LOL...Kind of like saying *my fellow prisoners*..
Posted By: Just the big bad on 2008-11-11
In Reply to: Loved it when Biden called Obama - "Barack America"-didnt catch himself.nm
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
Our prisoners............ sm
detained for terrorist attacks and plans of attacks against the US, and who know nothing more than a retaliatory kind of lifestyle.....and the magnanomous senator from PA said his state would house them. He really is thinking of the prisoners' well-being. Do you think these prisoners would really be safe in a federal prison housed with our own hardened criminals who really have nothing left to lose? And what of the fact that PA is so convenient to DC that it wouldn't be difficult at all for them to stage an attack on DC proper. They didn't make it last time and landed in a field in PA. If this comes to pass, I WILL blame Obama and I WILL blame the PA senator. YES I CAN!
Yep, we will soon be prisoners of our own govt.
nm
We do not have enough room for our own prisoners.
x
These people are our prisoners too.
US imprisoned them, so they are prisoners of the US...nm
nm
"innocent prisoners",, yeah, ok.
nm
What do you think they're doing to American prisoners?
The terrorists/Taliban torture and kill their own people. What do you think they do to the American prisoners they capture? You're deluded if you think they abide by the Geneva Convention. Waterboarding is no big deal compared to cutting off a head, don't you think?
Obama is reviewing the status of the prisoners... sm
Isn't that okay with you?
Fellow Arkie
I know where that is! We used to shop in Fort Smith when I was little. From Mena, now south Arkansas. Your part of the country is beautiful. Where the Ouachitas meet the Ozarks! 
To my fellow Americans.....
we are all screwed. I don't think any one in government has a clue what is the right thing to do and the ones who do won't say anything as it might go against their party and who would want to do that. If one party has a good idea, the other party refuses to vote for it because it wasn't their party and let's face it.....neither party wants the other one to look good. Government is going to stick it to us again so we might as well be prepared and get the vaseline out for a little bit of lube.
Hello there fellow vegan
Okay, have to admit I'm not total vegan but am trying. I love beans too. We eats tons of black beans, garbanzo's, and some navy beans and lately been on a homemade split pea soup kick. I do love beans, less meat (we stick to mainly chicken and ham. Although I still won't eat a fava bean (mainly because they said it was like a lima bean and lima beans are repulsive to me).
Is that what they laughed about. I had forgotten.
So am trying here to be more vegan myself. There are certain veggies I just cannot get enough of (brussel sprouts for one).
If you have or know of any good recipes or websites of how to transition more veggie I'd love to hear from you. More than welcome to send me an email.
Thanks and let me know how you like the fava beans.
As I pointed out before...that fellow is not entirely honest either...
and Bush did not lie. While the bill does not explicitly state it will cover families to $83,000, it opens a loophole that will allow New York to again ask for the $82,600 raise and under the new bill would probably get it, because the stipulation preventing it was being removed. So basically what Bush said is true...he should have worded it differently.
Here are some things that were not brought forward that are also bad things about the bill:
Bush had good reason to veto SCHIP
By Grace-Marie Turner
Article Launched: 10/14/2007 01:33:38 AM PDT
Is President Bush a liar who hates children? That's what many of his critics now are asking in the opinion pages of major newspapers across the country. Why else, they say, would he refuse to sign a bill providing health insurance to poor kids?
Specifically, the president has vetoed a bill expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program designed to provide health coverage to lower-income children. One nationally syndicated columnist went so far as to call Bush's rationale in vetoing the bill a "pack of flat-out lies."
This kind of rhetoric is wrong and misleads readers about the facts of this important issue.
There is no debate over whether to reauthorize the SCHIP program so it can continue to provide insurance to needy children. That's a given. The debate is about whether children in middle-income families should be added.
The president is absolutely right in insisting that SCHIP focus on its core mission of needy children. When SCHIP was created in 1997, the target population was children whose parents earned too much for them to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford private insurance. The president wants the program to focus on children whose families earn less than 200 percent of the federal poverty level. In today's dollars, that's $41,300 a year.
