records for their severity?
The lame excuse the alarmists provide is that, oh well, climate is measured over the long term, you see, and over a year's time, the climate is seen as getting warmer, despite the frigid temperatures seen in the winter, which are merely temporary.
That's called begging the question.
In an e-mail promoting a new book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming the Conservative Book Updates from Human Events Book Service had the following wisdom to impart: For decades, environmentalism has been the Left's best excuse for increasing government control over our actions in ways both large and small.
It's for Mother Earth! It's for the children! It's for the whales! But until now, the doomsday-scenario environmental scares they've trumped up haven't been large enough to give the sinister prize they want most of all: total control of American politics, economic activity, and even individual behavior.
With global warming, however, greenhouse gasbags can argue that auto emissions in Ohio threaten people in Paris, and that only global government can tackle such problems. National sovereignty? Democracy? Forget it: global warming has now brought the Left closer to global government, statism, and the eradication of individual rights than it has ever been before.
In that book, CBC reports that author Christopher C. Horner explains why, although Al Gore and his cronies among the media elites and U.N. globalists endlessly bleat that global warming is an unprecedented global crisis, they really think of it as a dream come true.
Global warming is the ideal scare campaign for those who are doing all they can to secure strict control over society, business, and the minutest details of individual life. As Horner explains, if global warming really were as bad as the Leftist doomsayers insist it is, then no policy imaginable could 'solve' it . . . no matter how much we sacrifice there would still be more to do. That makes global warming the bottomless well of excuses for the relentless growth of Big Government.
Writing in Canada's National Post, Feb. 5, Timothy Ball addresses the strongarm tactics employed by the environmentalist left. Dr. Ball, chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project and a former professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg, Canada recalls what happened to him when he spoke out against the global warming hoax.
What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in university, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.
Dr. Ball recalls that he once got a three-page letter from an academic colleague telling him he had no right to say what he was saying, especially in public lectures.
He was also accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being in the pay of oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay, you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club, or governments pay, there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?
What did Dr. Ball say that got him in such trouble with some of his colleagues?
Just this: Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and that for 32 years I was a professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg.
Politicians are being listened to, however, wrote Dr. Ball, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.
In recent weeks we have seen environmentalist wackos issuing fatwas against any scientist who dares to contradict their propaganda, demanding they be exiled from the scientific community and tried in international courts.
For example, The Weather Channel's most prominent climatologist, Heidi Cullen, advocated that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming.
Appearing on the Larry King Show Jan. 31, MIT's professor of atmospheric science Dr. Richard Lindzen spoke about the widely touted scientific report issued by the U.N.'s Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and allegedly the work of 2,500 scientists insisting that it's 90 percent certain that global warming is manmade.
In fact, Dr. Lindzen explained, all that was issued last Friday was a summary for policy-makers that is not prepared by scientists. It's not 2,500 people offering their consensus, I participated in that. Each person who is an author writes one or two pages in conjunction with someone else.
They travel around the world several times a year for several years to write it and the summary for policy-makers has the input of about 13 of the scientists; but ultimately, it is written by representatives of governments, of environmental organizations like the Union of Concerned Scientists, and industrial organizations, each seeking their own benefit.
Added Lindzan about the whole global warming scare, I think it's mainly just like little kids locking themselves in dark closets to see how much they can scare each other and themselves.
Then there is this juicy story about the lengths to which the globalbaloneyists will go to convince the world it is tottering on the brink of a cataclysm.
The pro-global warming BBC reported that rising seas, caused by global warming have for the first time washed an inhabited island of the face of the earth.
According to BBC, The obliteration of Lohachara island, in India's part of the Sundarbans where the Ganges and the Brahmaputra rivers empty into the Bay of Bengal, marks the moment when one of the most apocalyptic predictions of environmentalists and climate scientists has started coming true.
According to TheNewsisNowPublic.com, the story was a hoax.
