I understand that is a horrible situation for
Posted By: neighborhoods but..........sm on 2009-02-25
In Reply to: I thought it was refinancing mortgages - sm
it's not my responsibility to pay a mortgage for someone who had no business getting one in the first place. I have to pay my bills and my mortgage; they should never have had a mortgage.
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
And you should understand the situation more. nm
Your the one showing how little you understand about the situation
What part of Hamas and Israel at war don't you understand.
What part of Hamas terrorizing Israel don't you understand.
What part of Hamas slaughtering and killing innocent citizens, women and children don't you understand.
To me it looks like you don't understand any of what is going on over there, therefore should keep your comments to yourself.
I just say thank goodness our incoming President understands it very well.
What was that quote I read that Ben Franklin said "Better to keep one's mouth closed ...".
I understand completely....people can see the same situation in 2 different ways....
I am not trying to bash your opinion either...and I will just touch on this briefly and leave it alone. Wanting regime change in Iraq did not originate with George Bush. It originated during the Clinton administration:
Clinton: Iraq has abused its last chance
President Clinton addressed the nation from the Oval Office
Clinton spells out Iraq's non-compliance
Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites.
Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence.
Iraq tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.
Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all documents requested by the inspectors.
US Forces:
There are 15 U.S. warships and 97 U.S. aircraft in the Persian Gulf region, including about 70 aboard the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise. More than 12,000 sailors and Marines are in the region.
U.S. sources said eight of the warships, equipped with cruise missiles, have been moved into the northern part of the Gulf, within easy striking distance of Baghdad. More troops and jets have been ordered to the region.
More than 300 cruise missiles are available for use against Iraq, and there are air-launched cruise missiles aboard 14 B-52 bombers on the British island of Diego Garcia, sources said.
Britain has 22 strike aircraft in the region.
Pentagon unveils details of Operation Desert Fox
Transcript:Text of Blair's remarks on Iraq attack
Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike
RELATED VIDEO
Clinton statement from the Oval Office on attack against Iraq
Windows Media 28K 56K
Pentagon outlines 'Operation Desert Fox'
Real 28K 56K
Windows Media 28K 56K
British Prime Minister comments on the airstrikes
Real 28K 56K
Windows Media 28K 56K
Watch as anti-aircraft fire erupts over Baghdad
Real 28K 56K
Windows Media 28K 56K
In this story:
'Without delay, diplomacy or warning'
Strikes necessary to stunt weapons programs
Related stories and sites
December 16, 1998
Web posted at: 8:51 p.m. EST (0151 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq.
The president said Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.
"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.
Operation Desert Fox, a strong, sustained series of attacks, will be carried out over several days by U.S. and British forces, Clinton said.
"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said.
"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.
Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors.
'Without delay, diplomacy or warning'
The Iraqi leader was given a final warning six weeks ago, Clinton said, when Baghdad promised to cooperate with U.N. inspectors at the last minute just as U.S. warplanes were headed its way.
"Along with Prime Minister (Tony) Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning," Clinton said.
The president said the report handed in Tuesday by Richard Butler, head of the United Nations Special Commission in charge of finding and destroying Iraqi weapons, was stark and sobering.
Iraq failed to cooperate with the inspectors and placed new restrictions on them, Clinton said. He said Iraqi officials also destroyed records and moved everything, even the furniture, out of suspected sites before inspectors were allowed in.
"Instead of inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors," Clinton said.
"In halting our airstrikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance -- not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed," the president explained.
Strikes necessary to stunt weapons programs
Clinton said he made the decision to strike Wednesday with the unanimous agreement of his security advisors.
Timing was important, said the president, because without a strong inspection system in place, Iraq could rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear programs in a matter of months, not years.
"If Saddam can cripple the weapons inspections system and get away with it, he would conclude the international community, led by the United States, has simply lost its will," said Clinton. "He would surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction."
Clinton also called Hussein a threat to his people and to the security of the world.
