Let our leaders hear us loud and clear
Posted By: Kaydie on 2008-07-22
In Reply to:
Reading all the posts it seems like everyone agrees on the same thing. None of us likes either candidate. What I'm reading a lot of is "I'm democrat so I'm voting democrat no matter what" or "I'm republican so I'm voting republican no matter what". The country has developed over the years into believing our vote counts. Whether you want to believe it or not, it doesn't. The country has been run not by who the people want elected but by big government and big corporations. People who have thousands and thousands of dollars to spend (if not millions) donate that money to ensure who they want to be elected is elected. Also, do some research on the "mysterious group" that meets each year yet the public is not allowed to be in those meetings and there are armed guards enforcing that. Those are the people who decide the fate of the country. Just the way it is and I accepted it a long time ago. If Americans truly did have a say in what goes on with our politicians we would see more and more of them fired, but they aren't. They still remain in office. I say let our leaders hear us loud and clear. We are against both candidates. If voting dropped or nobody went to vote I think they'd get the message loud and clear that we are disatisfied.
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
Oh, I red you loud and clear
and "red" was not a spelling error. Strong arming anyone into producing anything for the government is like pre and post WWII Soviet Union....you got it right when you said red and I'm not referring red state conservatives either.
Many (not all) think you have all the answers, but when it turns to action you are ready to guilt and strong arm SOMEONE ELSE to do the work.
The vindictive, mean part came thru loud & clear when she
That smugness reflects the repub's view of themselves, that they are better than everyone else. Gets kinda old, after just an hour or two. After 8 years it's downright repugnant. No wonder the rest of the world hates us.
It is definitely jealousy coming thru LOUD AND CLEAR
--
McCain: What you are speaks so loud, I cannot hear
what you are saying.
Which leaders? I didn't know that leaders of ...sm
any other countries had endorsed either candidate.
Oh for sobbing out loud!!!!
If you don't want to read posts about God in politics then just simply don't read them for Mike's (Pete's brother) sake!
For crying out loud!
it's a FAMILY. There are two little girls who were promised a puppy a long time ago by their parents -- win or lose -- after the election to reward them for tolerating the rigors of the campaign for such a long time.
One of the daughters is allergic, so that limits the breeds from which they can choose, and he said their first preference was to get a shelter dog, "a mutt like me," but because of the allergy, they might not be able to do that.
They're a normal family, and I think they're a beautiful family. Why would any other family in the United States give a pet to their children? Hopefully, the puppy's personality will match President-Elect Obama's and be even tempered and friendly, as opposed to the current White House canine that, unfortunately, reflects its owner's personality and bit a reporter the other day.
I personally believe this man has the capacity to be the best President in United States history. All he needs is a chance, but when people get so petty as to criticize his decision to give his daughters a PUPPY, then it's clear that some people simply won't ever give him a chance, and that's so, so sad.
Loud, snotty people often do. Hopefully O. will
sPEAK THE NAME OF JESUS OUT LOUD
Amen, I agree with you.
Oh for crying out loud on a crutch!!!!
One can't win for losing! I've already said I'm a hillbilly, born and bred, so if you think I'm ridiculing anyone then consider I am ridiculing myself!!!! Get over being so hung-up on Sara Palin, will ya?? Not everything revolves around her.
What a great example. You got me cackling out loud.
x
Oh for crying out loud on a crutch!
I am NOT a Democrat. I am capable of independent thinking for myself thank you very much.
Oh for crying out loud on a cripple's crutch!!!!
Can you not READ? Did I not post the issues......whatever they're called.... along with the date of the vote? Check it out for yourself. The voting record is good enough for me but you rabid pubs wouldn't believe anything against John McCain if God Himself came down and wrote it on the end of your nose.
Oh for crying out loud on a cripple's crutch!!!!
lighten up. I would never make light of Jesus and I take hearty exception to your even suggesting such a thing. I do believe I was replying to someone who (I hope) posted a tongue-in-cheek statement that I might be the next messiah. I am IMPRESSED BY NO ONE.
