I understand that many people use it now...
Posted By: Kendra on 2009-04-16
In Reply to: Ummmm......(sm) - Just the big bad
but legalize it, and how many more will. I have never tried it-why? Because it is illegal. I know that I am not the only person who obeys laws. I do not believe that marijuana is not addictive, nor do many doctors. I doubt that tax revenue would increase with pot, just black market prices would be forced down to compete and people would grow their own. We do not need to agree--we rarely do.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
I can't understand people
fighting against themselves either. Reaganomics was the beginning of this disaster. The trickle down just didn't trickle.
I don't understand you people!!!
I don't understand how if Obama fails to act you condemn him, then when he does act, you condemn him for that same act you were requiring earlier...
I am one of those that voted for Obama. Do I think he is perfect? No, definitely not... do I think he has made some bad decisions? Yes, definitely so...
However, I still feel like he is doing a good job as President of the United States. He walked into a boatload of crap and is having to deal with it one step at a time with every once in awhile another load being dumped in. Why can't ya'll give him a chance?
I know he will make mistakes - what man has never made mistakes? I know the problem is that his mistakes will have an effect on everybody in this country today and tomorrow and for many years to come, but he is trying! Can you not give him a break sometime?
You gotta understand mentality of people
nm
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.
I understand that, if the people on the ground in hurricane country werwe not immediately alarmed...
why on earth would someone expect George Bush to be? He was relying on the local and state authorities to do their jobs. Kathleen Blanco knows that she messed up...which is why she is no longer in LA politics. All I am saying that everyone should share the blame...not one man.
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?
So you and your daughter have no problem with people who wish for people and their children sm
to burn in hell, call people's children ugly, etc. etc. Well, you might not BE gt, but you might as well be. Even the liberals don't agree with gt, or hadn't you noticed? You might want to check that out and while you are at it, the conservative board has been a regular play pen since the liberals stopped their hateful dive bombing. In fact, some really good conversations are taking place over there between both sides, which DOES NOT happen on this site.
Bored people are BORING people.
nm
Is that how your people justify killing people?
Also can understand...
I was also accused of being the notorious gt also. Not sure what their obsession is with this, perhaps they are hoping that all the posters who do not agree with are one in the same.
What I understand you to be saying....
What I hear you saying is that this board's posts need to reflect your personal ideology and that it is your role to call our attention to posts that you consider too liberal.
In looking back at your protests on this board, particularly a post where you have repeated the word hate over and over, combined with your delusions of grandeur that this board should operate according to your political agenda, I think you are mentally unbalanced. As a result of mental illness I doubt you will be able to comprehend any reasonable explanation of why what you are doing is misguided.
I suggest that if you want full control of a political board and the ability to censor each post that you create your own website.
Also, I am not sure why you have been allowed to run amuck on this particular board.
You know what I don't understand?
If we are so wacko, why do they keep coming here to read *liberal* posts and then slither back to insult us on their board?
PK,you're very welcome. Have yourself a lovely afternoon/evening wherever you are.
I don't understand....
How does one person's possibly tactless comments excuse another person's comments? This line of thinking doesn't make sense. So you're saying it's okay for Ann Coulter to be a brutal witch with her comments because if you look hard enough you can find comments from the opposing side that were also of questionable moral character? So what? LIke I always told my kids when they were little, just because other people are doing it doesn't make it right.
Besides, Ann quibbles that the widows are using their grief to promote their political agenda, well, my thought is that every time some family member of a war casualty goes on the local news saying how proud they are of what the military is doing in Iraq, etc., isn't that ALSO promoting a political agenda?
I do not understand why anyone would believe there were WMD....sm
IF there were any thread of truth this administration would have announced it at first notice to redeem themselves from the *unjust war* criticism. Unless they are holding on to this tad bit of information until closer to electoins, which I doubt. I would not be so quick to jump on board with Santorum with his *classified document.*
What I think I do understand.