•Timeline
•Maps
•Where They Stand
•Flashback 1991
•Forces in the Gulf
•Bioweapons Explainer
•Message Boards
•UNSCOM Documents
•Related Links
"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people," Clinton said.
Such a change in Baghdad would take time and effort, Clinton said, adding that his administration would work with Iraqi opposition forces.
Clinton also addressed the ongoing impeachment crisis in the White House.
"Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down," he said.
"But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so."
In-depth special:
Strike on Iraq
Related stories:
Explosions in sky over Baghdad - December 16, 1998
Iraq not cooperating with U.N., chief inspector says - December 15, 1998
Visiting U.N. weapons inspectors depart Iraq - December 14, 1998
Iraq oil sale wins approval from U.N. chief - December 12, 1998
Cohen: Iraq could be attacked at any time - December 10, 1998
U.S. reacts sternly to Iraq's rebuff of inspectors - December 9, 1998
There were limited bomb strikes at that time. And then we had not been attacked. George Bush did not invent the idea of regime change in Iraq. No, it did not turn into full fledged war at that time...but we had not lost 3000 of our citizens either.
Also, please check out the Iraq Liberation Act passed and endorsed enthusiastically by Democrats. And if you check closely...the same democrats who are decrying going into Iraq now were all for it then. When I look at the entirety of it...and I remember well Clinton saying from the oval office he was going to bomb Iraq and why he was going to do it...I agreed with him and I agreed with Bush. That is what I absolutely hate about politics...that partisan lockstep. If a Democrat President thinks we should bomb and/or invade Iraq, the Democrats are all behind him. Remember, the majority of Democrats voted this time to go in too. It was not George Bush alone. And the intelligence he used to make his decision is the same intelligence Bill Clinton had. I don't want to make argumentative. Just stating facts. And it is the totality of it that makes me say what I said about Bush. I do not believe for one minute that he went into Iraq knowing there was no WMD, any more than I think Clinton bombed Iraq knowing there was no reason to do so.
So far as I can see, John McCain did not say he was for more war. Even Obama has said that we cannot just pull out. So no matter who is elected, we are there for awhile. The say in Iraq for 100 years was misquoted and misrepresented by the Obama campaign and others...what he said was that there "could" not will be an American presence in Iraq for 100 years if necessary, like bases, advisors, etc. Not fighting soldiers. Like we had bases in Germany, bases in Korea, etc. Those wars had been over a long time and we still had bases there. He did not say we would be fighting in Iraq in a hundred years. That being said, if we are attacked again, he is certainly not afraid to fight. We can't afford a President who is not willing to fight. Clinton did not react to the first world trade center bombing, the khobar towers bombings, the embassy bombings, or the bombing of the USS Cole. Had he done so, we might not have had 9-11 and we would not have gone into Iraq. If Clinton had accepted bin Laden from the Sudan when they offered him...if, if, if. The war in Iraq was not the product of one man.
Again, not trying to be argumentative, but I do not understand how a huge group of people can blame one man for all the ills of this country and congress gets a pass. Bush by himself can't do very much. I mean I got pretty disgusted with Clinton at the end, and I didn't much care for a lot of the things that happened during his admin, but I did not blame him personally for it. That is not how the government works.
Yes, there are some things I did not like about the Bush admin and still don't like...but I don't demonize him and make him the poster chld for everything wrong with the country...I blame Congress. THey are the ones who can change things. And they haven't done diddly.
This is just a horrible, horrible thing to say, I am speechless...nm....
nm
May be horrible. Unfortunately, it seems to
nm
Oh he is just horrible. I know what you mean.nm
x
OMG...that is horrible!!!
Only 55 and too old for a CABG. How sad is that? That must have been horrible for your friend and her family!
Is this what we really want America? Listen up Kool-Aid drinkers!!!! Is that what you really want in health care?
I no more understand it than I understand the extremely poor taste and blasphemous sm
post with pictures on the other board. Are we clear now?
Horrible for her family...
and hearing the candidates' (both sides) reactions to it have been interesting. All have the similar thread tho...must preserve democracy in Pakistan.
