In all fairness, gourdpainter,
Posted By: sm on 2008-10-07
In Reply to: You said it! s/m - gourdpainter
I don't really think Obama is going to come right out and admit that he is friends with Ayers - that would spell disaster for his campaign and plans. I have learned I cannot trust what is fed to me, so I watch all of the stations, including Fox, and I read through tons of information on the internet and make up my own mind instead of letting the media make it up for me.
I will tell you, when this campaign first started, I was so excited to hear what he had to say about the issues and to think he has young kids, etc., etc., but the more I have researched (just facts with proof), I have decided that I cannot vote for this man. He is not who I believe will take America forward. His policies most definitely I don't agree with but I cannot accept a man whose character is questionable.
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
In all fairness. sm
This isn't your list. It's copied and pasted from BuzzFlash. Link below. I only mention it because there was a time some time back when you guys went ballistic on some on the conservative board for doing this.
In all fairness
One thing I agree with you on, if Obama is elected, I fully believe there will be an assassination or at least an attempt. God forbid that should happen. I would far prefer Biden in the Oval office instead of Gov. Airhead. "Experience" in Washington means nothing to me, in fact I would prefer NO Washington experience, provided the Gov. had anything between her ears besides air.
In all fairness. s/m
Someone mentioned Obama's voting record. Has anyone actually looked at his voting record...or McCain's? Obama didn't vote 46.3% of the time. McCain didn't vote 64.1% of the time!!! I find where Obama missed 1 important vote, McCain missed many. In fact, McCain looks like he hardly voted at all in the last couple of years except to speed to Washington to make sure his Wall Street buds got their bail-out. In all fairness, many of the votes both failed to vote on were nothing than motions for cloture (or however you spell that word).
In all fairness
People overseas can vote via e-mail. While I understand that not all of them do and all votes should be counted, there is an alternative to whatever mail problems exist. They only need to go to the FVAP web site. That being said, not everyone in Iraq is lucky enough to have internet access and, from what my husband says, the e-mail voting is quite a pain in the behind because things have to be faxed and all kinds of stuff.
In all fairness...
I am sure that nobody has the time to read every e-mail that he will get. I am sure that they filter them for threats and such, but I doubt he will ever read it unless it is a real standout! Nothing against you, just can't imagine how many e-mails he must get.
And in all fairness
They had to have them disinfected from the Clinton administration. I had heard that it just oozed with cooties.
If you are really concerned about fairness -
I don't understand you folks. I am very concerned about the military having their say in the voting process - I have a son in the military and I want his vote counted (even though he voted for McCain), I have an exhusband in Iraq (who I am sure would not waste his time voting for anybody), but I want their votes counted; however, if you want to be fair then even the homeless people "who do not contribute anything" have the right to vote. Being homeless does not take away their basic rights in this country. You are all talking about how Obama is going to take away this, or take away that, or do this, or do that to the people, but now you are advocating not letting a homeless person vote becaues they don't have a permanent address.
You know what, I have come close to being homeless several times in my life due to unfortunate situations - one of those time when my husband was a SOLDIER and the Army did not pay us for a whole month - and I don't think that homeless people are the scum of the earth and should just be discounted. Any one of us could find ourselves right there on that park bench beside them at any time. If the United States were a better place, then we would not have homeless people sitting on those benches anyway!
I cannot believe the lack of compassion that people in the United States are now showing toward their fellow countrymen!
It doesn't. Now in all fairness....
the campaign says they "had nothing directly" to do with that. Like they had nothing directly to do with Acorn and then had to return 800G. And like they did not provide a list of maxed out donors so Acorn could hit them for get out the vote contributions and registration efforts. Like Acorn is not in the tank for Obama.
Sounds more like the old USSR than the USA.
Then fairness should go on the other hand
Just skip over the posts you don't like.
In all fairness, it won't matter if they
do want to attend to anything with a dem majority. Think Pelosi will get that private plane now? LOL. The party needs to reboot, that's for sure. This is exactly why I don't like a one party majority. We need those checks and balances from both sides, brilliantly set up by our forefathers.
Fairness Doctrine
oh no its not. Geez. Please watch the actual news programs.
Thank you for your fairness and tolerance......nm
nm
The Fairness Doctrine
No one in the Democratic party ever seriously considered restoring the Fairness Doctrine. Someone occasionally will bring it up, but it never goes beyond committee and it dies there. It's not on the Democratic agenda nor will it be. It's yet another canard invented by the right-wing noise machine.
