NEITHER SIDE is 100% free of guilt, 'kay?
Posted By: If you think pubs wear halos, you're ignorant. on 2008-09-29
In Reply to: Read the post I made above. This time it was... - sam
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
Don't forget about free broadband, free gas, free healthcare, hey they are "rights" now YIP
xxx
Where is the line for free college, free healthcare...
mortgage paid for, free gas and ability to sit on my rear and let everyone else take care of me? Wow, now I see the light...this prez elect will be great!!
Free speech is alive and well, as is free will...
people can take anything out of context and do with it what they want; it still doesn't make it a McCain/Palin issue.
You can try to guilt.....
the posters on this board but I doubt you will be effective. Jonestown wasn't the only ones who drank 'the Kool-Aid." So did Heaven's Gate. So, it is now a mainstream term and no disrespect is intended to the victims and willing who met this fate. I refuse to be manipulated by others who try to censor my right to free speech.
Not sure about the admitting guilt....
Clinton did not require a pardon because he never went to trial It never went to and wasn't convicted of anything, though we all know he did it. It wasn't pursued after he left office. That should go to show that Republicans do not thirst for revenge, as they are the ones who would have to have done it, liberals obviously would not. That being said...not sure. I never heard that Marc Rich or any of the ones Clinton did the *Hail Mary* pardons for admitted guilt. Perhaps they did; perhaps they didn't. I just don't see how liberals could complain if Libby was pardoned if the Republicans didn't go after Bill after he left office, and they could have. I always wondered why Monica never filed a civil suit. I am thinking either she was afraid for her life or banked a ton of Clinton money. But, that is merely conjecture on my part.
Pardons can be handed out for other reasons too I believe...I don't think the border patrol officers would have to admit guilt because they feel they were wrongly convicted. It could go that way for Libby too...who knows. I can see there are issues...no one went after Judith Miller for conveniently not remembering all her conversations. It is just a mess...
But the point is...Libby didn't leak anything. It was Armitage. And who pulls his strings? We might REALLY be surprised about that one. I would venture that it is not even on the Republican side, but came from the OTHER side to set up some of the administration. Would not be the first time and I certainly would not put it past some of Armitage's old liberal buds with a lot of moveon.org money behind it. How's that for a conspiracy theory this fine evening?
So again we agree to disagree...and...lol...I am NOT even going to go there on the ACLU tonight. Too tired...lol.
Have a good night, Lurker!
I would believe the guilt by association only...
if his policies did not scream Marxist...straight out of black liberation theology. I can see what he hopes for and the change he wants. I don't want a Marxist socialist government. Perhaps you do.
Guilt by association
"…associations with terrorists, criminals, and racist individuals to me is more telling because these are associations and issues that could raise concern during a presidency.
http://www.startribune.com/politics/30572149.html
Racists / terrorists: Republican Sen. John McCain served on the advisory board to the U.S. chapter of an international group linked to ultra-right-wing death squads in Central America in the 1980s. McCain sat on the board of the U.S. Council for World Freedom. During his tenure (1981 to 1986), the Anti-Defamation League said this organization and its parent organization, the WACL (World Anti-Communist League) "has increasingly become a gathering place, a forum, a point of contact for extremists, racists and anti-Semites." The WACL had ties to ultra-right figures and Latin American death squads. Roger Pearson, the chairman of the WACL, was expelled from the group in 1980 under allegations that he was a member of a neo-Nazi organization.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Keating
Criminal ties:
1. Charles Keating. Keating was criminally charged with having duped Lincoln's customers into buying worthless junk bonds of American Continental Corporation; he was convicted in state court in 1992 of fraud, racketeering, and conspiracy and received a 10-year prison sentence. In January 1993, a federal conviction followed, with a 12-and-a-half year sentence. He spent four-and-a-half years in prison, but convictions were eventually overturned. Thereafter, on the eve of the retrial on the federal charges, Keating pleaded guilty to several felony charges in return for a sentence of time served.