Didn't see anything horrible
I did some checking on the man and found nothing too bad. A few minor issues with "bad spending" that were cleared up. He does seem to have a very liberal viewpoint, but I certainly would not call him crazy. Seems like he has done a lot for SLC, including landing the Winter Olympics, which brought a ton of money there.
In his private career, seems like he did a lot of work for the poor and several civil rights cases. I guess that would make some conservatives a little afraid of him :-)
yes it's really horrible when someone so much smarter than you
she doesn't bully or monopolize
I also agree. Horrible to think that way.nm
x
you horrible atheist
I have been called lots of really nice things on this board myself! SO WHAT. Be a big girl already! 
What a horrible idea!
First, why should people who purchased homes that they cannot afford be rewarded by having their mortgages paid off? Second, what about people who were smart enough not to commit themselves to a mortgage they could not afford and are renting? I think it is beyond hypocritical of the conservatives on this board to complain about people wanting to be given something for nothing and then make a complete 180-degree turn when they are the ones on the receiving end. You signed up for the mortgage, you pay it. I am not contributing one penny to your bad judgment!
Isn't it horrible - see message
Right now it's just so bad I'm not blaming anyone for it. It's like being on a ship sinking, your too busy worrying about how to save yourselves you don't care anymore who put the hole in the boat. Think there's plenty of blame to go to everyone, but it's happening all over the world. Every day my husband tells me about riots and stuff going on in other countries. I just wonder if it will ever work its way out. I hear economist saying its going to take about four or five years, so now it's just struggling to survive.
It is such a horrible thing when
the American people disagree with the democrats who want to spend spend and spend more of OUR money. I guess that makes us a bunch of bumbling idiots, huh?
And you know what's funny....a bunch of these same Americans who don't like Democrats spending OUR money are the same people who didn't like it when the pubs were spending OUR money.
Then you have the ones who didn't mind when the pubs spent the money but hate that the dems are and vice versa. Double standards....all double standards. If McCain had won and was spending all this money, you would be spitting nails right now.
It must have been so horrible that O preferred not to
release the memos and the pictures.
And there are also some among them who are not yet proven guilty and are tortured until they admit.
Yes, we are so horrible we are fundraising for Katrina right now.
HORRIBLE PEOPLE WE ARE!
If it truly happend, it's horrible. But neither repub
to control what people do. All they can do is condemn the act. Obviously this was just some punk gangster, and my belief is that if she'd had an Obama sticker on her car, he probably would've carved an M for McCain.
That's horrible. Shame on the republicans
nm
ROFL! That is horrible but funny!
That's absolutely horrible - see message
Yes rape has got to be one of the most vile acts and I can't imagine how I'd feel if it happened to one of my family but what she did was absolutely dreadful. Not saying the guy didn't deserve to be punished, but to stoop so low and do to another human being something so awful, makes me wonder which one is worse.
I don't care how much you hate someone or how much rage you feel. There is never a good reason to commit violence, and of that type. Yes her daughter suffered through a rape, but the thought of what a human being was going through while they are in the process of dying in that fashion is just too much and makes me sad.
I believe that the lady and her daughter should have gone to counceling to work out their frustrations of injustice done to her daughter. If they were going to counceling maybe they should have switched counselors.
I will never think something like what she did is okay to do.
I feel sad for the daughter (rape victim) and the lady's family and also the family members of the rapist to know their relative suffered such a horror.
I hope the lady sits in jail and and gets the counseling she needs and I hope she doesn't get out for a long time.
Right with you there, too!! I have horrible environmental allergies!...nm
nm
Horrible signs were stating
x
Yeah, those horrible signs
Who do they think they are, gathering and exercising their first amendment rights like that? And all those signs came from republican central planning, didn't they? Maybe there could have been heavier attendance, but many of the potential supporters actually have jobs.
The MMM was organized by Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam. It would have been soooooo politically incorrect before, during and after the million man march to characterize all the participants as nuts, sexist racist kooks with a single hateful agenda, trouble makers, disgruntled black men just looking to cause problems.