About two-thirds of the nation's uninsured children already are eligible for either Medicaid or SCHIP, but aren't enrolled. Raising the income threshold won't solve this core problem. Congress should require states to focus on the 689,000 children whom the Urban Institute says are uninsured and would be eligible for SCHIP if eligibility were limited to the $41,300 income level.
The other big problem is that, across the country, states are using SCHIP dollars to insure adults.
Fourteen states cover adults through SCHIP, and at least six of them are spending more of their SCHIP dollars on adults than on children. For example, 78 percent of SCHIP enrollees in Minnesota are adults, 79 percent in New Mexico, and 72 percent in Michigan.
With these statistics in mind, the Bush administration issued a ruling in August requiring states to demonstrate that they had enrolled 95 percent of eligible needy children before expanding the program.
Yet the bill that Congress passed, and which the president vetoed, nullifies that ruling and effectively refuses to agree that needy kids should get first preference. Instead, the congressional measure would give $60 billion to the states over five years to enroll millions more "children" - although many of them will, in fact, be adults. Others will be from higher-income families.
New York, for instance, could submit a plan that would add children in families earning up to $83,000 a year to SCHIP. New Jersey could continue to cover kids whose parents make up to $72,000. All the other states would be allowed to cover kids in families with incomes up to $61,000.
Most children in these higher income families are already covered by private insurance. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 77 percent of children in families earning more than twice the poverty line have private health insurance now.
No one doubts that SCHIP is a vitally important program for needy children, and that our nation needs to do a better job of helping working families afford health insurance. But giving the states incentives to add middle-income kids to their SCHIP rolls will prompt families to replace private insurance with taxpayer-provided coverage.
This is completely backward. The goal of SCHIP should be to provide private coverage to uninsured children. If Congress would send the president a bill that does that, he says he would sign it in a minute.
How I hate to disagree with my fellow....
But that is just nonsense. It would do nothing but create anarchy and keep the government so busy rotating presidents in and out of office, that absolutely nothing would get done. I will agree with you that the Bush presidency is one of the worst and that we will be seeing the ramifications of it in the many, many years to come and I am just hoping that he can keep things on an even keel until his term is over. But a no convidence vote? Never.
Not a fellow liberal, just a few things to say...
the National Right to Life Committee is not a religious organization. This from Wikipedia: The National Right to Life Committee is the largest right to life/pro-life organization in the United States with affiliates in all 50 states and over 3,000 local chapters nationwide. The group works through legislation and education to work against abortion, infanticide, euthanasia and assisted suicide. It was founded in Detroit in 1973 in response to the Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade which legalized the practice of abortion in all fifty states. It a non-sectarian, non-partisan group whose founding members included leaders in fields of science, religion, law, ethics and medicine. Its board consist of an elected representative from each of the 50 states and several at-large board members.
It might surprise you to know, there are Democrats, and there are liberals, who are not pro choice. There are Republicans who are pro choice. It is not a political issue. It is a deeply moral, deeply personal issue. In my case, it is tied to my belief in God (not my God, He is everyone's God). Perhaps not so in others. Those who do not have God in their lives, I do not expect them to understand where I am coming from, and I am not trying to force anything down anyone's throat. That is MY personal conviction. In others, perhaps it is tied to their own sense of morality and what to them is right and wrong. That is our right, just as your stand is yours.
I would counter what you say by saying how could you stand up with such strong conviction for the less fortunate, the sick, for all living things EXCEPT the unborn, the most innocent of all? And the helpless? Piglet...who in this world is MORE helpless, more utterly defenseless than an unborn child? Who?
If you have the benevolence to stand up for all the others you mention, why does that not extend to the unborn? Why are they excluded?
How is it different for a woman to deem an unborn child inconvenient and decide to kill it before it is born or partially born, and that is fine, yet let that child be born and she smother it the next day and you would be outraged, or at least I hope you would. How is that right in even a most twisted sense? The plain and simple fact is it is still a dead baby who was murdered. I realize that terms like "Murder" and "Chopped up like salad in a blender" are terms that make people uncomfortable. And well they should. Because that is the stark reality of abortion, choice or not.