After much research, I feel I can comment on this. Embryonic stem cell research has more than one goal. There is the harvesting of aborted babies stem cells, but there is also the stipulation in small writing that embryos can be cloned in the lab and those stem cells used for research. There is also this article, not released for general knowledge. I am sure that Michael Fox, as young as he is, and being the father of small children, would like to believe that embryonic stell research is going to be the be all and end all for Parkinson disease. I would want the same thing. But it just isn't and there are sinister forces at work just waiting for this bill to pass and for all heck to break loose. If it sounds dramatic, I don't think it is dire enough warning. An informed public is a forewarned and armed public. Here is the article I mentioned above.
Stem cells might cause brain tumors, study finds
Injecting human embryonic stem cells into the brains of Parkinson's disease patients may cause tumors to form, U.S. researchers reported on Sunday.
Steven Goldman and colleagues at the University of Rochester Medical Center in New York said human stem cells injected into rat brains turned into cells that looked like early tumors.
Writing in the journal Nature Medicine, the researchers said the transplants clearly helped the rats, but some of the cells started growing in a way that could eventually lead to a tumor.
Various types of cell transplants are being tried to treat Parkinson's disease, caused when dopamine-releasing cells die in the brain.
This key neurotransmitter, or message-carrying chemical, is involved in movement and Parkinson's patients suffer muscle dysfunction that can often lead to paralysis. Drugs can slow the process for a while but there is no cure.
The idea behind brain cell transplants is to replace the dead cells. Stem cells are considered particularly promising as they can be directed to form the precise desired tissue and do not trigger an immune response.
Goldman's team used human embryonic stem cells. Taken from days-old embryos, these cells can form any kind of cell in the body. This batch had been cultured in substances aimed at making them become brain cells.
Previous groups have tried to coax stem cells into becoming dopamine-releasing cells.
Goldman's team apparently succeeded and transplanted them into the rats with an equivalent of Parkinson's damage. The animals did get better.
But the grafted cells started to show areas that no longer consisted of dopamine-releasing neurons, but of dividing cells that had the potential to give rise to tumors.
The researchers killed the animals before they could know for sure, and said any experiments in humans would have to be done very cautiously.
Scientists have long feared that human embryonic stem cells could turn into tumors, because of their pliability.
Opponents of embryonic stem cell research cite such threats. Many opponents, including President George W. Bush and some members of Congress, believe it is immoral to destroy human embryos to obtain their stem cells.
*****
Finally, I will close with President Bush's words about embryonic cell research because I agree with him 400%. I suppose the division lies between conservative and liberal in defining the meaning of life.
(quote) believe America must pursue the tremendous possibilities of science, and I believe we can do so while still fostering and encouraging respect for human life in all its stages. (Applause.) In the complex debate over embryonic stem cell research, we must remember that real human lives are involved --both the lives of those with diseases that might find cures from this research, and the lives of the embryos that will be destroyed in the process. The children here today are reminders that every human life is a precious gift of matchless value.(unquote)
Amen, President Bush, Amen.
Okay....although I still do not understand...
but as you said, I don't have to. It seemed a very simple observation that if you found fault with Bush showing up at VA Tech and not at a soldier's funeral...I could not attribute that to anything but a strong dislike (I will not use word hate) of Bush. And no, I do not hate any of the people you mentioned. And had any one of them shown up at VA Tech, I would not have criticized them for being there because they had not gone somewhere else I might have felt they should have gone. I would have been glad they showed up to try to help those kids heal. I suppose you might call me naive, but I took it at face value, just like I did when Bill Clinton came to OKC after the Murrah bombing. As I said, he is not a person I like, respect or admire, but he was the President and he did come and I was very, very glad to see him there, he seemed sincere and I took it at face value. And, as I have said many times, there are a lot of things I do not like about this administration, I do not agree with everything Bush has done. However, on that same note, I was appalled at the pork the Dems wanted to hang on the troop funding bill, so I am not a big fan of the Democratically controlled Congress either. Nancy Pelosi broke the law by her Lone Ranger visit to Syria, and Harry Reid...I think he is a coward, I think to publically announce the war is lost when men are still on the ground fighting is at the last ill-advised, at the most tantamount to treason, emboldens the enemy and was from a personal standpoint hateful and very, very mean-spirited. I think when I see him, please do not tell me you support the troops and in the same breath tell them the war is lost. I think that is supremely arrogant, like he had a clue whether or not the war was lost. I am ashamed of him, and I have not been that ashamed of a politician since Bill Clinton's shenanigans. All that being said, as a person, I still like George Bush. I believe he is sincere and I believe his heart is in the right place. I think he is genuinely a good person, and that is probably why he is not a good politician, because there are very FEW who, in my estimation, are both. But that is just me. I think this war has taken a toll on him, and I think people who say he couldn't care less about the soldiers dying do not know what they are talking about. I have seen him shed tears on numerous occasions talking to families and talking to soldiers in the hospitals. The last President I remember shedding a real tear was Ronald Reagan. I think it is a sign of strength when a man shows his emotion like that. Again, you may perceive that as naive.