2. McCain appeared at a Oregon Citizens Alliance gathering after Marilyn Shannon had praised Shelley Shannon as a "fine lady." Shannon is an anti-abortion activist, saboteur, rhetorician and sharpshooter from Grants Pass, Oregon. She assaulted Dr. George Tiller outside his abortion clinic in Wichita, Kansas on August 19, 1993, shooting him in both arms. She is serving time in FCI Dublin. Her projected release date is November 7, 2018.
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/McCain_connections_coming_back_to_haunt_1007.html
3. Gordon Liddy, the Watergate break-in mastermind, who spent more than four years in prison for his crimes, has called McCain an "old friend" and hosted the candidate on his conservative talk radio show.
Pardons....admission of guilt...
According to this that I found, they are saying that if you *accept* a pardon, that is an implicit admission of guilt. A person does not have to say formally *yes, I am guilty.*
In the United States, the pardon power for Federal crimes is granted to the President by the United States Constitution, Article II, Section 2, which states that the President:
shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
All federal pardon petitions are addressed to the President who grants or denies the request. Typically, applications for pardons are referred for review and non-binding recommendation by the Office of the Pardon Attorney, an official of the Department of Justice. Since 1977, presidents have received about 600 pardon or clemency petitions a year and have granted around ten percent of these, although the percentage of pardons and reprieves granted varies from administration to administration (fewer pardons have been granted since World War II than historically had been the case).
The presidential power of pardons and commutations was controversial from the outset; many Anti-Federalists remembered examples of royal abuses of the pardon power in Europe, and warned that the same would happen in the new republic. However, Alexander Hamilton makes a strong defense of the pardon power in The Federalist Papers, particularly in Federalist 74. It is worthy of note that Hamilton called for something like an elective monarch at the Constitutional Convention. President George Washington granted the first high-profile Federal pardon to leaders of the Whiskey Rebellion.
Many pardons have been controversial; critics argue that pardons have been used more often for the sake of political expediency than to correct judicial error. One of the more famous, recent pardons was granted by President Gerald Ford to former President Richard Nixon on September 8, 1974, for official misconduct which gave rise to the Watergate scandal. Polls showed a majority of Americans disapproved of the pardon and Ford's public-approval ratings tumbled afterward. He was then narrowly defeated in the presidential campaign, two years later. Other controversial uses of the pardon power include Andrew Johnson's sweeping pardons of thousands of former Confederate officials and military personnel after the American Civil War, Jimmy Carter's grant of amnesty to Vietnam-era draft evaders, George H. W. Bush's pardons of 75 people, including six Reagan administration officials accused and/or convicted in connection with the Iran-Contra affair, and Bill Clinton's pardons of convicted FALN terrorists and 140 people on his last day in office - including billionaire fugitive Marc Rich.
A presidential pardon may be granted at any time after commission of the offense; the pardoned person need not have been convicted or even formally charged with a crime. Clemency may also be granted without the filing of a formal request and even if the intended recipient has no desire to be pardoned. In the overwhelming majority of cases, however, the Pardon Attorney will consider only petitions from persons who have completed their sentences and, in addition, have demonstrated their ability to lead a responsible and productive life for a significant period after conviction or release from confinement.[1]
It appears that a pardon can be rejected, and must be affirmatively accepted to be officialy recognized by the courts. Acceptance also carries with it an admission of guilt. Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79 (1915). However, the federal courts have yet to make it clear how this logic applies to persons who are deceased (such as Henry Flipper - who was pardoned by Bill Clinton), those who are relieved from penalties as a result of general amnesties and those whose punishments are relieved via a commutation of sentence (which cannot be rejected in any sense of the language - See Chapman v. Scott (C. C. A.) 10 F.(2d) 690).