In this day and time, in all but the most extreme circumstances (rape, incest, possible death of mother), there are ways to prevent an inconvenient pregnancy. If we stopped performing abortions except in those extreme cases, that would stop 90%, of not more, of all abortions.
REASONS FOR ABORTIONS: COMPILED ESTIMATES
rape 0.3 % (0.1-0.6 %)
incest 0.03 % (<0.1 %)
physical life of mother 0.2 % (0.1-0.3 %)
physical health of mother 1.0 % (0.1-3 %)
fetal health 0.5 % (0.1-1.0 %)
mental health of mother depends on definition
"personal choice"
--too young/immature/not ready for responsibility
--economic
--to avoid adjusting life
--mother single or in poor relationship
--enough children already 98% (78-99 %)
Not sure where you are going with the deciding how we die thing...unless you are talking about assisted suicide/euthanasia? That slippery slope may lead somewhere you don't want to go...when that decision is taken away from you and given to someone else, to whom you have become inconvenient and a bother and it would be in their best interest that you be dead. Think about that very carefully. And before you say "Oh that would never happen" I am sure that people who made the same comment about abortion never thought it would be legal or commonplace either. The Terri Schiavo case...I just think it would behoove anyone to think very carefully about that particular snowball and do they really want to start it down the hill.
Looking out for your fellow Americans, how noble sm
Did you figure out how to spell McCain yet?
Wouldn't you want your fellow supporters to think for
;?/
I read articles on this fellow......... sm
during the campaigns before the election. His predictions are not very promising and I believe we are in for a long, rocky ride. The government bailouts are just the beginning of government owning America, lock, stock and barrel.
I live in a rural, rather economically depressed area now and wonder how quickly my area will start seeing these changes. I wonder if it will be one of the first and hardest hit or if the more affluent areas of the country that enjoy a wider variety of jobs and better paying jobs will be more adversely affected first.
My 18-year-old son and I were discussing his future last night. Although he is a junior in high school, I told him that it is time that he started looking at the job markets in our area and deciding on a job that would pay well and would be in demand for a few years, at least. He won't be going to college, partly because of financial issues, but mainly because he is just not "college material" but I do want him to investigate trades-type schools and trades jobs in which he will be able to provide for himself as an adult in an economy where blue-collar workers struggle at best. 
Personally, I am not spending any more than is absolutely necessary to survive at this point. I guess I'm being "unAmerican" by not stimulating the economy, but right now I'm more concerned about what my future holds and whether I will be able to keep my home than whether I have a big-screen TV or an iphone. Times are indeed getting scary.
I am concerned for my fellow democrats on this post
Is there possibly anything else you can discuss or raise cane about other than Bush? To say that Bush started the fires in California is just beyond the scope of common sense.
I am not a Bush supporter, never was, never will be....however, not all the ills in the world or in our own country can be blamed on him alone.
I am most astounded by some of these postings, as they don't seem to make much sense and make you sound much less intelligent than I am sure you are.
Blame the people who elected him and blame Congress for not pursuing further investigation, but to keep rehashing it is blarney.
Are you calling your fellow pubs ignorant?:
x
I think Palin IS a scare tactic. She & her fellow
believe in FREEDOM.
Freedom of Speech.
Freedom of/from Religion.
Freedom of Association.
Pursuit of Happiness.
Marching in lock-step with America's religious Nazis somehow just doesn't fit with what our forefathers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution.
You're really worried about your fellow citizens?
because if that were the case, you would be asking him why he continues to let illegals and overseas workers with visas into this country to take those very jobs they report are gone.
You don't know any of this is going on because you don't pay attention to anything unless Obama has said it. If he doesn't tell you illegals are taking these jobs, then you'll just pretend they are not. Sorry you don't feel illegals taking our jobs to the tune of 1.5 million right now isn't MORE important than spending more of your money.
Ever stop to think if they didn't have the jobs, Americans would?
Nope....she just stated she was here to post issues for her fellow liberals...
(or he, whichever the case may be), and I just mentioned I had not seen any issues posted. Are YOU the posting police?