Basically I am looking for a hero this round. A man (or woman) with the courage of their convictions who will administer not to get rel-elected, but for what is good for the country. If such a person exists, now would be the time. I frankly have not seen that person in the running right now.
Yikes! Too much information.
God bless!
I really don't understand that, either....
I have been coming to these boards for a very long time and I have never seen a conservative post that liberals should stick to their own board. But they are really quick on this board to say things like "neocons need not apply" and "this board is for liberals." All that says to me is that they don't want to debate, they want only one viewpoint, theirs, and want validation from everyone for their viewpoint. The moderator has said that we could post on either board as long as we kept it respectful. This is America for Pete's sake. Each is entitled to his opinion and to support it. Sigh.
I understand
That is a whole lot more than I make, too! I live in an area where I have to pay $1,000 a month to rent a studio apartment. I thought this was outrageous! Then, my mother started a traveling job and has been telling me how much it costs to live in D.C. and some places in California. Even Vermont (sorry, don't remember what town) was more expensive! In these cases, a lot of that 88,000 would be eaten up by rent/mortage payments alone. Don't get me wrong, I do NOT think that someone living in a 3,000 sq foot house with a huge mortgage should get assistance - obviously their priorities would be out of whack. But for those in areas when it costs way more to live, that may not be unreasonable. Anyway, that was just my thought. On the site that I found, it does not mention that cap, it only says that states would set their own cap. If I recall, the 88,000 was mentioned by New York, who wanted that as their cap. I would imagine living in NY would be insanely expensive (anyone know #s?). I'm not sure how they would work out a maximum allowable cap - that doesn't seem to be written into the proposal.
I was just curious for reasons. Thank you for sharing!! :)
I understand what you are saying...
my experience totally different. My husband served in Somalia fighting AL Qaeda there..before 9-11...when Clinton was President. We have been in the military for many years. So, of course, we know soldiers...my husband was a member of the 10th Mountain Division. He was retired by the time Iraq came around (he still works for the Army in civilian capacity), but the 10th Mountain was instrumental in Afghanistan...he knew many of those who were deployed and he knows many who have ben to Iraq...needless to say our roots in the service run deep. And all the young/older servicemen we have come in contact with hold the opposite view...they understand the need to fight the enemy there so we don't have to fight them here. They believe, as do I, that keeping Al Qaeda busy in Iraq is one reason we have not been hit here again in a big way. The surge is working; casualties are down dramatically for both civilians and soldiers...the data is there if you look. Still, we will not get into a war debate but I will say this...no one WANTS war. I would like to have them home today too, but what I don't want is for America to become like Israel with car bombs and human bombs in malls, schools...I don't want to hear about something like that every day. I believe our being in Iraq helps keep that kind of thing at bay, and if we can leave a free Iraq we will be one step closer to keeping Al Qaeda at bay.
I saw a man on TV a few nights ago...a man who has interviewed several jihadists, including Al Qaeda...I wish I could remember his name. Will have to Google for that too. He said that most Americans really did not understand the threat. He said that there was a common thread in interviewing all of them, whether it be Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad...they said themselves that we did not understand. They are in this for the long haul. They intend that the world be converted to Islam, and those who do not convert will die. They will not stop until it is done. They intend to start in Europe and extend it to the US. When asked why could we not have a dialogue, they all said in essence: "There is no dialogue. There is nothing to discuss."
That should tell us what we are up against. And it should chill us all.
Have a good night!
I understand what you are saying but..