The pardon power of the President extends only to offenses cognizable under U.S. Federal law. However, the governors of most states have the power to grant pardons or reprieves for offenses under state criminal law. In other states, that power is committed to an appointed agency or board, or to a board and the governor in some hybrid arrangement.
Guilt by association. Really wanna go there?
Just off the top of my head:
1. US Council for World Freedom who got a 20-year sentence for his conviction of conspiracy, burglary and illegal wiretapping in the Watergate fiasco. m (can you say Iran contra?).
2. Phil Gramm, (co-chair of the McCain campaign), champion of Enron tax loopholes and author of Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that effectively neutralized any existing regulation of financial services industry. You remember good ole Phil. He's the one talking on McCain's behalf when he said we were having a "mental recession" and we have a nation of a bunch of whiners.
3. Gordon Liddy. That's the guy
4. Let's don't forget the Keating 5.
5. Richard Quinn, publisher of Southern Heritage ragazine for neo-confederates…unapologetic bigotry.
6. Rick Davis, McCain CEO, lobbyist, paid $15,000 each month for "consulting" from end of 2005 until September 2008.
With a little research, I'm sure I could come up with a few more. Wanna go there some more?
White guilt is right. Too many people...
feel they HAVE to say they would vote for Obama for fear of being called racist. If that's the only way he gets into the White House then it's not a true win. He certainly isn't going to get in based on his stellar political career or experience. Flowery words, promises that can't be kept, keep the poor people poor and dependent on the government, screw the middle class and help out your fat cat friends.
White guilt is "pitiful?" Help me out here.
this statement to be just the teensey-weensiest bit tinged with that racism the reds doth vigorously protest is absent in their campaign rhetoric? Am I the only one left in America that finds this deeply offensive? Flame away if you must. I can take it.
Guilt by association? You are kidding, right?
20 years in the church, man was his mentor, baptized his children...that is an "association?"
Excuse me...my compadre? Are you now saying I am guilty of wanting to leave my country because another poster posted on this board THEY might leave?
Good grief, rip a page out of your own book. If he sat there for 20 years and was truly AGAINST racism, then he is a hypocrit at the very LEAST.
It's that guilt-by-association thingy
O haters have been harping away on that matra for months and months and months and more months while trying without success to make all their endless "connections". What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Another resounding theme from them has been "judgment" about the company one keeps. SP has condoned her own daughter's marriage into a crack/meth (or whatever drug) house. What is with the pubs' adversion to vetting anyway? It's going to be a bit difficult to pull off that one-big-happy-family image politicians like to project.
Don't be such a hypocrite. The glee O haters take in salivating over imagined scandals is positively palpable. I'm not that excited, but I'd be lying if I said I'm not highly amused.
I think the guilt by association thing....(sm)
is ridiculous -- from both sides. That being said, I find it hard to believe that Sarah has never even met the mother of her future son-in-law.
Guilt by association tactic is tired, did nothing
In a democracy, even communists are allow to have their own perceptions. It is good news that Sam will be putting time-consuming research into overdrive. Poor pubs. Plain to see they are spinning themselves into the ground. Spin, baby, spin. Nothing you can say will change the fact that the DNC was a phenomenal success and the RNC is a dud so far, plagued by disappearing speakers, scandal and damage control.
Run another guilt by association smear campaign
watch that landslide turn into a monster avalanche. Some people never learn.
White guilt drove the election...
plain and simple. Drones didn't want to be called racist for not voting for him so they jumped on the wagon. Too bad it is going to careen off the cliff with them.
Guilt doesn't eliminate rights
There are privileges that can be taken away after being convicted in a court of law, but in our American system of justice, he still maintains his legal rights. Whether we believe we should save the state a lot of money and fry him right now does not really matter. Our American justice system, which is one of the things we tout as making us superior to middle east justice, means that he is entitled to a free trial, where his lawyer will undoubtedly make an insanity defense. In any case, the murderer opening his mouth prejudices his own case, and apparently the prosecuting team wants to make sure this guy does not walk on a technicality.