For crying out loud. His target group IS workers
are so low that they come up not owing tax at the end of the year, then it would not be possible to give them a tax cut or a tax credit, unless it is a refundable tax credit. So far, you have not provided any evidence that Obama is proposing a REFUNDABLE tax credit. As a matter of fact, why do you supposed he call this tax credit "Making WORK pay." The credit will zero out at zero tax liability unless it is a refundable tax credit. Again, it seems like you cannot produce any evidence that this is the case. Or can you? What about the socialist question with regard to progressive tax reform proposals only being socialist at Obama's hands, an no other president in history since 1913, including the 7 republicans who raise the top income bracket rates to as high as 63% to 94%, as opposed to Obama, whose intent is to restore that rate back to 39.6% as it was in 2000 when Bush took office?
yep, no wonder world leaders
supposedly want Obama in office -- he is in their back pockets.
praying for our leaders
we are admonished to pray for our leaders ...sort of a political love your enemies :-) please do not forget to pray for and support our third party candidates as well - brave men and women have not shed blood for this country so that it can be "ruled" by one party masquerading as two. we are in a homeland security crisis - our own Wall Street is committing domestic financial terrorism, exactly what we were warned that foreign terrorists would do. why are we being protected from our "enemies, both foreign and domestic"?? the corruption of our financial stability is treasonous, and the names of the traitors are known.
Foreign leaders
I've seen a lot of the video clips and pictures also. You know there is so much hoopla about everything in politics, it's really hard for me to believe anything I see much less anything I hear. I think we've sunk so low in our politics that the one who can throw the most mud is the one who will win. I don't care about Obama's association of 40 years ago. I do care about his recent so-called church affiliation. I do not care if Palin fired the guy for not firing her ex-brother-in-law (of course she did). I do care that all she can talk about is how "bad" Obama is and how "saintly" John McCain is. Pull the string and see what Sarah says.
The common sense side of me tells me that most of the garbage we hear from both campaigns is stuff dug up by the other side trying to discredit the other candidate.
A MOST aggravating thing happened this morning.......a REPUBLICAN acquaintance stopped by to see us this morning. The unexpected call was to campaign for John McCain. He got ANGRY when I told him I wasn't voting for either candidate. Pretty much called me a redneck hillbilly for not agreeing with him. LOL
VOTING WITH A WRITE IN VOTE FOR LOU DOBBS.
Being from hurricane country, our leaders do not
nm
Since when does talking with other country leaders
Better brush up on your reading skills.
and when she sits across from world leaders?
everyone is supposed to what, bow down to her and protect her from the big bad men? I smell Hillary here. gotta see that one when she gets sent overseas to talk to some of these foreign leaders like Cheney does now.
I am open right now to vote either way; however, I was thinking of McCain actually until SP came on-board.
she is too scattered, spreads herself too thin, too many different directions, looks like she is some wort of a whirlwind all the time and the interview she looked like a deer caught in headlights, hate to say it she looked stumped.
why do we want someone in office who needs to be protected, I just don't get it.
When leaders get messiah complexes...sm
When Leaders Get Messiah Complexes
Thursday, October 23, 2008
By Col. Oliver North
Washington, D.C. — On Wednesday this week, I was an unwilling eyewitness to a dramatic political event and it made me wonder where we are headed as a nation. More on that in a moment. First, a little background.
There is no doubt that leadership matters. The study of human history provides evidence that empires — even entire civilizations — rise and fall on the ideas, virtues and skills of great leaders. From Mesopotamia to the European continent, those who chronicled the triumphs and failures of great leaders in the Western world measured success based on military prowess and territory conquered. Herodotus detailed how the Persian Empire, built by Darius, eventually succumbed to Alexander the Great in the 5th Century B.C. That vision of leadership began to change in what is now Israel.
Old Testament prophets described a Messiah — in Aramaic, měshīhā — a leader — a savior who would deliver the Jewish people from their travails. For more than two millennia, Christians have believed that the Messiah is Jesus of Nazareth and that at the appointed time he will come again in triumph. Unfortunately, in the modern era there have many other leaders who perceived that they had messianic qualities that only they could provide.
Napoleon, in the aftermath of the bloody French Revolution, described himself as "essential" to the future of France – and was appointed dictator. The aftermath was a disaster for his countrymen and much of Europe.
Adolf Hitler was elected by the German people and then given absolute power because he claimed that only he could "preserve the Aryan race." The result was a global conflagration that resulted in the death of more than 25 million.
More recently — from Idi Amin in Uganda, to Pol Pot in Cambodia, Kim Jung IL in Korea and Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe — all have "led" their people to perdition after describing themselves as the only men capable of leading their populations through difficult times. Yet, all their people were ultimately worse off.
It is notable that until the 20th century, the American people managed to avoid selecting leaders who held messianic self-esteem. Neither George Washington nor Abraham Lincoln — arguably two of this nation's greatest leaders through the toughest crises in our history — described themselves in such terms. In fact, the record of what they said and wrote is replete with humility.
Not until Franklin Delano Roosevelt decided in 1940 that our country needed his "seasoned leadership," did any U.S. president even contemplate a third successive term in office. While FDR rose to become a great wartime leader, there is also little doubt that he amassed far more power in the office of chief executive than any of his predecessors. Roosevelt's authority was so great that his successor, Harry Truman, the modest man from Missouri, saw fit to endorse a constitutional amendment limiting presidents to two terms.