Yet the reverse is excactly how tea party participants were portrayed, which is okey-dokey with most people.
In the dish it out/take it department, the left has pretty a sweet deal because they can say the most prejudiced, outrageous things about the right and get by with it. But when the right criticizes the left it is always claimed that we are selfish, racist, sexist, homophobic bigots. It's not about your race, your gender, or your lifestyle. It's about socialism versus capitalism, okay?
Yes, America is so horrible that nearly everyone from every country on earth sm
wants to live here. What does that tell you?
You are so right in your post, but you have to admit that in these horrible times particularly.....s
There are 50 and even 60-year-old workers who are filing unemployment for the first time in their lives, never thought they would, and are humiliated to do so! When there are no jobs to be found, and there is no money coming in, we do owe a hand up to our fellow man. Remember, Jesus said "for as much as you give to the least of my children, you do it unto me." There is welfare abuse, but saying that this is the main cause of our economic collapse or the major social problem is like saying that Jack the Ripper had a bad temper!! Desperate times bring desperate measures, it is good if you and I can to go bed with a full belly and a roof over our heads, but what about those WHO WILL NOT if they do not get help until they get back on their feet? Hey, I know some of those abusers and it gripes me to no end because my husband and I are working every available minute to raise our three planned, beloved kids. But atrocities like the OCTO-MOM and her 14 kids is the freakish, sad deviation from the norm, the bad exception. Do not condemn social awareness and social responsibility to those who truly need and deserve it, and that is more and more folks these days!! (off soap box for now, I think!!)
This is not a situation that can
...be simplistically reduced to a quarrel over "doom and gloom" or not, IMHO. Top military brass has tried repeatedly to bring the message home to this administration that we don't have the troops or planning necessary to "win" anything in Iraq and this has created a terrorist hotbed and training ground where none existed before. This is just a fact that no amount of "can-do" attitude can fix.
Of course, if the intention is simply to create a state of chaos that can enable thieves to steal with impunity, the job is more than fixed.
Also you might want to note that the 1700 casualty figure is grossly understated. Only combat deaths that occur in Iraq are counted. Those whisked out of the country to Germany or elsewhere and die en route or at the destination hospital are NOT counted. This is official US policy - a Bush policy. Ask yourself why they would have this policy.
I agree with MTME about the lying - I am sick of it myself. I would like the truth for once, instead of more spin and more efforts to divide the American people (more chaos, more cover for thieves).
If she (or anyone in that situation) sm
had kept her legs together she wouldn't be in this predicament. Simple solution.
and I am sorry for your situation!
x
what situation?
nm
He invaded a country and committed horrible atrocities there...
we beat him back, should have taken him in the first Gulf war. But we're always going overboard trying to be nice and where does that get us? Same place it got us with N. Korea. Jimmy Carter barters a deal with them for food, and they take the money and use it to build nukes. Where's the outrage over that? Sometimes a people just cannot rise up and oust a dictator. They need help. And now the time has come for them to quit squabbling amongst themselves and make something out of their country. Let's not forget how many years it took for Japan and Germany to get on their feet. We need to give them a little more time. Heck, this country dissolved into civil war after 100 years. Time and patience.
It's like watching a horrible car crash in really slow motion.
come on bush, help with the oil situation
And here comes the winter..Im sure Bush with all his power can find ways to help America through the winter with oil prices but..nah..he has to pay back his oil cronies..OMG, if we can influence countries to stop nuclear production we surely can influence companies to help us through the oil crisis. The profits the oil companies are making is obscene..I have a friend who lives in Bakersfield, an oil town. He and his wife divorced and she married the head of a major oil company in the Bakersfield region. Not gonna say the name of the company but it is one of the biggest in America..He told me she lives in extreme luxury..I bet, especially in Bakersfield where prices are relatively low anyway..These oil barons are living high and we are, as my aunt used to say, *robbing peter to pay paul*. Ummm.do I smell and feel a revolution arising..sure hope so..