I was never on SP's side.... s/m
but I think that it was extremely tasteless of this Canadian comedian to post as
French President Sarkozy and interview her for 5 minutes and making fun of her.
Extremely tasteless.
After all she was the running mate of McCain.
I am a democrat.
I don't think that either side... sm
has much room to talk.
I have seen articles, opinions and links posted, apparently by Republicans, about the issues facing Obama, and the first replies are the childish Dems who come on and say "well, it's Bush's fault that he has this or that to deal with" or some other childish remark.
By the same token, I have seen what I believe to be Democrats posting nasty articles and opinions about Sarah Palin and how she is giving interviews, how she obviously doesn't have the sense to be a major political player or whether she gave the clothes back to the party before going back to Alaska.
I'm with BWT. I think the childishness and catiness that I have seen on this board for the last week or so need to end and let's get to discussing the issues at hand. We won't be able to solve a danged one of them, but we can have a civilized adult discussion and we might even learn a thing or two from each other.
Reach across the aisle, folks. 
We are on the same side
I wanted to post and did not want to respond to an Ann fan, so I posted under your reasonable statement.
no just one side
This problem is not just a dem/repub problem. It is a greedy CEO/Wallstreet problem as well. It is a mass amounts of people went out and bought things they couldnt afford and houses they didnt need and couldnt afford problem. Did the gov make them go out and do that? Who made all these people sign their names on these subprime short arm loans that collapsed? It is their fault too. It is also a welfare problem. You know, those people who would rather pop out kids for a job than work for real.
...and just you on the other side.
...but not LAST night.
Get a job.
No one took Eric's side. sm
 But then, you know that. The rest I won't argue with you about. If you use science against God's Word, what more can I say.
The Other Side of Mel Gibson...sm
Disney Cancels Mel Gibson Holocaust Series
The ABC television network has pulled a miniseries about the Holocaust it was developing with Mel Gibson 's production company, the Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday, quoting an unidentified representative for the network.
Gibson was arrested on suspicion of drunk driving early on Friday and was reported to have launched into a tirade against Jews, asking the arresting officer if he was a Jew and blaming the Jews for starting all wars.
The actor, who holds strong conservative Catholic religious and political views and whose father is a Holocaust denier, apologized on Saturday.
The incident has raised questions about the future of projects Gibson and his Icon Productions company are working on, like the ABC television miniseries based on a memoir about a Dutch Jew during World War II, the newspaper said An ABC representative told the paper, without elaborating, it has been two years and the network still has not seen a script, so the project is being pulled.
A spokesperson for ABC, which is owned by Walt Disney Co. , could not be reached for comment.
Disney's movie studio arm still plans to release Gibson 's self-financed Mayan-language movie Apocalypto on Dec. 8, Hollywood's trade papers reported. The Web site Slate.com quoted Walt Disney Studios president Oren Aviv as saying he accepted Gibson 's apology.
Copyright Reuters 2006. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters.
We're on the same side
I am trying to understand where all this animosity is coming from. Why does it bother you so much that the last democratic president and former first lady/candidate/senator are going to be at the convention? How would it look if they weren’t there? Hillary and Obama are basically on the same page when it comes to policy, so I am guessing this is a personality issue for you? During the primaries, her tactics and strategies left a lot to be desired, to be sure, which may have been a mitigating factor as to why Obama was ultimately able to come out on top but, let’s face it, not by much. It will be extremely important that the party get past its in-fighting and focus on the task at hand of winning the election in November.
Bill and Hillary Clinton are and will remain influential party leaders for a some time to come. It appears that it is her die-hard base supporters that are acting like children. They are the ones who prolonging the division and ill-will which you are expressing here. Both the Clintons have been selected by the Democratic National Convention Committee to speak in Denver for good reason. The DNC recognizes just how pivotal their roles will be in bringing the party back together. This group of HRC’s supporters who are planning to disrupt the convention and demand a roll-call are not very likely to succeed in this effort. This serves no useful purpose whatsoever and is in nobody’s best interests.