Given America's history of limiting executive power in government — if by no other means than term limits — it is interesting to note how much hope some people now vest in such office. And it's not just the presidency.
New York City, where FOX News Channel is headquartered, has a public law limiting the mayor to a tenure of two terms. Despite this ordinance, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, citing the current "economic crisis," insists that he should have a third stint in office. Though he was once a believer in term limits he now claims that, "Given the enormous challenges we face, I don't want to walk away from a city I feel I can help lead through these tough times."
That's messianic thinking. But apparently the Big Apple isn't the only place it's happening.
During Wednesday afternoon's rush hour, I was making my way home on the "Dulles Greenway" when a phalanx of police motorcycles and cruisers stopped all traffic and ordered us to pull our vehicles off the highway onto the shoulders. Over a loudspeaker we were told to stay put until the Obama campaign convoy passed, on the way to a rally in Leesburg, Virginia.
Instantly, hundreds of people were out of their cars. Directly in front of me a group of supporters — evident by their bumper-stickers — jumped out with cameras, cell-phones and banners. They began chanting: "The Messiah! He's coming! Obama is coming!" The shouting only intensified as the candidate and his entourage — motorcycles, police cars, black Secret Service Suburbans and busses — roared past us.
What I found so disturbing was seeing so many of my countrymen who apparently think — or believe — or hope — that the next president of the United States will save us from ourselves. Senator Obama has said we can not, "Wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for." He would do well to remember that unfulfilled expectations are the greatest cause of anger on the planet. That's true whether it is between a husband and wife, students and teacher, employers and employees, or leaders and the led. He might also recall that humility is a virtue that has distinguished our greatest leaders.
What all this means to the future of this republic, I don't know. I'm a military historian, not a prophet. But I do know the first name of the Messiah. It's not Mike. And it isn't Barack, either.
Oliver North hosts War Stories on FOX News Channel and is the author of the new best-seller, "American Heroes: In The War Against Radical Islam." He has just returned from assignment in Afghanistan.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,443829,00.html
No other leaders of other countries bowed
At least none that I'm finding. I could be wrong but I've been searching to see if other world leaders like France, PM Gordon Brown, Swiss, or any other leaders that attended the summit if they bowed. I'm not finding anything. Only the One.
You can't talk to the Iranian leaders
They are the cleric and they are the ones who rule the country. They rule with an iron fist and by the power of Islam. The president of their country is only a puppet just like in the U.S.
We should NOT get involved unless asked, which probably will not happen. Sure, there are some in this country who thinks we should and it's both sides who have that opinion, not just the pubs. President A will be the winner, you can be sure of that, since they are only doing recounts on certain areas of the country (probably those that voted for President A.
The military leaders are threatening to resign sm
From today's London Times:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1434540.ece
Praying, trusting and respecting leaders?
I'm curious as to why one would consider this a viable option for change. Maybe I'm taking the remark out of context? No one just "deserves" respect. You earn that. It is not an entitlement. Neither is trust. Nothing is really, except for basic human decency. An example would be our soldiers. They earn their respect....most of them anyway. Our leaders are another story entirely.
Kicking and screaming and ranting is part of dissent, not only a right, but a responsibility. Folks need to have a look at our Declaration of Independence. Seriously.
Obama will do just fine with hostile leaders.
Actually, understanding Islamic principles will serve the man of his intelligence quite well when up against either Ahmadinejad or with Israel. Obama knows exactly what to do with facing hostility. He certainly has faced enough of it on the home front here during the filthy word wars waged by the media and in fanatic chat room posts and has demonstrated the capacity to stoop to those low levels with the best of them. However, beyond the election, he will have not use for such petty, meaningless tactics and strategies. He is calm, collected and calculated in his responses, or lack there of, and has an uncanny ability to be conciliatory without having to compromise his basic values or objectives. Will be a breath of fresh air to see somebody at least try an approach that is not designed to promote US imperialism, world economic domination or the war of the civilizations.
Second paragraph of your post. It's all in the perspective, point-of-view and public perceptions. Being a good democrat does not necessarily make him a Washington insider, despite his long career. It only means that he knows his way around there and that his constituents continue to send him back there election, after election after election. Somebody somewhere must like him a lot. No further comment on your personal opinion. Sour grapes over an excellent pick. Let's see if McCain can show as much good judgment.
Why do all of a sudden want to hold leaders accountable?
wHat about Bill Clinton committing felony perjury? Having sex with an intern in the oval office? Where was the personal responsibility and who is holding him accountable? WHen are you going to drop the double standard and apply the same set of rules to everyone?