It's a no-win situation for Bush with you
The 9/11 commission criticizes his lack of a security plan pre-9/11(that's just barely 8 months after he enters office BTW). Then he's criticized for doing wiretaps in the name of national security which the FISA act gave the authority to do.
Okay, then which one is it--he's not tough enough on National Security or he's too tough bordering on some perceived legal violation?
Wait a minute, I know your answer Well, it's both. Sheesh...
It is a weird situation, for sure...
...but not really getting a good in-depth report on it from the news, have to think there MUST be more to the story - though can't think what in the world could explain such an attitude as prison is not going to help this offender (heard the judge himself say that). Whoever said prison was to HELP anybody? It's PUNISHMENT!
But then again, have never gotten the whole story- you never do on TV news, and have caught O'Reilly in numerous fabrications and exaggerations and grossly slanted panel discussions before, so who the heck knows!
From *The Situation* last night.
And Tucker Carlson is hardly a liberal.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13459509/
But first to a story horrifying even by the coarsening standards of Iraq, the brutal murder and torture of two U.S. soldiers.
Privates first class Kristian Menchaca and Thomas L. Tucker went missing Friday after an attack on a checkpoint they were manning south of Baghdad. Their bodies were found on Monday night. They were reportedly so badly mutilated they were tentatively identified by tattoos and scars. The corpses were also booby-trapped, an apparent effort to kill recovery teams.
Al Qaeda‘s new leader in Iraq has claimed responsibility for the soldier‘s slaughter.
In the face of brutality like this, is Iraq worth the cost in American lives? Here to answer that question, Brad Blakeman. He‘s the former deputy assistant to the president. He joins us tonight from Washington.
Brad, thanks for coming on.
BRAD BLAKEMAN, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Tucker.
CARLSON: So we have spent untold billions of dollars, 2,500 American soldiers killed, all in an effort to bring democracy and prosperity to Iraq. In return, they torture and murder and mutilate our soldiers. Remind me why this is a good bargain?
BLAKEMAN: Well, Tucker, look, this is a tough thing, and our hearts go out to every soldier who has made the ultimate sacrifice so that we can live in freedom.
But Iraq is worth fighting for. The region is worth fighting for. It‘s in our interest. These terrible, brutal dictatorships must be brought down when they become a threat to our national security. You know...
CARLSON: OK. But that‘s not the rationale the president has offered. He has said now, because as you know, and not to rehash the whole war, but no weapons of mass destruction were found. And he‘s said now this is worth doing because it‘s worth bringing freedom to the Iraqi people. They yearn for freedom, and it‘s our duty to give them the freedom they yearn for.
My question is how have they earned our sacrifice to bring them that freedom? What about Iraq justifies the death—brutal deaths of American soldiers? Why should we feel like it‘s worth it to bring these people democracy when they behave like animals like this?
BLAKEMAN: We‘re focusing on the animals and not the good and decent people of Iraq. The vast majority of Iraq is peaceful.
CARLSON: Is that right? I don‘t think—I don‘t think there‘s any evidence of that.
BLAKEMAN: There are 12 million people who went to—who went to the polls. They have four successful elections. They have a new government. We tend only to focus on the very bad, on the insurgencies, and the evil people. But the vast majority of Iraqis want to be free.
You know, if we took your attitude...
CARLSON: Is that true? Is that true?
BLAKEMAN: Hold on, Tucker. If we took your attitude, we would have turned back at the beaches of Normandy when all those people...
CARLSON: Spare me the tired, hackney, cliched World War II analogies. Let‘s get to the war in progress, and that‘s Iraq. There are decent people there. I have been there. I‘ve met decent people there. I know firsthand.
However, your claim that most people want peace is bosh as they say.
Let me show you...
BLAKEMAN: It is not.
CARLSON: It certainly is. A poll undertaken by the ministry of defense from Great Britain, part of the coalition, said 65 percent of Iraqi citizens support attacks on U.S. citizens.
Our own polling, done by World Opinion, public opinion, 47 percent approve attacks on U.S. forces, 88 percent of Sunnis, 88 percent approve of attacks on U.S. forces.