Hillary will eventually “crawl back into her hole,” as you so eloquently put it, and return to her position as a junior senator, but not until she has done her job of trying to encourage party unity. I suspect that she still has much to contribute in that capacity and in roles yet undefined in terms of advancing party policies. Try not to take what the newscasters say as gospel. They relish in scandal and controversy. Do not give them the satisfaction. It should come as no surprise that the Clintons are disappointed in the primary results, but that does not mean that they are supposed to fade on off into the sunset. It is not their time to pass...not just yet.
Bill Clinton, a racist? Where is this coming from? Fox News? He does not hide behind mansion walls in the ghetto. His foundation continues to advance the cause of civil and human rights, both here and abroad. It is unfair to write HRC off as a disgrace to women who needs to “just go away,” based on this one less than stellar chapter in her political career. She is much more than that, just as Bill Clinton is much than the "impeached president" you so casually dismiss. I am wondering if you hated him this much while he was in office, or did this arise out of the recent primary process?
In any case, if Obama is defeated, HRC will not be responsible. It will be this divisive in-fighting within the party members that will be the reason. We are between the primaries and the convention. The entire campaign still lies ahead of us. Just give it a little more time. You will see Hillary and Bill come around as party loyalists who will play perhaps the most key roles of all in party unification. This is not just their job. It is up to all democrats to come together this fall and keep their eyes on the prize. Perpetuating this kind of division does nothing to advance that cause. Is this hatred really worth harboring to the extent that, in the end, we will be facing 4 or 8 more years of a republican regime? Try to keep that in mind the next time you find yourself this riled up, and ask yourself what I ask you now….where is this really coming from? I think I know the answer, but I am more interested in hearing yours at the moment.
Disrespect is nothing new on your side...
and it is not just directed at me, and to suggest so is being dishonest at best. You tolerate no opinion other than your own, want to discuss only issues that you are pro and do not tolerate discussion of any other viewpoint, and for people who call themselves Democrats that is a very undemocratic attitude. You hate an entire group of people (all Republicans...well I should say anyone who is not Democrat) for no reason other than that. Two sides? That's rich! There have never been 2 sides.
As to domination of the board....there are about 6 or 8 of you guys to 1 of mine. lol. Talk about blinders.
All voters should consider this regardless of which side
It should be very troubling that the mainstream media has been in the tank for Obama since day one. Ask Hillary Clinton or anyone else who ran (again, R, D, or I).
With that in mind, who gave them the right to choose our next President?
Incidentally, the media (left-wing, of course) actually selected McCain, too. They were absolutely certain that he would be the weakest candidate. Mitt scared the holy hanna out of them. I personally hoped for a Rudy-Fred ticket, in no particular order.
It should be interesting as to how many honest people there are reading this stuff to see how they'll react. Based on what I've read since Palin's speech, she's certainly changed quite a few minds.
The thing that surprises me the most is that the bulk of people on this board is women, yet so many of them put party above the person. I personally don't vote by genitalia. I think it's foolish.
"Woe to the other side who does not
recognize it." What I saw was very scary, an individual who has not clue one about what is going on in this country or out of it. Very scared, indeed. Woe, indeed. You make this election sound like a football game. This is our country, our children's future that is at stake. And no, I didn't find her very knowledgeable in the least, just mouthing words and throwing something someone told her to say. We will see, but I pray to God these two do not get elected.
The other side of the story....
http://www.newsmax.com/smith/barack_obama_tony_rezko/2008/09/02/126890.html
Another side of the coin.....