How do Arab leaders make their speeches? (sm)
If you could post a link to a video it would be appreciated. I really would like to see what you're talking about here.
Hear, hear! He is an exceptional person for an ....sm
exceptionable time. They say that God is watching us from a distance and I believe that is true. I think that Obama has a good pure heart, extraordinary intelligence, does truly want to improve our lives, and my prayers are with him. How about that he has Bobby Kennedy's desk (my hero).
Bush, military leaders let bin Laden escape
CIA operative says Bush, military leaders let bin Laden escape
Capitol Hill Blue | January 2 2006
The top CIA counterterrorism officer who tracked Osama bin Laden through the mountains of Afghanistan says the United States could have captured the terrorist leader if President George W. Bush and the American military had devoted the necessary resources to the hunt and capture.
In addition, says Gary Bernsten, a decorated espionage officer, the post-Cold War downturn in recruitment and attention to espionage has left a crippled spy agency that will need a decade or more to build up its clandestine service for the U.S. war on terrorism.
Berntsen led a paramilitary unit code-named Jawbreaker in the war that toppled the Taliban after the September 11 attacks.
He says his Jawbreaker team tracked bin Laden to Afghanistan's Tora Bora region late in 2001 and could have killed or captured the al Qaeda leader there if military officials had agreed to his request for an additional force of about 800 U.S. troops. But the administration was already gearing up for war with Iraq and troops were never sent, allowing bin Laden was able to escape.
His account contradicts public statements by Bush and former Gen. Tommy Franks, who maintained that U.S. officials were never sure bin Laden was at Tora Bora.
Berntsen says CIA Director Porter Goss faces an uphill battle to fill the agency's senior ranks with aggressive, seasoned operatives.
He's probably more aggressive than most of the senior officers in the clandestine service. So I think he's having to pull them along a bit, Berntsen said in an interview.
(Goss) is trying to improve the situation. But it's going to be tough. The rebuilding is going to take years. A decade, at least, he told Reuters late last week.
The CIA, widely criticized for lapses involving prewar Iraq and the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington, has seen its clandestine staff dwindle to less than 5,000 employees from a peak of over 7,000, intelligence sources say.
Experts blame a post-Cold War downturn in recruitment for a current lack of seasoned clandestine operatives that has been exacerbated by a rush to lucrative private sector jobs in recent years.
We have a smaller number of really, really aggressive, creative members of our leadership in the senior service, said Berntsen, who recently published a book about his exploits in the war on terrorism, titled Jawbreaker (Crown Publishing).
Former CIA Director George Tenet told the September 11 commission in April 2004 the CIA would need five years to produce a clandestine service fully capable of tackling the terrorism threat.
Goss later said at his September 2004 Senate confirmation hearings that rebuilding the clandestine operation would be a long build-out, a long haul.
President George W. Bush issued an order last year that called for a 50 percent increase in CIA clandestine officers and analysts to be completed as soon as feasible.
The CIA is moving aggressively to rebuild and enhance its capabilities across the board, CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano said.
But intelligence sources say the rebuilding process has been complicated by disaffection for Goss' leadership within the clandestine service.
Years of double-digit growth in federal spending on intelligence that followed the September 11 attacks may also be about to end.
John Negroponte, the new U.S. director of national intelligence, has endorsed an intelligence budget for fiscal year 2007 that is relatively flat, with current spending levels believed to total about $44 billion for the 15-agency intelligence community. Fiscal 2007 begins in October.
Berntsen, 48, who also led the CIA Counterterrorism Center's response to the 1998 al Qaeda bombings of U.S. embassies in East Africa, sued the CIA in July, accusing the spy agency of trying to stop him from publishing his book.
Gimigliano said the CIA reviewed Bernsten's book before publication only to ensure that it contained no classified information.
In the book, Berntsen says his Jawbreaker team tracked bin Laden to Afghanistan's Tora Bora region late in 2001 and could have killed or captured the al Qaeda leader there if military officials had agreed to his request for an additional force of about 800 U.S. troops.
But the troops were never sent and bin Laden was able to escape, he said.
His account contradicts public statements by Bush and former Gen. Tommy Franks, who maintained that U.S. officials were never sure bin Laden was at Tora Bora.
We're pussycats compared to some foreign leaders. sm
What's she going to do with them, and anyone else she can't just bully and fire?
Palin meets her first world leaders in New York. sm
Palin meets her first world leaders in New York
By SARA KUGLER, Associated Press Writer Tue Sep 23, 7:30 PM ET
NEW YORK - Sarah Palin met her first world leaders Tuesday. It was a tightly controlled crash course on foreign policy for the Republican vice presidential candidate, the mayor-turned-governor who has been outside North America just once.