More Fairness Doctrine
The Senate voted to approve a bill granting representation to Washington DC in congress. However, Senate Republican Steering Committee Chairman Jim DeMint (S.C.) and Senate Republican Conference Vice Chairman John Thune (S.D.) added a totally unrelated amendment to the bill prohibiting reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine. The Senate passed the measure 87-11.
In response, Senate Majority Whip D*ck Durbin (D-Ill) proposed an amendment that called for the FCC to encourage diversity in media ownership. This proposal simply re-stated current existing law. It passed 57-41 despite the fact that every single Republican in the Senate voted against it.
So to summarize, the Senate passed an amendment to allow congressional voting privileges for Washington DC, but Senate Republicans added a totally unrelated amendment that prohibits reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, which the FCC wasn't considering and the Obama administration never supported. Nevertheless, the Democratic-controlled Senate overwhelmingly passed it anyway 87-11. Then, when a Democrat introduced a measure to "encourage diversity in media ownership," every single Senate Republican voted against it.
DeMint told reporters that Democratic efforts to legally encourage diversity in media ownership would open a "back door to censorship."
Uh, okay Jim. Whatever you say. Could this be because the vast majority of the mass media in this country are owned by Republicans? Liberal bias in the media? Gimme a break.
Once again, gt, you are not thinking from a base of fairness.
But I didn't expect you to. And when another poster actually did, you responded with HOW COULD YOU. I expected that, as well. So much for philosophical conversation, exploring intent, and misspeaking. I notice you never mentioned Maher, which, again, is typical. I drew a cogent correlation and you dismissed it completely. Again, expected. Thank you, Gadfly, for the conversation.
Okay, in all fairness, the link does not work for me either. nm
x
I like equality and fairness.....like most grown-ups...nm
nm
Well by all means, in the usual fairness...
of the as-far-from-democratic-Democratic Party...guilty until proven innocent, bash, belittle, and then turn right around in the SAME post and accuse someone else of the same. You need to get a new schtick. YOur number one does not have as much experience as the Repub #2. Yet you keep bringing experience into the conversation.
As to self destruct, not seeing it. Got a little bounce and sucked ALL the air out of the britney spears stage speech.
I am not at all underestimating the clintons....your #1 is, and the DNC is.
Yes, by all means, toe that party line. lol.
As far as your last line...THANK GOD for that!! And may i remind you, on the issue of experience...when Hillary Clinton ran for her NY state senate seat, she had NO experience in government whatsoever, unless you consider running around behind Bill cleaning up his messes experience. She had held absolutely NO legislative positions but I am sure you would agree she has been an effective senator...right?
Puhlezzzzz. Double standard is SHOWING. And all Bill had done before he became Prez was be a governor. Double standard is SHOWING.
geeeez. lol.
It is called the Fairness Doctrine Act
s
There needs to be equality and fairness in congress
Don't shoot me - these are only my observations. Granted I have been very busy with work only catching the news in between, but what I have seen over the past few days or a week is that the republicans are not being treated fairly by the democrats. I voted for Obama because I believed that he would be the best choice and like he said he would be able to get the republicans and democrats to be able to work together. I didn't see that with McCain. I didn't vote for Obama because of his plans because I knew it was just campaigning and all a bunch of garbage. No president yet to this date has ever fulfilled their campaign promises. But I voted for Obama because I believed he would unite the two parties together and maybe something could get done in Washington to help the people. What I have seen so far is just too sad beyond words. More failed promises. I was truly hoping for some "class", but I don't see it happening and I'm not sure if it's worse than it was before. Granted it's only been a couple weeks and I keep hoping things will turn around, but seems like all the people Obama is picking for his cabinet members are democrats (and crooked ones at that) with maybe one or two republicans to give the illusion that he is giving fairness to both sides. As for the congress, all I see on the news is they are acting like a bunch of spoiled children. They are blatantly ignoring republicans as thought they are children saying "we won and you didn't nana nana na na. We don't have to listen to you now nana nana na na" (remember that little song you used to do as kids). There many great republicans and many great democrats. My husband keeps telling me we have to have check and balance. He said these republicans represent part of the country too. Not every person in this country is a democrat and if we give full reign to them that is when you have a dictatorship (tyranny or whatever you want to call it) and they will pass anything they want to paying back all the people who bought them and they promised favors to.