It seems that over time the majority of politicians who are supposed to be looking out for the people of this country have decided it is more profitable to concentrate on a certain constituency - those who have wealth and connections, no matter which party they represent. I'm just kinda tired of always seeing Obama slammed - if he blinks wrong, does not say the 'right' thing, carry himself in a certain way - people are all over him negatively. He cannot be any worse than what we have had in office the past eight years, and I am willing to see what he does without maliciously tearing him apart.
I understand everything you said
There is no way to deal with these people. Everything we do is a catch-22. We go to war - we are intolerant murderers. We don't go to war - we are weak. My personal opinion on this is that we need to bring as many troops back as we can and do everything humanly possible to keep this country safe. I am afraid that with so many troops in Iraq, we are not safe. Other countries recognize this. Look at Iran. What would we do if we HAD (and I say had because I would hope that we would exhaust every other option) to invade Iran? Our poor troops are exhausted and weary. Who would fight any other threats? I think it is important to gain strength here at home. Secure our borders. Thoroughly investigate anyone coming into our country. I think that is the best we can do because fighting really doesn't get us anywhere in the grand scheme of things.
what I can;t understand
If repubs are the minority being attacked by the all-powerful liberal media, why can't we have a liberal talk radio network? You got yer Hanninity, Limbaug, shrieking harpie Laura whats her name, Michael Savage, etc. You can't be a minority and still have all the radio programs . ... don't make no sense.
Understand what exactly?
Are you looking for justification for leaning toward conservatism? Your prose is rhetorical and exhausting. Can we get some fair liberals, aka, fellow Democrats who would like to discuss issues, candidates, etc, on this site?
I understand what you are saying...
I am just not sure universal health care is the answer. In every country I can find who have it, the cost is catching up and they are contemplating cutting services or raising taxes out of sight...many Canadians now pay 50-55% of their paycheck in taxes. I do not want to see this country go down that road. That will only force more and more people onto assistance, and that is going backward, in my opinion. Bottom line is, we need to figure out a way to get health care costs down, or it does not matter what kind of plan whether private or government-provided...we will not be able to afford it. Gotta get costs in control and keep them down. That is what I want to hear a candidate talk about...now throwing more money and raising taxes for yet another entitlement. Look at the money coming in now and prioritize. If free health care for everyone is what is most important, fund that first. It might mean cutting some other services or entitlements, but sometimes choices have to be made. What is most important? Do we really need to drive up everyone's taxes yet again? And how come no one is stating what universal health care will cost? Because the figure would scare us to death is my guess.
I understand what you are saying....
but what is the worst that could happen? Some of them go back to being jihadists. But if we can turn one heart, one life...who then might turn another...isn't that worth it?
We cannot change anything that has been done in the past. We can, however, learn from it, and hopefully give these kids hope. That is what they need desperately...hope for a better time, a better life. And if we can help with that...we should.
I don't understand........
if you are currently living in the United States, George W. Bush is YOUR President. You may not like him, you may enjoy calling him names, but he is my President and yours.
George W. Bush is not retarded, George W. Bush is not retarded, George W. Bush is not retarded.
Thank you.
I understand what you mean
I think voting because its your right and if you feel really strongly about voting because its our right as a citizen then that's kind of different, for me though because I know my vote doesn't count, I feel like I'm not giving up my rights, I'm "exercising" my right to not vote. Sounds a little quirky I guess, but it beats joining a bunch of protestors. Besides I've got so much more stuff to do than go stand in a crowd, punch a ticket or whatever the means of voting and then watch whoever I don't vote for get picked. Our next president has already been chosen, so I figured why waste my time.
I understand that but I still don't think its right
I don't think its right for someone who wins over another to ask their supporters to help pay off the debts of the person they were voting against. These politicians bring in enough money that their debt would be paid off within a few months. What they want (and its not just Hillary, its others too), but they want everything and they don't want to pay for anything. If I'm donating money (which I didn't) but if I'm donating money to Barack's campaign because I want him to win, why in the world would I give any money to his competitor (wether it be Clinton, Edwards or anyone else who ran against him). So that they can keep all of their money free and clear. Heck, all Clinton has to do is give a couple speaches, write another book and their debt will be paid off. They're just greedy and want it all. So just because it's been done before doesn't make it right. Also, I don't remember hearing about this in past elections. I can't ever remember hearing the winning candidate openly campaign for funds to pay off the debts of the people who tried to knock them out of the race. Maybe it was done, but I never did hear anything about it.