These are—are these—these are the people our sons and daughters are dying to make rich and free? How does that work?
BLAKEMAN: It is our responsibility. We brought down this dictator, this evil dictator...
CARLSON: How are we responsible?
BLAKEMAN: ... who used weapons of mass destruction against his own people. Now, it‘s our responsibility to bring democracy to these people. We can‘t cut and run and defeat the dictator and then leave...
CARLSON: Why is it our responsibility? There are countries across the world who live in shackles.
BLAKEMAN: We are the freest nation on earth. That‘s why it‘s our responsibility. We‘re the freest nation on earth. We brought down the dictator, and now it‘s our responsibility...
CARLSON: How does that work? They have not done one thing for us. Look—look, think of the implications of what you are saying. I don‘t know if you have thought this through.
BLAKEMAN: I‘ve thought it through very well.
CARLSON: Nation after nation after nation, starting with Mugabe in Zimbabwe, moving all the way to communist—still communist, still unfree China, people who are living in fetters who are unfree, who are oppressed, is it our, as you put it, obligation as a free a nation to free those nations? Do you really want to play this?
BLAKEMAN: Is it—do you know what our obligation is? It‘s to bring freedom to those people who yearn to be free. And China has come a long way.
CARLSON: So it‘s your obligation to sent your son, my obligation...
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: ... people I‘ve never met in countries that hate us? You‘ve got to be kidding. It‘s my obligation to do that?
BLAKEMAN: Yes, it is our obligation. Was it our obligation to go—was it our obligation.
CARLSON: Where does the obligation come from? I didn‘t sign up for that obligation.
BLAKEMAN: It‘s our obligation. Was it our obligation to go—was it our obligation to go into Europe where we weren‘t attacked? No, Europe let a dictator get so strong that collectively they couldn‘t take him down, and we had to come down.
CARLSON: We got in war when we were attacked.
BLAKEMAN: We lost 400,000 Americans in that war. We lost—a million people were wounded in that war.
CARLSON: Right. And there were...
BLAKEMAN: But was it worth it?
CARLSON: Let me just remind you, we entered that war on December 7, 1941, when our soil, the protectorate of Hawaii, was attacked by a foreign nation and thousands of Americans died. We went to war on that day, and not before. OK? So the overall principle you are stating here, that we have a moral obligation to free the unfree, think it through, man. It‘s...
BLAKEMAN: I didn‘t say that, Tucker. I said when we took down the dictator, when we made an obligation to risk our soldiers to free a country, we just can‘t cut and run. We have to establish a government for them. We‘ve got to give them the opportunity to succeed. That‘s our obligation.
CARLSON: And you may be right as far as that goes. But the blanket obligation that Bush implies, and you just stated, that we have to go free the world, to send our sons and daughters to go...
BLAKEMAN: No, we don‘t have to free the world
CARLSON: ... die for other people‘s freedom, people who hate us, it‘s a scary thing.
BLAKEMAN: Well, then you know what? Didn‘t the Japanese hate us?
Didn‘t the Germans hate us? Do they hate us today?
CARLSON: They attacked us first. We had no choice.
BLAKEMAN: They‘re our allies. They our allies, and they stand shoulder to shoulder with us. Should we have waited to get attacked by the Iraqis? No.
CARLSON: You know, I thought—when I supported the war initially, I thought that they were capable of attacking us, and it turns out, as you know, and I‘m sad to report, that we weren‘t.
BLAKEMAN: They were pretty capable of attacking us if they wanted to.
CARLSON: Brad Blakeman, thanks a lot.
BLAKEMAN: You are welcome.
It depends on the situation
I voted for Bush the first term. He was running against Gore. The country could not afford another 4 years of Clintons. I voted for Bush and I'm proud I did because it helped keep a known bafoon who didn't know squat diddly out of the white house. After Bush was elected a lot changed. I didn't want to vote for him again, yet the best the dems could do was give us Kerry???????? There were so many qualified people running. How that ninny got in there (must have been all those purple hearts). So I voted for Bush again. However I wasn't voting for Bush, I was voting against Kerry. That doesn't make me and others morons, it makes us well-informed voters. If it meant four more years with Bush in there then so be it, but I'll tell you something. With everything that has happened in the world these past eight years the US is lucky that Gore and Lerch were not in office. That's the way a lot of people feel.