The last administration was certainly not one of the best, but neither was the Clinton or Carter either. DH and I were talking about it last night and he said during Carter administration it was so bad that the only thing out there was the military to join, and that it what I am seeing starting to happen here.
I don't think anything should be "given" to either one side or the other, but the republicans deserve to be treated with the same respect that people are demanding they treat the democrats with. There are good ideas on both sides and if congress is filled with people lining their own pockets then maybe they need to be fired now so we can start again with people who care about the American people and what is happening to the country.
I believe that congress should be filled with people from outside of washington. There are so many good politicians in each state (ones we have never heard of yet), who do good things. Maybe it's time to get rid of people like Pelosi, Reid, Kerry, and all the "stable" washington crowd and replace with people who have a proven record of doing good for our country.
Fairness Doctrine, cont.
Did Pelosi write or sponsor or introduce a bill regarding the Fairness Doctrine? Is it on the Democratic Party platform? Is there pending legislation in the House or the Senate?
The Fairness Doctrine was started in 1949 when media outlets were very limited. It was stopped in 1987 and is unenforceable. Again, the right-wing noise machine takes a remark out of context and tries to build an issue where none exists.
It's ridiculous that the president actually had to announce the fact that Democrats have no intention of trying to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=68d07041-7dbc-451d-a18a-752567145610
Fairness Doctrine is Alive and Well
DH told me it's in our paper today, that Schumer is promoting it, but I couldn't find anything on line.
I did find a few articles and the one posted below is the most recent (by Sen. Inhofe) that I could find:
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/93765
In all fairness, your posts were attacking and unkind. sm
And may have even been unfounded. I believe both of you were off base with the posts. I have once again posted a reminder at the top of the board.
You lefties are so fair....the fairness is staggering...
attack him for not paying attention to hurricane and then attack him for paying attention to hurricane. Just proves that all you want to do is attack, attack, attack.
In all fairness, the O rarely voted at all since his campain started
Go check his record on the government site, but in all fairness, McCain didn't vote much either since this campaign. Still I think he voted more than the O. Correct me if I'm wrong.
AND NO BASHING. Serious question here. I don't have time to count every vote and I did try to do that a month ago and posted my results.
Obama opposes Reinstating Fairness Doctrine
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/18/white-house-opposes-fairness-doctrine/
Why is fairness in taxation considered a handout? This isn't welfare... it's paying the right
o
Pelosi Erases Gingrich's Long-Standing Fairness Rules....sm
Pelosi Erases Gingrich's Long-Standing Fairness Rules
by Connie Hair
01/05/2009
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi plans to re-write House rules today to ensure that the Republican minority is unable to have any influence on legislation. Pelosi’s proposals are so draconian, and will so polarize the Capitol, that any thought President-elect Obama has of bipartisan cooperation will be rendered impossible before he even takes office.
Pelosi’s rule changes -- which may be voted on today -- will reverse the fairness rules that were written around Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America.”
In reaction, the House Republican leadership is sending a letter today to Pelosi to object to changes to House Rules this week that would bar Republicans from offering alternative bills, amendments to Democrat bills or even the guarantee of open debate accessible by motions to recommit for any piece of legislation during the entire 111th Congress. These procedural abuses, as outlined in the below letter obtained by HUMAN EVENTS, would also include the repeal of six-year limit for committee chairmen and other House Rules reform measures enacted in 1995 as part of the Contract with America.
After decades of Democrat control of the House of Representatives, gross abuses to the legislative process and several high-profile scandals contributed to an overwhelming Republican House Congressional landslide victory in 1994. Reforms to the House Rules as part of the Contract with America were designed to open up to public scrutiny what had become under this decades-long Democrat majority a dangerously secretive House legislative process. The Republican reform of the way the House did business included opening committee meetings to the public and media, making Congress actually subject to federal law, term limits for committee chairmen ending decades-long committee fiefdoms, truth in budgeting, elimination of the committee proxy vote, authorization of a House audit, specific requirements for blanket rules waivers, and guarantees to the then-Democrat minority party to offer amendments to pieces of legislation.
Pelosi’s proposed repeal of decades-long House accountability reforms exposes a tyrannical Democrat leadership poised to assemble legislation in secret, then goose-step it through Congress by the elimination of debate and amendment procedures as part of America’s governing legislative process.
Below is the text of the letter on which the House Republican leadership has signed off.