I understand everything you are saying...
and I did not mean that 5 years in a POW camp alone qualifies him...but it does build the character, integrity, selflessness, and patriotism that I think are essential. We know this about McCain. I don't know that about Barack Obama. There is nothing in his history or his resume that gives me that feeling about him. McCain also commanded men in war time. McCain has been a senator many more years than Obama has. If you put there experience side by side...absolute evidence of integrity, patriotism, selflessness, the willingness to buck the "party" if they feel the party is not correct...all those things make me feel that McCain is better qualified for the job, and the 5 years in a POW camp, the fact that he never caved and endured horrible torture because of it...is definitely part of that qualification.
I don't agree that McCain is 4 more years of Bush. The two are nothing alike. Bush has caved to the Repub hierarchy when I think he should not have. Anyway...that's just my take on it.
I do understand yours, and you SHOULD vote for who you believe will be the President. That is what America is all about. I know I AM! :)
I understand what you are saying....
but choice does have a lot to do with debt. No all, but in the majority of cases. Part of the reform McCain/Palin will be looking at is predatory lending. A main reason Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae collapsed is the so-called "reform bill" the democrats wrote and passed this year...forcing them to offer mortgages to low income and middle income people whether they were creditworthy or not...using those adjustable interest rates. When the bottom started falling out, interest rates went up, the people were in over their heads and defaulted. Who is picking up the tab? You and me, for people taking on a mortgage they could not afford, ignoring the fact that if the interest rate went up (and they almost always do in adjustable rate mortgages) they could not pay the mortgage. That is what I am talking about. Yes, I know the American dream is own your own home. I had to wait until I was middle-aged to be able to afford it.
Same way with those high-rate credit cards to people with less than stellar credit. I don't think most credit cards are maxed because of using them to live on. I do not say that none of them are...but I would venture a guess that they are not.
Respectfully, if we want jobs to stop going offshore we need to stop taxing our businesses at an astronomical rate. Our business taxes are at least 10% higher than anywhere else in the world. That makes it very difficult for our businesses to compete, and it sometimes forces businesses to go offshore to get out from under the huge tax burden. That is economics 101. Now Obama wants to hit small business owners not only by keeping the business taxes at all-time high, but taxing the business owners' personal income even more, taxing capital gains even more, and raising the death tax even more (which forces the closure of many businesses when the principal owner passes away). In my opinion, the death tax should be stopped, period. All the money in the business has already been taxed, and the government wants to tax it AGAIN when the owner dies. Talk about piling on.
The government needs to learn to live within its means. Find out what programs are not working and stop them. Monitor spending programs better...the waste is astronomical. Attach a job to a welfare check. Make the objective getting the people back to work, not dependent on the government and taxpayers to support. That being said, those truly disabled physically or mentally, we should take care of. But someone physically and mentally able to work should have a job or job training attached to that check, and it should not be open-ended. JMO.
I understand....however....
while I think Bush is great on the war on terror, and I think he is a good man and his heart is in the right place....I don't agree with some decisions he has made...being realistic. Same with any President. He was President in 2005 and I think he should have listened a little closer to McCain at that point. I stop short of saying, tho, that it is all his fault. It's not. It's the Dems in COngress who blocked what McCain wanted to do.
Obama is up to his eyeballs in the Fannie/Freddie thing...as is CHris Dodd... and Biden has gotten all kinds of failures from MBNA.
And isn't it funny about Charlie Rangel and Pelosi refusing to remove him from chairman of ways and means committee while he is under investigation for improprieties? If he was a Republican they would be calling for his head on a platter. LOL. Amazing.
Well I can understand they want to win, so do we
But we don't chew up Obama and Biden like they do Gov. Palin. Just all worthless.
Thanks for the post. I have to read it when I get back later. Just was checking to see if anyone answered. It's been up all day and I see lots of people read it but none that will admit that absolutely hate her - and for no good reason.