ADVERTISEMENT
Palin sat down with Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Colombian President Alvaro Uribe. The conversations were private, the pictures public, meant to build her resume for voters concerned about her lack of experience in world affairs.
"I found her quite a capable woman," Karzai said later. "She asked the right questions on Afghanistan."
The self-described "hockey mom" also asked former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger for insights on Georgia, Russia, China and Iran, and she'll see more leaders Wednesday on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly meetings.
It was shuttle diplomacy, New York-style. At several points, Palin's motorcade got stuck in traffic and New Yorkers, unimpressed with the flashing lights, sirens and police officers in her group, simply walked between the vehicles to get across the street. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, three hours behind Palin in seeing Karzai, found herself overshadowed for a day as she made her own rounds.
John McCain's presidential campaign has shielded the first-term Alaska governor for weeks from spontaneous questions from voters and reporters, and went to striking lengths Tuesday to maintain that distance as Palin made her diplomatic debut.
The GOP campaign, applying more restrictive rules on access than even President Bush uses in the White House, banned reporters from the start of the meetings, so as not to risk a question being asked of Palin.
McCain aides relented after news organizations objected and CNN, which was supplying TV footage to a variety of networks, decided to pull its TV crew from Palin's meeting with Karzai.
Overheard: small talk.
Palin is studying foreign policy ahead of her one debate with Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden, a senator with deep credentials on that front. More broadly, the Republican ticket is trying to counter questions exploited by Democrats about her qualifications to serve as vice president and step into the presidency at a moment's notice if necessary.
There was no chance of putting such questions to rest with photo opportunities Tuesday.
But Palin, who got a passport only last year, no longer has to own up to a blank slate when asked about heads of state she has met.
She also got her first intelligence briefing Tuesday, over two hours.
Karzai generated light laughter when he told an audience at the Asia Society that, in addition to Rice and Norway's prime minister, he had seen Palin on Tuesday. Thomas Freston, a member of the society's board, drew loud applause and laughter when he responded: "You're probably the only person in the room who's met Gov. Palin."
Randy Scheunemann, a longtime McCain aide on foreign policy, was close at hand during her meetings. Another adviser, Stephen Biegun, also accompanied her at each meeting and briefed reporters later.
Karzai and Palin discussed security problems in Afghanistan, including cross-border insurgencies. They also talked about the need for more U.S. troops there, which both McCain and Democrat Barack Obama say is necessary, Biegun said.
With both Karzai and Uribe, Palin discussed the importance of energy security. With Uribe, the conversation also touched on the proposed U.S.-Colombian Free Trade Agreement that McCain and Palin support but Obama opposes.
Her meeting with Kissinger, which lasted more than an hour, covered a range of national security and foreign policy issues, specifically Russia, Iran and China, Biegun said.
"Rather than make specific policy prescriptions, she was largely listening, having an exchange of views and also very interested in forming a relationship with people she met with today," he said.
Before Palin's first meeting of the day, with Karzai, campaign aides had told reporters in the press pool that followed her they could not go into meetings where photographers and a video camera crew would be let in for pictures.
Bush and members of Congress routinely allow reporters to attend photo opportunities along with photographers, and the reporters sometimes are able to ask questions at the beginning of private meetings before they are ushered out.
At least two news organizations, including AP, objected to the exclusion of reporters and were told that the decision to have a "photo spray" only was not subject to discussion. After aides backed away from that, campaign spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt said the reporter ban was a "miscommunication."
On Wednesday, McCain and Palin are expected to meet jointly with Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili and Ukrainian President Viktor Yuschenko. Palin is then to meet separately with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
Palin, 44, has been to neighboring Canada and to Mexico, and made a brief trip to Kuwait and Germany to see Alaska National Guard troops.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDU4OTdhMTFhN2YwZTY3MmMzNGFhYzc3ODdhOTA0ZjQ=
GOP blanket bombs on Chicago's dem civic leaders
Right-wing rants that cite email sources are suspect at best. Google any one heading included in yesterday's post and discover links to the "common sense" of the Getting' After Left show and a barrage of right-wing blogs. Surprise, surprise.