BBC didn't bother to mention that Lohachare Island disappeared 22 years ago and that the entire region of The Sundarbans is a river delta, or that the disappearance of the island has been attributed to erosion, not global warming.
All of this provides solid evidence that Christopher C. Horner is right on target in his charge that the whole global warming business is nothing but pure politics — a means by which the left can take control of just about every human activity worldwide.
The real purpose behind the global warming movement is the establishment of a world socialist order under the control of the United Nations.
Global warming is what I've been saying it is since 1997: a lot of globaloney.
World socialist order? Shades of Revelation.
I was never on SP's side.... s/m
but I think that it was extremely tasteless of this Canadian comedian to post as
French President Sarkozy and interview her for 5 minutes and making fun of her.
Extremely tasteless.
After all she was the running mate of McCain.
I am a democrat.
I don't think that either side... sm
has much room to talk.
I have seen articles, opinions and links posted, apparently by Republicans, about the issues facing Obama, and the first replies are the childish Dems who come on and say "well, it's Bush's fault that he has this or that to deal with" or some other childish remark.
By the same token, I have seen what I believe to be Democrats posting nasty articles and opinions about Sarah Palin and how she is giving interviews, how she obviously doesn't have the sense to be a major political player or whether she gave the clothes back to the party before going back to Alaska.
I'm with BWT. I think the childishness and catiness that I have seen on this board for the last week or so need to end and let's get to discussing the issues at hand. We won't be able to solve a danged one of them, but we can have a civilized adult discussion and we might even learn a thing or two from each other.
Reach across the aisle, folks. 
We are on the same side
I wanted to post and did not want to respond to an Ann fan, so I posted under your reasonable statement.
no just one side
This problem is not just a dem/repub problem. It is a greedy CEO/Wallstreet problem as well. It is a mass amounts of people went out and bought things they couldnt afford and houses they didnt need and couldnt afford problem. Did the gov make them go out and do that? Who made all these people sign their names on these subprime short arm loans that collapsed? It is their fault too. It is also a welfare problem. You know, those people who would rather pop out kids for a job than work for real.
...and just you on the other side.
...but not LAST night.
Get a job.
No one took Eric's side. sm
 But then, you know that. The rest I won't argue with you about. If you use science against God's Word, what more can I say.
The Other Side of Mel Gibson...sm
Disney Cancels Mel Gibson Holocaust Series
The ABC television network has pulled a miniseries about the Holocaust it was developing with Mel Gibson 's production company, the Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday, quoting an unidentified representative for the network.
Gibson was arrested on suspicion of drunk driving early on Friday and was reported to have launched into a tirade against Jews, asking the arresting officer if he was a Jew and blaming the Jews for starting all wars.
The actor, who holds strong conservative Catholic religious and political views and whose father is a Holocaust denier, apologized on Saturday.
The incident has raised questions about the future of projects Gibson and his Icon Productions company are working on, like the ABC television miniseries based on a memoir about a Dutch Jew during World War II, the newspaper said An ABC representative told the paper, without elaborating, it has been two years and the network still has not seen a script, so the project is being pulled.
A spokesperson for ABC, which is owned by Walt Disney Co. , could not be reached for comment.
Disney's movie studio arm still plans to release Gibson 's self-financed Mayan-language movie Apocalypto on Dec. 8, Hollywood's trade papers reported. The Web site Slate.com quoted Walt Disney Studios president Oren Aviv as saying he accepted Gibson 's apology.
Copyright Reuters 2006. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters.
We're on the same side
I am trying to understand where all this animosity is coming from. Why does it bother you so much that the last democratic president and former first lady/candidate/senator are going to be at the convention? How would it look if they weren’t there? Hillary and Obama are basically on the same page when it comes to policy, so I am guessing this is a personality issue for you? During the primaries, her tactics and strategies left a lot to be desired, to be sure, which may have been a mitigating factor as to why Obama was ultimately able to come out on top but, let’s face it, not by much. It will be extremely important that the party get past its in-fighting and focus on the task at hand of winning the election in November.