And what facts to post....I hope you are really proud of your fellow posters...
right now.
Looks kind of pro-war to me.
Everything below is from their official, sanitized website, but for the real view of this group read their forum which includes lots of photos of firearms, many with children alongside them.
________________
"War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
-- John Stuart Mill
(From the Mission portion of the website):
War IS an ugly thing, but as long as nations and leaders exist that detest freedom, sometimes it is the only way to secure a lasting peace. Most leftist anti-war protesters and pundits don't understand this. They state that this use of force is always unnecessary -- that war, ANY war, is never good. Some of them, born into the luxury of American freedom, believe that liberty can exist passively, that somehow the world's natural state will always settle into utopian harmony. Others, in an attempt to absolve themselves from the unearned guilt they harbor living in a nation of prosperity and wealth, try to buy morality on the cheap by pronouncing themselves for the 'good'. To them, the derivation of the 'good' is based on a simple, yet peculiar standard: the powerful and competent are wicked, while the feeble and impotent are innocent - regardless of the context. That is why they defend Iraq instead of America, and the Palestinian "resistance" instead of Israel.
"
kind of OT
Do any of you watch Survivor? I love that show. I think Im in pretty good shape but there is no way I could survive for a month on an island like they do but I like to watch and make believe that I could (smile). Snakes and alligators and bugs..YIPES.
Seems kind of sad
Don't know who you are referring to but I suppose all countries have residents who don't wish it well but I assume that statistically they would be a very tiny minority as really, why would they live in a place they wish to see destroyed? Seems silly.
This country seems to be unable to educate itself about the nature of our foe. We rely on leaders who seem to flaunt their ignorance about the middle eastern culture. So perhaps you are right, there are those who wish us harm.....by utilizing repeatedly the same failed techniques/agendas that as you stated, continue to stoke the fires of hate that have been burning for a very very long time -- the agendas of ignorance and unwillingness to learn from history. As long as this runaway ignorance prevails our soldiers will continue to die along with the Iraqi civilians and our world will become less safe.
It is kind of sad, really....
As virulent a Bush hater and advocate for pulling out of Iraq immediately that Murtha is, for him to say what he said, and the fact that you don't give it a bit of creedence is a pretty sad thing, piglet. And you can bet if they had picked and chosen spots in Baghdad to show him, he would have been on the Senate floor saying so. He sure hasn't been shy about castigating and condemning to this point. You just absolutely are unwilling to accept ANYthing positive, even from a Bush-hating pull out of Iraq now Democrat. WOW. 
SM is kind of right
There is a world of heartache ahead in the very near future. In case you haven't been following the trend, there is one church that has been advising its members for over 100 years to stock pile food and supplies, be self-sufficient, and otherwise make nice with the world. The holocaust is coming, but there isn't going to be some saving-grace rapture first. The righteous people will collect into specific locations to survive while the unrighteous have a slug fest and kill each other off. Its very real and it is likely going to be within this lifetime.
that is kind of a
creepy thought for you to be fixated on. EEEWWW.
Kind of the same ol same ol
My understanding is if you used to be a Muslim and then change (or say you have changed for whatever reason) that is a big problem for them. I've known for a long time that OBL would put out threats and he has.
This goes to prove that he has more to worry about from the outside than within the US.
You are so so kind - thank you
Thank you for your post. I know what you mean about feeling stuck.
My dad. He lives in CT. He was working for Foxwoods Casino since the day it opened. When they were first talking about building the Casino back in 1986 (I think that was the year). He received a letter from the Indian tribe asking if he would like to be a poker dealer (they paid for training and meals). At that time he was unemployed and could not find work anywhere (he was in the Army during the Gulf War and when that ended the military "dumped" thousands and thousands of people and he found himself jobless, homeless, and hopeless. Then he received the letter and accepted and he was the third person to be hired to work at the Casino. While he worked there after he had an illness because he worked in an environment filled with cigarette smoke, so they transferred him to a department (marketing I believe) and he has worked there ever since. He loved his job sooooooo much. When I talked to him at Thanksgiving he said he was going to take a computer class (he said he doesn't even know what the on button looks like on a computer. HA HA.) He said he was learning the basics of email and stuff, but the last time I talked to my sis she said he tried checking his email from her computer but didn't know how to do it, so not sure how the computer class went.