Now we're in a totally different election. Both McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden are very different from their usual party people. This year is an unusually difficult election. Times are quite different than they were 4 and 8 years ago.
To tell someone they are a moron because they didn't vote for democrats? The other choice would have been even more moronic to vote for.
With everything that has happened I'll take Bush over Gore or Kerry anyday. And before anyone goes blaming him for everything that's happened - He's just a talking head being told what to do. If you want to blame anyone, blame the bafoons in his party (Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc to include the people who tell Bush what he's going to do).
Every situation is different, but I do know people
nm
my understanding of the situation...
My understanding is that Obama says this is a practice that can be regulated at the state level. The federal government is just making sure that abortion stays legal and then the individual states decide how far their state will go with it.
I have a friend in the same situation...sm
His father worked for GM and died several years ago, leaving my friend a nice trust fund and health care benefits and pension for his widow who currently is in a long-term care facility. My friend, who is an MT and cannot afford insurance and is in bad health himself, told me that when his mom loses her benefits at the first of the year, he doesn't know what they will do.
I don't know if blame the government for this mess as much as I blame mismanagement by the automakers with their big executive salaries and perks and insistence on manufacturing super trucks and huge SUVs. It seems to me that more could have been done to stem this before it got this far.
Yes, it is a no-win situation all the time.
Governing bodies do their budgets on what the expected income will be at that time. Any time anything goes wrong, it throws a monkey wrench into their budgets, then everybody has to fork over extra money.
It's always the taxpayers who lose in the end, no matter what. 
My twist on your situation
I was a democrat who became a republican and will probably reaffiliate as an independent in the not-too-distant future. I find the assumptions made on this board amusing and likely as not completely off base.
I think Obama is a likeable guy, but his starry-eyed supporters drive me up a wall. If not for the lunacy surrounding him and his office I probably wouldn't feel as apprehensive and insecure about his presidency as I do. Okay, I don't agree with him on much so far, but I so believe he's intelligent and sincere.
Try not to take the categorizing too seriously; it's just more silliness.
At lest Obama is TRYING to better the situation.
If he will be successful the future will show. At least we should give him some TIME.
The republicans would not have even TRIED to better the situation, but would have trotted along the same path, down into the final abyss.
But I agree with you that discussions about pub : dem AND about pro-life : pro-choice 'suck' and lead nowhere but to personal attacks.
When you say "world situation"....(sm)
and that Obama has played a big part in it, exactly what are you talking about? The economy was in the toilet before he got there, and yes, he's spending a lot of money, but that's in an attempt to try to stop (or at least slow) the progression of this economic downfall.
As far as foreign affairs go, I think we're on better terms with just about everyone now.
So I don't get what you're talking about.
situation in Iran
Iranian opposition leader calls for rally Thursday
because the situation OVER THERE CHANGED,
Taliban in Pakistan is getting stronger!
Think and get more flexible.
exploring situation from both sides? What?
Exploring the situation from both sides? What two sides? The man stated crime would go down if we aborted black babies. What is the side you are referring to? It is a racist remark, a dumb remark and insensitive hateful remark. No two ways about it..PERIOD..
His bosses handled the situation, as it should be - nm
x
I don't know the whole situation, so won't judge his decision nm
nm
In all honesty, you are the aggressor in this situation (sm)
You came on to a political board and insulted the way everyone on here has behaved. Would you teach your daughter to do that? I'm sorry. I am a very nice person too...I just think you were kind of asking for trouble by doing that.
|
![Iran](http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20090617/videolthumb.ec330d8bf51ff0f97896c253d0a81a66.jpg?x=213&y=160&xc=1&yc=1&wc=399&hc=300&q=85&sig=n02llinss0WKJvn1w3HGlg--")