I respect your beliefs and am very happy you found your niche in life and saved your marriage. Kudos to you! I myself do not question Obama's morals - and I can't say that I question McCain's either. But, Bush got into the white house based on deceptive strategies aimed at leading the populace to believe he was on the moral high ground. (I see the same strategy being used in McCain's campaign). In view of what has transpired over the last 8 years, my faith in the pubs moral high ground has been trampled beyond repair. I believe torture of other human beings to be reprehensible and not advocated by any religion, but it continues and McCain supported it - even though he himself was tortured as a POW. The sex scandals - Larry Craig (airport bathrooms - it was illegal - otherwise, I don't care who he has sex with), Mark Foley (Repub House Representative - Once known as a crusader against child abuse and exploitation, Foley resigned from Congress on September 29, 2006 after allegations surfaced that he had sent suggestive emails and sexually explicit instant messages to teenaged males who had formerly served and were at that time serving as Congressional pages) and now the scandal surrounding the Department of the Interior on charges of getting into bed with big oil (literally and figuratively) drug abuse, etc. I find the whole thing ridiculous to base your campaign on "personality" and moral high ground. I am not saying that Dems did not have their issues with sex scandals - as we all know.
I believe Jesus Christ was once a very highly evolved human being and no longer has to incarnate as a human as he has reached perfection. I believe Buddha was a very highly evolved human being who no longer has to incarnate for the same reason. I believe that Ghandi and Mother Theresa were highly evolved. I believe that energy never disappears, it only changes form. I believe in life after death. I believe that love is the most important thing in life. Humans are not perfect. I do not believe that sex is sin. Dolphins have sex for pleasure and I am not equating humans to aquatic life - but Dolphins are highly intelligent. Do you think God judges them for indulging in pleasure? I believe that exploiting the vulnerable for sex is morally wrong (children, women....that's as far as I'll go on that). Sex between 2 consenting adults is not wrong.
I believe that every religion has it's place on earth and I am in no way authorized or vetted to judge which one is right and which one is wrong. They are all right. Paganism, Wiccan, the Jewish faith, Catholic, Muslim, etc., etc. We, as humans, have the right to decide what is right for us in that regard.
I think all religions know the difference between right and wrong and stealing from others, torturing others, even JUDGING others is morally wrong. You can boil it down to not having ANYTHING to do with religion.
And to believe that whoever is in the white house holds your moral values as a primary reason for decisions that are made is naive. I think the last 8 years proves that and for that reason, I fear more of the same. I am willing to cross party lines just to see if this disaster of a country can be repaired.
The other side of the coin....
Karl Rove would be working to get any Republican elected. That is what he does. He is not a member of the campaign and it is a free country...he can advocate anyone he wants.
If Obama was serious about change he would not have picked a senator who has been in the senate over 30 years. That is not change. That is also more of the same.
James Johnson, of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac fame, who used to be an economic advisor to Obama...after he came under scrutiny for possible fraud, he left the OBama campaign with his tail between his legs. Don't see much difference in the two.
Other side of the story...
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/09/16/2008-09-16_john_mccain_campaign_releases_troopergat.html
I'm just going to explain our side...
please don't start a war about this.
We are taught in the Bible that homosexuality is wrong and that marriage is between ONE man and ONE woman. We believe in the holy sanctity of marriage. Therefore it is violating the laws of God when homosexuals marry.
Again, it is not the homosexuals that we "hate" or "despise". It is the sin of homosexuality.
I do believe homosexuals are born that way. We are all born into sinful natures. Remember, in God's eyes, all sins are equal. We all have natural tendencies, and that includes homosexuality. I was born a compulsive liar. Since as far back as I can remember I have lied about anything and everything. Now that I am a Christian, that doesn't change. But with the help of Christ I am changing that and I have put away my sinful nature of lying. In the same sense, when a homosexual comes to know the true Christ, He will give them new desires and help them to withstand the temptation to go back to their old ways.
I know most of you won't understand this, but I just wanted to give you our viewpoint. True Christians do not hate homosexuals, or blacks, or immigrants, or abortionists, or anyone else. We just hate the sin, because sin separates us from God.