January 5, 2009
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker of the House
H-232, U.S. Capitol
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Madame Speaker,
We hope you and your family had a joyful holiday season, and as we begin a new year and a new Congress, we look forward to working with you, our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and President-elect Obama in tackling the many challenges facing our nation.
President Obama has pledged to lead a government that is open and transparent. With that in mind, we are deeply troubled by media reports indicating that the Democratic leadership is poised to repeal reforms put in place in 1995 that were intended to help restore Americans’ trust and confidence in the People’s House. Specifically, these reports note that the Majority, as part of its rules package governing the new Congress, will end six-year term limits for Committee chairs and further restrict the opportunity for all members to offer alternative legislation. This does not represent change; it is reverting back to the undemocratic one-party rule and backroom deals that the American people rejected more than a decade ago. And it has grave implications for the American people and their freedom, coming at a time when an unprecedented expansion of federal power and spending is being hastily planned by a single party behind closed doors. Republicans will vigorously oppose repealing these reforms if they are brought to a vote on the House floor.
As you know, after Republicans gained the majority in the House in 1995, our chamber adopted rules to limit the terms of all committee chairs to three terms in order to reward new ideas, innovation, and merit rather than the strict longevity that determined chairmanships in the past. This reform was intended to help restore the faith and trust of the American people in their government – a theme central to President-elect Obama’s campaign last year. He promoted a message of “change,” but Madame Speaker, abolishing term limit reform is the opposite of “change.” Instead, it will entrench a handful of Members of the House in positions of permanent power, with little regard for its impact on the American people.
The American people also stand to pay a price if the Majority further shuts down free and open debate on the House floor by refusing to allow all members the opportunity to offer substantive alternatives to important legislation -- the same opportunities that Republicans guaranteed to Democrats as motions to recommit during their 12 years in the Minority. The Majority’s record in the last Congress was the worst in history when it came to having a free and open debate on the issues.
This proposed change also would prevent Members from exposing and offering proposals to eliminate tax increases hidden by the Democratic Majority in larger pieces of legislation. This is not the kind of openness and transparency that President-elect Obama promised. This change would deprive tens of millions of Americans the opportunity to have a voice in the most important policy decisions facing our country.
Madame Speaker, we urge you to reconsider the decision to repeal these reforms, which could come up for a vote as early as tomorrow. Just as a new year brings fresh feelings of optimism and renewal for the American people, so too should a new Congress. Changing the House rules in the manner highlighted by recent media reports would have the opposite effect: further breaching the trust between our nation’s elected representatives and the men and women who send them to Washington to serve their interests and protect their freedom.
Sincerely,
Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio), Republican Leader
Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), Republican Whip
Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), Conference Chairman
Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.), Policy Committee Chairman
Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wyo.), Conference Vice-Chair
Rep. John Carter (R-Texas), Conference Secretary
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas), NRCC Chairman
Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), Chief Deputy Whip
Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.), Rules Committee Ranking Republican
(Click here for a pdf copy of the letter with signatures.)
gourdpainter...
We just finished a study of Revelation at our church. In the part you were talking about, "one man rising to lead them" it also says he will be diverse from the rest. He will be well liked, and many people will come to believe he is a "messiah".
Read this site just for face value, and just tell me if it doesn't make you cringe, just a bit.
http://www.theprophecies.com/antichrist.html
I pray that we do get our hiney's raptured right out of here before everything really goes down.
Oh please, gourdpainter.
Are you insinuating that Christianity is the only religion that believes in basic human values? Do you really think that anyone who is not a Christian automatically condones raping, killing, stealing, lying, or anything like it? We all have rights in this country, even minorities!
So okay, put it under gourdpainter
I'll stand by what I say. LOL
Thank you, thank you, thank you, Gourdpainter!
This man and the running mate he has chosen (which I bet now he is regretting) scare me to death. I have never in my life witnessed so much lying, hypocrisy and lack of integrity that these two people have have shown. Anyone watching his face as he speaks would have to see the glaringly clear dishonesty of this man!
Gourdpainter, why do you believe that?
I am just wondering why you feel so sure that McCain is going to win...
I don't know, gourdpainter.............sm
why Wright is not being talked about in the political circles. My initial thought is the difference between him and Ayers or the others is that he calls himself a preacher/reverend. While I definitely agree with you as far as Wright's political statements from the pulpit, maybe it is that McCain and Palin have not jumped on him because they were made from a pulpit and they view that as "protected" in some way??? In other words, they as politicians are not supposed to bring God into politics, so maybe this is an off limits kind of subject.