BODY COUNT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate
Despite being the 3rd largest US city, Chicago's murder rate ranks 20th behind much less populous cities Baltimore MD, Newark NJ, St. Louis MO, Oakland CA, Cincinnati OH, Buffalo NY, Kansas City MO, Miami FL, Pittsburg PA, and Cleveland OH. Guess who is ranked #21 (same general category)? That would be McC's hometown of Phoenix Arizona. Chicago has experienced an overall decline in crime since the 1990s.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/
You seem to be equating Iraq fatalities to murder. I agree. On that Iraq body count figure, since you are talking civilians in Chicago, it is only fair to include those folks in your first six months of 2008 figure. In 2008, the average daily violent occupation-related loss of life via suicide attacks, vehicle bombs, gunfire and executions is 27 x 182.5 days in first six months = 4,927 + you 221 = 5148. While we are at it, may as well throw out that total civilian body count in Iraq, the very most conservative documented count being 88,373, or World Trade Center x30.
"COMBAT ZONE"
Naturally, no reliable data is available on this claim, it being a subjective pronouncement that seeks to pontificate.
STATE PENSION FUND
Here we see the smear leap from the Chicago to the state level...an apples to oranges, smoke and mirrors maneuver the GOP attack machine thought they might slip by unattentive readers. OK. Let's go there. As recently as February of this year, we find the following: http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2008/02/25/daily29.html
Center on Budget and Policy and Priorities: McCain's red state: Arizona Budget Deficit Worst in the Country. Follow link for all the fascinating details.
http://www.cbpp.org/1-15-08sfp.htm Info updated 08/05/08
For starters, state budget deficits are ranked in terms of shortfall percentages.
In the US, 29 states face budget shortfalls totaling 48 billion in 2009. Notice how similar this 29-state total is to the amount in the GOP smear that claimed a $44 BILLION dollar deficit IL pension plan funds. Arizona's shortfall percentage = 17.8%, now in second place behind the nations most populous state, California. Illinois' shortfall percentage = 6.6%, making AZ's budget deficit nearly 3 times that of IL. So, if we hold dems (and by pub logic, O) responsible for Chicago, then who, pray tell is responsible for Arizona, the political culture from which JM comes from?
COUNTY SALES TAX
To suggest that any party's local (especially municipal or county) tax schemes would be reproduced on a national level is downright ridiculous. Tax structures are entirely different and wildly varied from state to state. Speaking of states, I came across this link http://www.fairtaxation.org/facts/sales_tax_rank.php which shows the Arizona sales tax rate ranks higher (#10) at 7.8% than Illinois at 7.6%.
CHICAGO SCHOOLS WORST IN NATION
I bit hard to address this second subjective pronouncement that seeks to pontificate. In terms of WHAT exactly is it the worst? They are certainly not an uneducated bunch of folks:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a80Zfbu_.k4g&refer=us University of Chicago has produced 82 Nobel prize winners and 10 Nobel Prize winners in economics, more than any university in the US. The John Bates Clark Medal, bestowed every two years, recognizes the nation's most outstanding economist under 40. U of Chicago has produced more than any other US institution, 6 out of the 31 recipients. Seems like those Chicago economists are sort of, well....exceptional.
I really could go on and on about Chicago's booming economy but I am out of time here. Maybe later then.
High expectations for leaders...nah, Clinton pretty much blew that. No pun intended. nm
we should destroy any country that has missile parades or giant posters of their leaders?
Glenn Beck: I Think We Should Destroy Any Country That Has Missile Parades Or Giant Posters Of Their Leaders
The statement was creepy enough but the look of glee on Glenn Beck's face as he joked about destroying Iran, the country whose traditions he didn't like, was extremely troubling for a national news host. By the way, despite his enthusiasm for having other people engage in mass killing, I could not find any evidence that Mr. Destroyer ever put his own flabby fanny on the line for his country.
In a 2/10/09 discussion with author Joel C. Rosenberg, Beck sounded almost giddy as he said, "I think we should destroy any country that has missile parades or giant posters of their leaders. They never turn out like good friends. You know that? And (Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) looks a little too spooky."
Rosenberg replied, "I don't want to destroy the country but I would like to remove the leadership."
"I could go either way," Beck said, with all the gravity of someone deciding whether he wanted red or white wine. "How irresponsible!" he joked.
Sorry, CJ...it is not as clear to me as it is to you..
that John McCain wants to continue fighting anywhere. What John McCain understands is that you cannot reason with some people (including terrorists) because they have no interest in getting along. That is not their agenda. They want us dead and our way of life dead. That is not going to change by sitting down and talking to them.
Seriously, I believe that all the things that enable a person to endure such torture over an extended period of time builds character and traits that are essential to leadership. So if you put 5 years in a prison camp up next to 4 years as a senator (2 of those at state level) where you voted present when you voted...then yes. I think 5 years in a prison camp plus serving as a military officer and commanding hundreds of soldiers makes him more qualified than Obama on the face of it...at the very least, AS qualified. And, at the very least, it demonstrates to me that John McCain puts his country first, even before himself. And to me, friend, that speaks volumes.