I know he's working with some guy at the unemployment office, but my dad said he's going nuts not having a job to go to and spend the day at. He is checking the local stores (greeter, bagger, cashier or whatever they need). I'll check on the AARP program and send him some information. He's talking now about possibly having to sell his truck so he will have some money for food. I wish I could help him out more, but with one income we are barely making it ourselves, and my dad is a kind of proud person and not sure if he would accept any money from his kids.
He does tell me that we are at the bottom so it can only go up from here. Thank you very much for your suggestions and care.
Thank you for the kind words.
I agree with everything you said.
I think that lumping people together and making gross inaccurate generalizations does nothing but prevent any intelligent discourse from occurring, and that's very sad because these issues are very serious. Our very ability to keep BREATHING may be in jeopardy, particularly if we don't start concentrating on our own safety. Bush has made Iraq much less safe place to be, and he hasn't done much to make the United States a safe place to be. If we truly NEED our military someday to protect US in a homeland attack, where will they all be?
What also worries me is that our enemies might consider this a bilateral "religious" war. They already believe it is, yelling and effecting "Jihad." But the current focus on one particular brand of Christianity in this country -- not religion in general, but one particular BRAND of Christianity -- makes me wonder if Bush himself doesn't think this is a religious war. The fact that he might think so is what scares me the most, as history tell us they are the most deadly, bloody wars of all. I personally don't want the U.S. to be known as a "Christian" nation. One of the things I love the most about this country is the freedom that we're SUPPOSED to have to worship freely, and I will personally oppose anyone who tries to take that away from us.
It's sad that tolerance and respect aren't in more people's hearts and souls.
Thanks, that's kind of what I thought...
dede
I responsed in kind. NM
Kind of off topic
Do any of you ever watch subtitle South Korean shows? Out here in CA, we have a channel that is for mainly Indian/Asian shows and I gotta tell ya, I have gotten to like the South Korean mini series..they last about 18 shows, twice a week..They are so good and have made me understand the Asian culture so much..I have a Japanese friend and I was astonished when I went to her home, you take your shoes off and sit on the floor for eating, sleep on the floor..all the things I thought were in the past..Plus, a big bonus, at least I think so, Asian guys are so cute. Hey, conservatives, if you are gonna attack me for this post, save it..okay? IMO, learning about others will keep us alive and not bombing each other.
wow the holidays must not be kind to you
yikes
Yup....Nancy is one of a kind...
let us sincerely HOPE.
Ok, kind of understand now
Thanks for the article. I understand it a little better, but boy, can they make the process any more confusing? Seems like there could be an easier way to do politics.
Kind and gracious?
Let's see....how many thousands of innocent people died in Iraq? If that is your definition of kind and gracious, then you are disturbed.
Maybe the kind that has 3 kids
already and the 4th pregnancy could put her life in peril. Does she allow her other children to go motherless?
Maybe the kind who underwent extensive testing and was told that her child would be born limbless or so developmentally delayed that any kind of life would be miserable?
Maybe the kind who was raped and does not want to bear the child of a rapist, whether she would be able to put the child up for adoption or not.
A woman's body is her body. No one should have the right to tell her what to do with it. There are many reasons to have an abortion. I personally feel that in the above cases, an abortion is a reasonable option. I certainly wouldn't wish any of the scenarios above on anyone. Outlawing abortion in general is wrong. If you want to prevent it from being used as a form of birth control, then by all means put limitations on it, but don't outlaw it completely. Sometimes it is the only choice.
Not pro-abortion but definitely pro-choice. There is a difference.
How about a thought of a different kind
Would like to hear your opinions on this one.
What if Jeffrey Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy, and other mass murders or the people that kidnap and kill innocent children had been aborted. Would have saved a lot of heart ache with the victims and their family.