I notice you keep stating that you don't want Palin as president. GP, she is not running for president; McCain is. And while the chance exists that he could die in office (not necessarily of evil intentions but rather due to age) and Palin could step into the presidency, I would rather have her there than Obama/Biden any day. I can assure you that Obama will be the final ruination of this country if he is elected.
I'm sorry you can't sleep at night. Maybe you need to rethink your vote and vote for McCain. I've noticed others on this board who have said they can sleep at night now knowing that they are voting for McCain. ;o)
Gourdpainter
Sorry I didn't answer! It was farrier day at my moms so I've been gone all afternoon.
I respect your opinion, and I understand where you are coming from. Honestly at this point all we can do is pray. There is just to much stuff I've seen of O that rubs me the wrong way. I just believe voting for Mccain is the lesser of two evils. Yes, it may be the same. But I'd rather endure 4 more years of the same and pray during those four years for a godly candidate to come about than to risk voting for someone who we really do not know about. That's just a big issue I have. We really still do not know who Obama is. We know who he is portrayed as, but there has not been enough time for us to know who he truly is and what he truly believes in.
This is my other big worry...if, God forbid, Obama gets assassinated, and Biden dies or whatever (his health isn't much better than Mccain's I'm pretty sure) then we have Pelosi. THAT is frightening. I would take Palin over Pelosi any day. And Biden could possibly misspeak his way right into a nuclear war. Of course I know your view on Palin so we won't go there... :)
Your right, Mccain is not a godly candidate. If the reason he left his wife is true, it's despicable. But you know what, he's apologized. And I'm sure he has asked forgiveness. We all do things we are not proud of. Obama lies until he is backed into a corner (such as Rev Wright) and then when he finally can't back up anymore he then says "oh I condemn what he said." Not good enough to me. I don't care what the man says, he did not sit in that church for almost 500 Sundays and never once hear Wright preach hate. Straight up, he lied. He has been saturated with this hate. Yes, I believe he will bring change. While we don't know if he is a terrorist, I firmly believe he is anti-American. I believe he wants to bring about a "New America". While we have things wrong with this country, we are still a great country when you get down to the nitty gritty and I don't think every facet of American life needs to be changed. I think that is what he believes. He has his head in the clouds. Just look at how he is now saying "ohh don't get too excited". Why did he promise all that at the beginning? To get the votes. To get people to decide on him, because you know the majority of people aren't going to change their minds now.
He's promising you more days off from school and more vending machines in the halls knowing he can't give them to you. He has people following him now like lemmings on a cliff.
Also, I feel like there are a lot of big red flags coming up from the Bible. I feel like we are going to be face to face with Jesus and he's going to say "I TRIED TO WARN YOU!"
I understand what you mean though, about God not telling you. Sometimes I wish he would just make me a neon sign :). Just make sure you sit still and listen, because if you're like me sometimes he may be shouting at you and you just can't hear him.
I encourage you to definitely take some time to yourself and just sit and talk with Him, and see what he puts on your heart.
I understand the appeal of Obama, I really do. As a 22-year-old college student, I feel like one of a few of my age group that isn't voting for him. I really liked him at first, but the more and more I read about his association with Wright, his view of the "typical white woman", his view on abortion, etc., I just feel like he is not the man who is going to lead our country back to God, and ultimately, that is what we need. Like I said, Mccain probably won't either, but I fear with Obama there may not be a chance to elect another Christian president. I fear that he will go as far as to quiet our preachers and to limit what we can say as Christians. If he doesn't personally, the democratic congress will, and I don't believe he will say no to them. That's one thing I like about Mccain, you know he will say no if need be. I just think Obama owes to many people. He didn't make it up the ladder this quick without a lot of help.
Well, it's back to work for me. Take it easy!
I think gourdpainter has.
.
i, gourdpainter...
I asked this question already a while back and nobody answered it.
So I guess, it must have something do to with the 'uterus', perhaps?
LOL !
Another invention of the Republicans to proof that they are right?
Thank you, gourdpainter.
/
Oh, gourdpainter....sm
I know for a fact, that you yourself usually possess what my grandpa used to call, "good ol' fashioned horse sense."
It just amazes me that you don't recognize it in someone else.
Your mind is already made up, so I don't think I can explain it to you.
Gourdpainter...........sm
And all the other nay-sayers.
About the post below concerning the audio interview with Obama on the energy issue, did you even listen to the audio that was presented?