Here is what I understand
I will try to find links to validate what I say, but this is what I have read and heard.
Palin did not fired people to give their jobs to her friends. I believe that was proved incorrect (again I will try and find the link). That's about as accurate as the story about her banning books from the library. Everyone seems to think she banned books from the library (because it was put out by the liberal media) and Harry Potter was one of the books listed. The problem with that story was Harry Potter hadn't even been written yet when they claimed she banned it.
If your talking about people firing and hiring people I would look directly at the Clintons. When Bill was President and Hillary was first lady I'm sure you remember what they called Travelgate. They fired people who worked in the White House Travel Office (for no reason) so they could hire on their friends.
I will try and find the links later (won't be back on til tomorrow), but I would just say if your reading a story and it comes from the liberals I would definitely research it more and read both sides (liberal and conservative) with an open mind and a grain of salt because 99% of the garbage the liberals have been putting out there is just that, garbage (i.e. - Palins daughter is the real mother of Sarah's baby, Todd Palin had sex with his daughter, and the list of lies goes on and on).
They should also understand....
he was not convicted of anything and his involvement was minimal. But you did not post that. It is also not a felony, which our friend Bill Clinton committed. And Bill CLinton continued as President anyway, and on most Democtats' estimation, he did just fine. I would hope anyone reviewing this issue would take both into account.
Sure I understand it. sm
Bush may be a soft dictator, but he is a dictator. McCain is no different. Are you telling me we do not have those things in the US?
14 points of fascism.
http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm
I understand that
that's why I am making a point of trying to study different versions and in questionable areas I look up the Hebrew words and what not. I do know that humans make mistakes (duh, lol) but I honestly believe that God has control over the Bible, and he wouldn't let it get as widespread as it is in the condition it is if it wasn't acceptable. Kind of like if someone wrote a book about everything you said and then changed it, you would get rid of that changed version real quick. I'm without a doubt that God has the power to do that.
So do you believe that you still go to Heaven when you die? Or do you still go to Paradise because the Messiah hasn't come yet? (I'm not sure if that is a Christian or Jewish teaching, I'm pretty sure it's old testament but if our OT and Jewish OT are different, then that might be too)
I am firm in my beliefs, but I still want to learn about others. I think it's closed minded not to. Just because you know what you believe doesn't mean you shouldn't learn what others believe, right?
I think that is where tolerance gets misconstrued. People say tolerance is believing that everyone's beliefs are correct. But tolerance is accepting that other people have other beliefs, not accepting that they are just as correct as you (that was to anyone in general, not you.)
Thanks for clearing it up though, I have been curious about it but I don't know many (or any really) Jews here in our little town. Everyone is pretty much Baptist or Methodist. But doctrine is a whole 'nother thing. I always tell everyone I'm only Southern Baptist by marriage! (My father-in-law is a preacher, yes, I married "the son of a preacher man")and they are every bit as bad as everyone jokes. Fortunately God reeled him back in and me along with him! :)
what I can't understand is...
Why do people take time to argue here rather than getting out and making calls or something else that would be more profitable for the candidate of their choice. (This is my very 1st time to ever post on this site.)
I understand that they do but they don't like being
@@
then maybe we'd would be able to understand
'Mmbbblfflrbmrormmmm'!
I don't understand why
people have no problem receiving money that they didn't earn and that was earned by someone else. I don't understand why you CNN and MSNBC cronies don't see that Obama's plans will hurt this economy and add to our deficit. There is nothing wrong with being a conservative person. I'm not dead set republican but I do lean to the conservative side. This whole economic crisis goes back to bad decision that were made by presidents even before G.W. Bush. This has been a long time coming and the blame goes to all politicians who didn't try to stop this. Clinton was the one who made banks give subprime loans. Yes that was great for our economy for a while but the long term didn't end up so well and we are now where we are. You can't place this on all republicans and Bush.
I don't understand???
The big corporations just helped themselves out with our hard money - and that's okay, just don't help the poor people who even if they are trying to help themselves cannot get by?