Bill and Hillary Clinton are and will remain influential party leaders for a some time to come. It appears that it is her die-hard base supporters that are acting like children. They are the ones who prolonging the division and ill-will which you are expressing here. Both the Clintons have been selected by the Democratic National Convention Committee to speak in Denver for good reason. The DNC recognizes just how pivotal their roles will be in bringing the party back together. This group of HRC’s supporters who are planning to disrupt the convention and demand a roll-call are not very likely to succeed in this effort. This serves no useful purpose whatsoever and is in nobody’s best interests.
Hillary will eventually “crawl back into her hole,” as you so eloquently put it, and return to her position as a junior senator, but not until she has done her job of trying to encourage party unity. I suspect that she still has much to contribute in that capacity and in roles yet undefined in terms of advancing party policies. Try not to take what the newscasters say as gospel. They relish in scandal and controversy. Do not give them the satisfaction. It should come as no surprise that the Clintons are disappointed in the primary results, but that does not mean that they are supposed to fade on off into the sunset. It is not their time to pass...not just yet.
Bill Clinton, a racist? Where is this coming from? Fox News? He does not hide behind mansion walls in the ghetto. His foundation continues to advance the cause of civil and human rights, both here and abroad. It is unfair to write HRC off as a disgrace to women who needs to “just go away,” based on this one less than stellar chapter in her political career. She is much more than that, just as Bill Clinton is much than the "impeached president" you so casually dismiss. I am wondering if you hated him this much while he was in office, or did this arise out of the recent primary process?
In any case, if Obama is defeated, HRC will not be responsible. It will be this divisive in-fighting within the party members that will be the reason. We are between the primaries and the convention. The entire campaign still lies ahead of us. Just give it a little more time. You will see Hillary and Bill come around as party loyalists who will play perhaps the most key roles of all in party unification. This is not just their job. It is up to all democrats to come together this fall and keep their eyes on the prize. Perpetuating this kind of division does nothing to advance that cause. Is this hatred really worth harboring to the extent that, in the end, we will be facing 4 or 8 more years of a republican regime? Try to keep that in mind the next time you find yourself this riled up, and ask yourself what I ask you now….where is this really coming from? I think I know the answer, but I am more interested in hearing yours at the moment.
Disrespect is nothing new on your side...
and it is not just directed at me, and to suggest so is being dishonest at best. You tolerate no opinion other than your own, want to discuss only issues that you are pro and do not tolerate discussion of any other viewpoint, and for people who call themselves Democrats that is a very undemocratic attitude. You hate an entire group of people (all Republicans...well I should say anyone who is not Democrat) for no reason other than that. Two sides? That's rich! There have never been 2 sides.
As to domination of the board....there are about 6 or 8 of you guys to 1 of mine. lol. Talk about blinders.
All voters should consider this regardless of which side
It should be very troubling that the mainstream media has been in the tank for Obama since day one. Ask Hillary Clinton or anyone else who ran (again, R, D, or I).
With that in mind, who gave them the right to choose our next President?
Incidentally, the media (left-wing, of course) actually selected McCain, too. They were absolutely certain that he would be the weakest candidate. Mitt scared the holy hanna out of them. I personally hoped for a Rudy-Fred ticket, in no particular order.
It should be interesting as to how many honest people there are reading this stuff to see how they'll react. Based on what I've read since Palin's speech, she's certainly changed quite a few minds.
The thing that surprises me the most is that the bulk of people on this board is women, yet so many of them put party above the person. I personally don't vote by genitalia. I think it's foolish.
"Woe to the other side who does not
recognize it." What I saw was very scary, an individual who has not clue one about what is going on in this country or out of it. Very scared, indeed. Woe, indeed. You make this election sound like a football game. This is our country, our children's future that is at stake. And no, I didn't find her very knowledgeable in the least, just mouthing words and throwing something someone told her to say. We will see, but I pray to God these two do not get elected.