Not only did I listen to it, I went to the source web site and listened. Here is the link if you want to check it out further. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=14&entry_id=32228
The entire interview was about 48 minutes long. It was Obama answering questions from several journalists on a number of issues. He was first questioned about energy at about 25:15 in the tape. The issue that was brought up in the post below that you called 'Horsefeathers' was discussed at about 40:30. I encourage you go listen for yourself and hear the words from the horse's mouth.
Other issues discussed along with the time markers for each discussion were:
Health care 10:38
Securities Industry 20:00
Iraq 29:18
Environment 39:55
Racial issues 42:24 (And this was a listener/reader question)
Voting system in the caucuses (sp): 46:09
Obama is, without doubt, a very intelligent man and eloquent speaker, but I fear he may be far too intelligent, possibly to the point that he cannot be reigned in if necessary, and that in combination with a Democratic House, Senate and Judiciary branch makes him a very dangerous man.
Wow Gourdpainter
you really opened the floodgates - LOL!
Well, gourdpainter, there is your
it says on this website!!! Believe me, I live further south than Arkansas and I wonder what they had to pay these idiots to do this. No one near where I live averages this stoopid! Big Bad had a lot of time on her hands to come up with this one!
hey gourdpainter -- was this a typo or not?
The ex-wife, scorned "pubically" -- was that what you really meant or did you mean publicly? If so, it's the best typo I've seen all day. If not, I'm still laughing!
Thanks -- I needed one today! 
Sam/Gourdpainter debate s/m
Somewhere down below I posted things I had AGAINST Obama. Sam replied. Now I can't find the thread........typical for this old-timer.
Sam, I noticed a lot of "McCain says" and "McCain calls for" in your reply. I say both candidates "say" and "call for." Let's reason here together. After his 25 years in the Congress do you think McCain doesn't have cronies in Congress and on Wall Street? Do you think he isn't indebted to monied people in Arizona? Likewise, Obama, do you think he doesn't have cronies in Congress and Wall Street AND in Chicago? Well...news flash. Sure he does. Do you REALLY think either candidate, regardless of what they "call for" in pre-election propaganda are really going to do anything to benefit the common working class Americans? I certainly do not.
I just finished reading the Wall Street report this morning and you know what I think? I think everyone had better get out their Bible and have a read of Revelations whether they want to honor it as God's Word or just history. It's all there as well as the end result. Yep, I think we had all better turn to God. He said if we would turn to Him he would deliver us and I believe HE is our only hope. Otherwise, what I see is China forclosing on our huge national debt and then skip the socialism, we'll go directly to communism and we won't pass go and we CERTAINLY won't collect $200. Another good read might be the fall of the Roman Empire.
I can't believe I'm still wasting my time railing about the state of this countries ills. No one will see that it is not DEMOCRATS or REPUBLICANS that are at the root of the problems, it's the AMERICAN people who can't get past party affiliation. No change will come until the American PEOPLE make it come.
gourdpainter, my question is, why is it
liberal, every person who openly denounces God and all moralities are pro Obama? I am not saying McCain is perfect, and I am sure there are Christians voting for Obama. I just cannot understand why so many atheist, nonbelievers, outspoken celebrities want Obama to be elected so desperately.
gourdpainter? You dont think you are just as
nm
Gourdpainter is right about the nonunion
employees getting better benefits when the union employees do. My husband works for the state and although he is not union eligible (middle management), his work class follows the same policy as the union employees. If the union employees get a raise or a benefit change, he gets the same.
My husband, however, is not protected by the union should any situations arise. I call him a "tagalong".
This post should be under gourdpainter.
x
sorry 'bout that GoUrdpainter!!! nm
.
Gourdpainter, what a copout!! lol
You have lectured people to go out and research for themselves when they asked you for links, and because not enough people responded on the board about Wright you think it is unfounded?? Good grief!! Google Jeremiah Wright and then listen to the TON of video on the man. Then watch Obama say "I never heard him say it" and then turn right around and say "well yes I heard controversial things." And when you are done with that, do some studying up on black liberation theology, which the church that he attended for 20 years is based on. The same church that honored Louis Farrakhan...you know...Farrakhan of Nation of Islam? The one who calls Obama the messiah? That should keep you busy for a LONG time. If you are really interested in the truth, do the work yourself, like you invite others to do. Its not like there is not TONS of information out there.
Not like you to cop out like that... :-)
Gourdpainter, on this one I'm totally with you.
x
|