Obviously I was not clear enough either...
you could always ask where someone stands on a ban on gay marriage without asking how they VOTED on an issue.
I have not seen that many people on this board who were really invested in gay marriage.
If you're not gay and you don't live there...not sure why it matters to you so much? What anyone thinks?
Oh no, you have been quite clear,
and throughout this discussion you have been very cordial (I do apologize for the momentary snapishness in my last post.) Nor in your most recent post did you sink to the level of saying 'I will type slower - or use smaller words - so you can understand.' However, when someone tells me that my argument lacks merit because I do not truly understand the problem or have not thought the implications through, it brings out a bit of bitchiness in me. It is the same reaction I have when I read posts on this board saying that those who listen to Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, etc., are being manipulated and not thinking for ourselves. (I actually consider myself a conservative, strangely enough.)
I think you do see and maybe even understand my point, as I see and feel I get where you are coming from. We see, but will have to agree to disagree.
I do not pretend that legalizing marijuana will make the world a better place, only that it will make our laws more consistent. The legality of alcohol and tobacco while marijuana remains illegal is very inconsistent. And I think the bottle no longer contains that particular genie (if it ever did). The criminalization of such behavior creates small criminals and enriches bigger criminals.
You say 'I wish no one took any mind-altering substances of any kind.' Does this mean you are a teetotaler and not somebody who enjoys a brewski on a summer day after mowing the lawn, maybe a glass of wine with dinner, as I do?
I think kids hear their government, teachers and parents painting marijuana as the 'demon killer weed' which opens the floodgates to all other substance abuse. Smoke a joint, die with a needle in your arm. Then they watch those same adults drink legal alcohol, smoke legal cigarettes, overuse prescription drugs and they see the entire thing as yet another example of extreme phoniness.
Maybe some people will try legalized marijuana who never did when it was illegal. Maybe, deprived of its mystique and the element of rebellion, fewer kids will need to act out in that particular way. If alcohol were illegal for everyone and their parents were committing a criminal act just to obtain it (which you know they would do) would fewer or more teenagers use it? If a kid walking into a 'speakeasy' were no more or less illegal than his parents doing it, what would be the result? Interesting question.
And now I am going to offer you something a woman seldom does - the last word. The final post can be yours. I've said my piece.
So clear this up for me
The man who rapes and kills a young child, but truly believes in Jesus, acknowledges that what he did was wrong and a violation of both God's law and man's law...this man gets into heaven. The Jewish man, who spent his life working hard, raising his family to be wonderful human beings, donated regularly to the American Heart Association, and volunteered his time in an inner city school in a literacy program...he is doomed?
And I refer to myself as a heathen because I believe that it is my character and the life I have lived here that will determine my entrance to heaven, not my belief in Jesus's death and resurrection. Of course, maybe I'm just pragmatic. Just in case the Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, or even the Native Americans have it right, I'd like to think I've still got a chance at getting past St. Peter or whoever their respective gatekepper is.
So clear this up for me
The man who rapes and kills a young child, but truly believes in Jesus, acknowledges that what he did was wrong and a violation of both God's law and man's law...this man gets into heaven. The Jewish man, who spent his life working hard, raising his family to be wonderful human beings, donated regularly to the American Heart Association, and volunteered his time in an inner city school in a literacy program...he is doomed?
And I refer to myself as a heathen because I believe that it is my character and the life I have lived here that will determine my entrance to heaven, not my belief in Jesus's death and resurrection. Of course, maybe I'm just pragmatic. Just in case the Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, or even the Native Americans have it right, I'd like to think I've still got a chance at getting past St. Peter or whoever their respective gatekeeper is.
If it is all clear cut that
Pelosi told the truth and the CIA is, in fact, lying....why not just let the investigation go on so the dems could tell the GOP to stick it and prove once and for all who was involved and who is lying, etc. If Pelosi is telling the truth, which I highly doubt, there should be no reason to avoid an investigation.
Yep...clear....said talking to me was
like talking to your mother who had a personality disorder. Bashing me and using your mother's illness to do it. Not many ways you can take it. YOU said it. YOU brought it up. This is YOUR can of worms.
I would like to clear up perhaps some confusion.....
About "socialized" medicine. What most of you may not know is that we already have socialized medicine. That is what Medicade and Medicare is (which is financially driven by insurance companies for insurance companies tell the government what they will pay. In essense, the insurance companies are setting the bar). Most countries have some sort of socialized medicine. Canada has what is referred to as single-pay medicine, which is soley funded by the government. Those opposed to single-pay medicine here in the US are the ones stating that it does not work. However, those who have it in Canada and Britain for the most part are not complaining. Of course, you can't please everyone.