Another side of the coin.....
I respect your beliefs and am very happy you found your niche in life and saved your marriage. Kudos to you! I myself do not question Obama's morals - and I can't say that I question McCain's either. But, Bush got into the white house based on deceptive strategies aimed at leading the populace to believe he was on the moral high ground. (I see the same strategy being used in McCain's campaign). In view of what has transpired over the last 8 years, my faith in the pubs moral high ground has been trampled beyond repair. I believe torture of other human beings to be reprehensible and not advocated by any religion, but it continues and McCain supported it - even though he himself was tortured as a POW. The sex scandals - Larry Craig (airport bathrooms - it was illegal - otherwise, I don't care who he has sex with), Mark Foley (Repub House Representative - Once known as a crusader against child abuse and exploitation, Foley resigned from Congress on September 29, 2006 after allegations surfaced that he had sent suggestive emails and sexually explicit instant messages to teenaged males who had formerly served and were at that time serving as Congressional pages) and now the scandal surrounding the Department of the Interior on charges of getting into bed with big oil (literally and figuratively) drug abuse, etc. I find the whole thing ridiculous to base your campaign on "personality" and moral high ground. I am not saying that Dems did not have their issues with sex scandals - as we all know.
I believe Jesus Christ was once a very highly evolved human being and no longer has to incarnate as a human as he has reached perfection. I believe Buddha was a very highly evolved human being who no longer has to incarnate for the same reason. I believe that Ghandi and Mother Theresa were highly evolved. I believe that energy never disappears, it only changes form. I believe in life after death. I believe that love is the most important thing in life. Humans are not perfect. I do not believe that sex is sin. Dolphins have sex for pleasure and I am not equating humans to aquatic life - but Dolphins are highly intelligent. Do you think God judges them for indulging in pleasure? I believe that exploiting the vulnerable for sex is morally wrong (children, women....that's as far as I'll go on that). Sex between 2 consenting adults is not wrong.
I believe that every religion has it's place on earth and I am in no way authorized or vetted to judge which one is right and which one is wrong. They are all right. Paganism, Wiccan, the Jewish faith, Catholic, Muslim, etc., etc. We, as humans, have the right to decide what is right for us in that regard.
I think all religions know the difference between right and wrong and stealing from others, torturing others, even JUDGING others is morally wrong. You can boil it down to not having ANYTHING to do with religion.
And to believe that whoever is in the white house holds your moral values as a primary reason for decisions that are made is naive. I think the last 8 years proves that and for that reason, I fear more of the same. I am willing to cross party lines just to see if this disaster of a country can be repaired.
The other side of the coin....
Karl Rove would be working to get any Republican elected. That is what he does. He is not a member of the campaign and it is a free country...he can advocate anyone he wants.
If Obama was serious about change he would not have picked a senator who has been in the senate over 30 years. That is not change. That is also more of the same.
James Johnson, of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac fame, who used to be an economic advisor to Obama...after he came under scrutiny for possible fraud, he left the OBama campaign with his tail between his legs. Don't see much difference in the two.
I'm just going to explain our side...
please don't start a war about this.
We are taught in the Bible that homosexuality is wrong and that marriage is between ONE man and ONE woman. We believe in the holy sanctity of marriage. Therefore it is violating the laws of God when homosexuals marry.
Again, it is not the homosexuals that we "hate" or "despise". It is the sin of homosexuality.
I do believe homosexuals are born that way. We are all born into sinful natures. Remember, in God's eyes, all sins are equal. We all have natural tendencies, and that includes homosexuality. I was born a compulsive liar. Since as far back as I can remember I have lied about anything and everything. Now that I am a Christian, that doesn't change. But with the help of Christ I am changing that and I have put away my sinful nature of lying. In the same sense, when a homosexual comes to know the true Christ, He will give them new desires and help them to withstand the temptation to go back to their old ways.