Okay, I know you will probably say nobody knew before they were born that they would have done that, but what if there was a test that could be done that would definitely without a doubt, 100% proof to be able to tell if the baby was going to be someone like them. Then what would your stance on abortion be.
That was kind of pathetic.
I'm reminded daily on this board, how most democrats refuse to allow any opinion other than their own, without some form of negative name calling or put down.
Most of you dems are downright mean and nasty.
I thought you were the party of hope, change, love, and social equality for everyone.
Seems if one is republican or in the middle, leaning to the right, you have no rights at all, in you dems' minds.
Unbelievable.
Kind of a low blow...
Kind of a low blow,don't you think, and had nothing to do with politics.
Christians as much or more charitable work in this country than anyone else does. And not because the government is taking it out of our checks and redistributing it. We do it without being forced to. It is not unChristian to want the government to stay out of our pocketbooks any more than they already are. If there are those of you who think that we are not taxed enough and the government is not doing enough in programs, then establish a private foundation and fund it yourselves and dole it out to whoever you feel need it. Christian organizations all over the world do it daily. Don't depend on the government to do it, and don't double dip on those of us who take care of the poor because we feel an obligation to, privately, not have the government take it from us and unilaterally decide who is most deserving of it.
At least you were kind about it, oldtimer....sm
The three dems above you, are not kind at all.
It's the kind of "democracy" we have
been force-fed for eight years. And your question is?
And this is exactly the kind of attitude
that I feel will ruin us if Obama is elected. Oh...if you don't want to pay your fair share.....just don't make as much. Why should people feel like they have to lower their income. It will make hard working people not want to work hard because the government just takes what they earn. Then you have the people who don't make anything and are living off of the government and that number will grow. The more government assistance given, the more they want and the more they will take. It will make spending for these programs outrageous. Why should we enable people to mooch off of the government?
I understand there are people who legitimately need help. People who are truly disabled and can't work. However, there are many others who are literally just mooching so they don't have to work.
I have to think of MY future. I have two kids who will go through college. One boy is a freshman now so college really isn't too fair away. I have a house I'm paying for. I have a special needs child that requires more of my money. I want to put my hard earned money back for my kids and myself for a rainy day. I don't want it taken from me and given to people who I don't know and who I don't know whether they truly need it or are just lying and mooching off of the government.
The bottom line is this, making more money is an incentive to work hard. You take their money away and give to people who don't work hard and what does that show.....it shows that you don't have to work hard because the government will pick of the tab and it shows the hard workers....why bother. I don't want that for my country. I don't want my kids raised in that kind of life thinking that hard work doesn't pay off.
That's exactly the kind of debate he wants..
no questions asked...wonder if he still has to pay the teleprompter guy? No town hall meetings, can't handle the real public asking him unscripted questions....umm, errr, wellll, ahhhh, hmmm....
What kind of Christian
I have been a Christian my entire life. I was raised in the Southern Baptist church, but branched out when I started studying theology on my own and not taking what I was told in church at face value.
The church I belong to, a congregation of PC-USA, considers itself pretty radical. Not all Christians are evangelical in theology. Jesus was a bit of a radical too. Lots of us are Obama supporters, but there are McCain supporters as well. Thing is, we don't question each others Christianity because of the way someone votes. Isn't really a Christian thing to do.
I see nothing wrong with keeping religion out of the government, and I actually prefer it that way.
Now see, is that kind of talk really necessary?
Seriously.
thank you for your kind words sm
However, I see on this board a lot of things about the biased Fox news, but it bothers me that the liberal media does not highlight some of the good that is happening in Iraq. I do not think that it is a waste of time to help the innocent people who were being persecuted under Hussein's rule. It is a falsehood that most Iraqis do not want us there. Most of them area thankful for all the good that we have done. I do not think that this is needless. However, perhaps we should just agree to disagree.
I'm here laughing at your kind.
HaHaHa. That's what I'll be saying to you on Nov. 4th. Mark my word. It's just so funny, it hurts.
|
!["](http://www.protestwarrior.com/nimages/signs/thumb/pw_sign_01.gif")
!["](http://www.protestwarrior.com/nimages/signs/thumb/pw_sign_02.gif")