For every $50,000 in income that you make about $10,000 of your tax dollars (equal to what is allocated for defense) is going toward healthcare. Add that along with roughly the $10,000 dollars that most companies pay for your insurance, that's quite a chunk of change. But you say, well the company is paying for it, not me. But that is wrong as well, if the companies whom we work for did not have to provide medical insurance for us, there would be higher wages.
So, for someone like me, a healthy 40 something :o), who spends about $1000 dollars a year in preventative health maintenance, why am I paying $20,000, which I might add that for any catastrophic healthcare issue should occur, I would still be desitute from the financial responsibility of picking up where my insurance company falls short? If this is not an argument for healthcare reform.....
Healthcare in the US is the hands of insurance companies, where I don't believe it should be. So for those of you opposed to socialized or single-pay medicine, you are already paying for it, why not make it function better and pull it out of the hands of the fat-cat insurance companies?
Let me be perfectly clear about what I said.
Since the poster above seems to think he/she can put words in my mouth, I will tell you exactly what I said.
I fully expect all posters to be respectful and not put down the President (current or past) or anyone else for that matter. I don't care if they're Liberal, Conservative, or polka dotted.
On the forum, you will be respectful in posting or you won't be allowed to post.
Think you can handle that? If you can't, don't post. It's just that simple.
Let me make something clear.
I am African American. I have never seen Africa. The human race originated on the continent of Africa. Now, what do you consider yourself? You can call yourself whatever you want. We want to be known as African American.
Let's make this a little more clear as well...
Both Obama and Biden voted to fund the bridge to nowhere and then voted to defund it. Who flipped first? biggg LOL.
Well, Howard Dean was governor of Vermont, right? Little old Vermont? Fewer folks than Alaska. His approval rating wasn't that high. He also ran for Presidential nomination. Only having been a governor of a state with population smaller than Alaska's. He is now the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Apparently Democrats only have problems with smaller population governors if they are Republican. That is a belly LOL.
Oh please...cheating? Have you done any research on how Obama had one of his early rivals for office kicked off the ticket so he would not have to run against her? Now THAT is cheating I can believe in. Because that was cheating in politics, not his personal life.
What McCain did in his personal life does not excuse Barack Obama for what he did in his public life. I don't care what either of them does in his personal life...what I care about is what they have done in their public life. McCain certainly keeps better company than Obama does...talk about "uglies." And they are not in the past.
I think we can retire the bridge to nowhere since Obama and Biden were for it before they were against it also. THEY voted with COngress to defund it, so she turned the money to other infrastructure projects that she felt Alaska needed more. Sounds like good judgment to me.
Don't understand the Wild West comment. "Maverick" was a term applied to cattle who refused to run with the herd.
Actually, you are rehashing the same old stuff and accusing her of rehashing old stuff. Does that mean you need a thesaurus also? Just asking.
The difference is clear.
No one is saying it's all 'we people' have to worry about. But it does give us a glance in to O's morals. Win at all cost. No matter who he has to betray in the process. Doesn't that concern you at all?
And I fail to see your correlation between Obama exploiting a bracelet he was not asked specifically NOT to, and McCain choosing a woman as his running mate. If Clinton had been O's running mate, what would your argument be then?
And I beg you to do a bit more research on exactly what O is proposing to do to the middle class. Just because someone tells you something, it doesn't mean you should believe it without checking the facts, especially from a man running for president.
It reminds me of grade school class president elections. There was always that 'popular kid' who didn't know jack but got everybody to vote for him by promising longer lunch periods and movies on friday and free pop in the lunch room. The difference is, we're not twelve anymore.
Forgive me for not being clear enough for you (sm)
I guess the simplified question for you would be -- why bring religion into a post that had nothing to do with religion?
I think it is perfectly clear
how things will go with regards to Obama. As evident by this board, I think it is very obvious that some people may hold back their "judgments" or concerns about Barrack Obama for the simple fact that any criticism aimed at the president thus far is construed as racism. How dare we criticize what he does, his agenda, etc. because he is the first mixed race president.
I also think that he will be judged less harshly because the liberal media will not cover things fairly. They will continue to portray Barrack Obama as the savior/rock star.
When this stimulus package fails to stimulate the economy and when our economy is still suffering at the end of his term, we will see how fairly he will be judged. Until then, he is getting a free pass by the liberal media and people too eager to throw out the race card or people who are too afraid to criticize for fear of being called racist.
Oh, I get it alright and it's becoming more clear by
--
|