I know most of you won't understand this, but I just wanted to give you our viewpoint. True Christians do not hate homosexuals, or blacks, or immigrants, or abortionists, or anyone else. We just hate the sin, because sin separates us from God.
We want a president who is going to keep the sanctity of marriage, meaning one man and one woman. Marriage came from God, and it is a holy matrimony.
Please don't flame, I'm just trying to explain in a way that maybe you can understand. I see it from your side too. Before I became a Christian I didn't understand the big deal either. But now I do and I see the big picture. If God had meant for man and man or woman and woman to be together, he would have given us the "parts" to be able to do so.
On the lighter side (maybe)
This was sent to me from a friend. Don't know where the info came from.
Guess who I am?
I am 42 years old
I love the outdoors,
I hunt,
I am a Republican reformer,
I have taken on the Republican Party establishment,
I have five children,
I have a spot on the national ticket as vice-president
with less than two years in the governor's office.
Who am I?
|
|
|
|
|
V
I am Teddy Roosevelt in 1900
How can anyone say that Sarah Palin is not qualified?
|
And I'll be right there on the side with you.
I gotta take a break, this board is making me crazy.
On a side note..
Where in the Mojave desert did you live? I grew up in a tiny town called Inyokern and went to high school in Lone Pine.
On the up side of things.........sm
Since I've been such a downer, gloom and doom "prophet" in my last posts  , here is an article that recommends buying now, if you have the cash and the stomach for it, and reap the rewards 10 or 20 years down the road. Might be our solution to no Social Security when that time comes.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27829555/
...and on the flip side...we will soon see...sm
what Obama will do with his regime.
I have a feeling it won't be pretty.
At least we'll have a reason to throw all the democrats out of all branches of offices when they fall flat on their you know whatsits, and find they can't do what they think they can.
The American people won't stand for what the country is about to become, you included, once you wise up and see what's about to come.
What other side this weekend???
I've been on all weekend and it is more drone of the libs praising their god and arguing with anyone who doesn't agree with them.
Who's side you on, Willis?
Bush is the one who refused to do anything about the illegals (cheap help for the rich). Oh, that's right, It's O's job to clean up Bush's mess and he just isn't doing it fast enough to please you. Darn. Heck, Bush would sign anything with a great flourish of the pen and an idiotic grin! He sho did love them cameras!
Why so bitter? Because your side
Typical sore-loser attitude.
I agree. But, you see, when the other side has no
nm
Yes! But the other side of that coin
is that the federal government would have to stop sucking away all that money in the first place, only to dole it back to the states on condition of good behavior. (What many do not acknowledge is that the federal government has no money that it has not first extracted from us. When the federal government 'gives' a state money for any purpose, they are merely giving it back, with strings attached. )
The feds would stop dictating to states based on highway funding, education funding, medical funding, funding for 'the arts,' etc. We would have far fewer federal intrusions into our lives, and if we objected to the way our state governs, we truly could move to an other state more in line with our personal philosophy. As it stands now, if we object to federal regulations, where are we going to move? France?
And on the flip side...
http://www.pnhp.org
France, which comes in 1st in WHO health care rankings, has a better plan for the US to emulate than England's. It *can* be done right, if we try.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_28/b4042070.htm
that's because you are on the other side of the fence..nm
nm
Sorry, I never say anyone on either side say things like this. You are sick. NM
So lying is okay when it benefits your side
Okay. I see the picture developing. It was okay that Clinton lied, but just because you think Bush lied he should be impeached post haste. Just want to be sure I'm reading you right here.
Re: Canadians...The flip side. s/m
There is a flip side to some Canadians coming into the US to get health care, jump the line, etc. For every Canadian that comes here for care there is an equal or larger number of Americans entering Canada to obtain more reasonable medication. Also, a small but growing situation are Americans traveling to India for surgical procedures that they otherwise could not afford in the US.
As I have said before, I certainly do not have the magic "fix" for the health care debacle, but there is a flip side regarding Canada, etc.