I will never understand how
an unrepentant terrorist could have obtained a job as a college professor anyway. To me....that is just insane. I don't care if what he did was 40 years ago....he still did it, he admitted it, doesn't apologize, and said they didn't do enough. When interviewed Ayers stated, "I don't regret setting bombs" and "I feel we didn't do enough", and, when asked if he would "do it all again," as saying "I don't want to discount the possibility."
No person like that should be able to educate anyone in our country. Who would want this man speaking at any event or educating anyone. I sure as heck don't.
Thanks - still don't understand
why people don't see this. Why do they want their taxes to go up?
It just send a chill down my spine he has gotten this far with his phoney "I feel your pain" strategy. Didn't Americans learn their lesson from the Clinton years when we received the largest tax hike ever but the campaign promise of lower taxes.
I guess Obama's hypnosis techniques really do work.
I understand this
but I feel he is the lesser of 2 evils. He at least doesnt agree with the right to choose.
Let me see if I understand this......sm
"The fact, as someone stated, that McCain/Obama had agreed religion and family were off limits just doesn't cut it with me. It should NOT be off limits. "
If religion should not be off limits, then who is going to be the first to scream "separation of church and state?" And, if we are going to bring family into this, then let's talk about Obama's Muslim stepfather who had a substantial part in raising him. Let's talk about his atheist mother. In fact, those last 2 cover BOTH religion (or the lack thereof) AND family.
"To quote Obama, with which I agree, "if you want to see how a McCain administration will be, look in the rear view mirror and don't tell me about the Democrat congress for the past 2 years, look at the Republican congress the 6 years before that."
Well, then.........if we are going to talk about the past, then let's drag Obama's PAST associations back out of the trash and give them another going over. After all, if he wants to talk about the past, then I think they are fair game.
I'll be right back....going to get my moose gun.
I'm trying to understand this.....really I am....sm
Then if God knows us before we are conceived and our souls exist before we are conceived, why does an unborn child not have a soul?
If I am right, then I have nothing to worry about when I stand before God, but if you are wrong, then I don't think God will be too happy with your belief. Not knowing the definitive answer to this quandary, which position would you really rather hold?
For sm: You just do not understand, that's all I have to say. nm
nm
Let me see if I understand this.... sm
You don't believe McCain regrets his actions that lead to his divorce from his first wife, but you believe Obama when he said "he was a man who lived in my neighborhood" when proof after proof has been given to the contrary?
riiiiiiiigggggght
I understand that
but I feel like it was a huge risk to take his children up there. Just because he was elected last night doesn't mean that change has come overnight. I just don't know if his children should have been part of his "statement".
I hope that we won't have to be afraid much longer, I'm just concerned about the well being of his children is all.
We understand this very well
We understand better than anyone that there is a lot wrong in the republican party, hence lost seats. Many changes need to be fixed. But that goes for the other side too. It was the crats fault that put us in the financial crisis we are in. It's just a fact and it is on records. But the crats will never admit. You've got Franks, Reid, Pelosi and others signatures and you still will blame the other side for every thing.
So until the crats own up to partial responsibility they have no right to talk.
In fact they are already talking about how the democratic congress has no intention of working with republicans in the senate. The crats believe they will do whatever they want to do and push things through and won't even work with reps. But then again that is nothing new. To the crats they don't care about the every day people and what's good for us. They base all their decisions on whether it was proposed by a crat or rep and unfortunately Americans are going to be damaged and hurt because crats won't work with both sides.
As for the crats - it is going to be interesting watching them tear each other apart. There are factions within each party and right now people like Pelosi and Reid want the control, but then Obama wants control, so we will watch their party tear each other apart. I think in four years America will say enough is enough.
I don't understand why anybody would want the job -
As bad as things are right now, I don't know why anybody would want the job of being president! I mean, look at the headaches -
In every situation, you are danged if you do and danged if you don't - somebody is always against whatever you are doing, you are always going to get blamed if something goes wrong and never congratulated if it goes right... You hold the wellbeing of millions of people in your hands and for what price?
You give up any expectations of privacy people have, you give up your family time, you have your name drug through the mud, some deserved and some not so much, and this goes on for the rest of your life...
I for one want to say I am very grateful that somebody is willing to stand up and take on this responsibility and I support that person 100%!!!
|