As will the stuff that piles up on the other side....
when the debates start. We'll see how it all plays out, and how all of America perceives it, not just we on this board. That will tell the tale. Yes, she did say he was the man she admires most in the world. If I recall, as a young man, Obama snorted cocaine and drank heavily, by his own admission. Michelle still loves him. In my mind, both of these things are in the past, in their youth, and nonissues.
Yes. On my side of the parallel universes,
nm
I said I was on your side, sam. You've posted
to who is with you and who isn't. When you feel it necessary to reply to every single post and always against Obama, it's no better than what you're fighting, IMO. I'm not a fan of Obama, either, but he's not ALL bad. Both parties have strengths and weaknesses. I am objective enough to admit that.
side kick better description
"They" are banking on people's inattention. Using the technique of repeating a slogan until it sticks. I think the real problem in our political system is that many voters are too passive to really research and think, just watch the attack ads and go with the slogans.
There seems to be a lot more roasting of folks by your side....
why is it if someone disagrees with you they are not caring, not kind, not loving, and judgmental? Isn't that kind of a judgmental sentence?
:)
Both sides are stubborn - don't put everything on one side
I'm independent (I don't like either McCain or Obama and have even thought about voting for Barr) and I can see as plain as day. The democrats say the republicans monopolize and everything is their fault and the republicans say the same thing about the democrats. What I found out is that there are some decent democrats who know by passing the bill it would have been wrong so they stood up against their fellow democrats. So there is good and bad on both. The reason I hope Obama does NOT win is the complete arrogance by some of the democrats. The ones who won't accept that there are flaws with their candidate. I'm hearing republicans say, sure McCain has flaws, but not as many as Obama. The obama supporters are just coming out say Obama is perfect. So for all the arrogant democrats and news media I hope Obama loses and for all the democrats who know right from wrong God help us if Obama gets in. We'll need it.
So you want the other side to be able to stack the deck the other way? nm
x
But if it was babbling blather from the other side,
nm
on the flip side .. those with $$ pay more in taxes ...
by virtue of the money they SPEND -- their property taxes are higher; all those clothes and cars and boats and fancy diners out are taxable items ....so they automatically are already paying more into the tax funds that those with lower incomes.
I am also one who thinks it should be a flat tax -- WITH NO LOOPHOLES ... keep it fair and keep it simple.
We don't make much ... but I don't think it's fair to take from the rich and give to the poor. Let the rich give of their own accord, if they so desire.
I could have worked harder, made better decisions/different choices ... but I didn't and those who did should not have to support me.
I agree with the other poster - I would give the shirt off my back to those who really deserve it but our social programs have propagated a whole generation that think they are owed something just for being here and being American.
oh well .. back to work .. LOL
Probably a plant from the O side...would she sue if she heard....
anyone threatening the other side at an O rally? Probably not.
Amanda is right - it's not all one side - (see message)
And it is all wrong. No matter what you think of anyone common sense tells you that you should not have a person who is still living depicted in this way. I don't care how much dislike you have for them. Amanda had another post with a link of a picture of Obama sitting with "death" behind him. Another truly disgusting "art" creation. Funny how they use the words "art" and "halloween decoration" to cover up an act of hate. I heard a lawyer interviewed last night and she said that you can't hang Obama as a "decoration" because it's considered a hate crime (race, slavery, etc), but there is no such thing as a hate crime against a woman. While I can understand that, I don't agree with it. Try telling that to the family of the "white" lady reporter in Arkansas beaten to death. They said every single bone in her face was broken. Now if that is not a "hate" crime I don't know what it.
There was plenty of mean spirited on the O side too
The last three days of his campaign reeked of mean-spirited.
Only hate when coming from the other side?
nm
Other side is always "hateful" to you liberals....nm
Typo - meant the other side, not other said.
Geesh. Nothing like a typo when I'm trying to make a point. HA HA
You might want to try the other side of the bed tomorrow morning...(sm)
I'm just saying....
|