We want a president who is going to keep the sanctity of marriage, meaning one man and one woman. Marriage came from God, and it is a holy matrimony.
Please don't flame, I'm just trying to explain in a way that maybe you can understand. I see it from your side too. Before I became a Christian I didn't understand the big deal either. But now I do and I see the big picture. If God had meant for man and man or woman and woman to be together, he would have given us the "parts" to be able to do so.
On the lighter side (maybe)
This was sent to me from a friend. Don't know where the info came from.
Guess who I am?
I am 42 years old
I love the outdoors,
I hunt,
I am a Republican reformer,
I have taken on the Republican Party establishment,
I have five children,
I have a spot on the national ticket as vice-president
with less than two years in the governor's office.
Who am I?
|
|
|
|
|
V
I am Teddy Roosevelt in 1900
How can anyone say that Sarah Palin is not qualified?
|
And I'll be right there on the side with you.
I gotta take a break, this board is making me crazy.
On a side note..
Where in the Mojave desert did you live? I grew up in a tiny town called Inyokern and went to high school in Lone Pine.
On the up side of things.........sm
Since I've been such a downer, gloom and doom "prophet" in my last posts  , here is an article that recommends buying now, if you have the cash and the stomach for it, and reap the rewards 10 or 20 years down the road. Might be our solution to no Social Security when that time comes.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27829555/
I think I have the other side of the story.
I've been watching all those other stations for years. I just started watching Fox lately. How much more "open-minded" do you want me to be???
...and on the flip side...we will soon see...sm
what Obama will do with his regime.
I have a feeling it won't be pretty.
At least we'll have a reason to throw all the democrats out of all branches of offices when they fall flat on their you know whatsits, and find they can't do what they think they can.
The American people won't stand for what the country is about to become, you included, once you wise up and see what's about to come.
What other side this weekend???
I've been on all weekend and it is more drone of the libs praising their god and arguing with anyone who doesn't agree with them.
Who's side you on, Willis?
Bush is the one who refused to do anything about the illegals (cheap help for the rich). Oh, that's right, It's O's job to clean up Bush's mess and he just isn't doing it fast enough to please you. Darn. Heck, Bush would sign anything with a great flourish of the pen and an idiotic grin! He sho did love them cameras!
Why so bitter? Because your side
Typical sore-loser attitude.
I agree. But, you see, when the other side has no
nm
Yes! But the other side of that coin
is that the federal government would have to stop sucking away all that money in the first place, only to dole it back to the states on condition of good behavior. (What many do not acknowledge is that the federal government has no money that it has not first extracted from us. When the federal government 'gives' a state money for any purpose, they are merely giving it back, with strings attached. )
The feds would stop dictating to states based on highway funding, education funding, medical funding, funding for 'the arts,' etc. We would have far fewer federal intrusions into our lives, and if we objected to the way our state governs, we truly could move to an other state more in line with our personal philosophy. As it stands now, if we object to federal regulations, where are we going to move? France?
And on the flip side...
http://www.pnhp.org
France, which comes in 1st in WHO health care rankings, has a better plan for the US to emulate than England's. It *can* be done right, if we try.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_28/b4042070.htm
that's because you are on the other side of the fence..nm
nm
The other side of the story.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Qassam_rocket_attacks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rocket_and_mortar_attacks_in_Israel_in_2008
where is the OTHER side of the story?
Netanyahu agreed to the 2-state solution which was only a pretense under HIS ridiculous conditions for the Palestinians:
Total disarmament for the Palestinian state
The whole of Jerusalem for Israel
No return for the Palestinian refugess
BUT
Illegal settlement in the Westbank should remain.
This is ALL to the gross disdvantage for the Palestinians, therefore Abbas rejected the deal and now Netanyahu started again a massacre in Gaza.
Where is justice? It is Israel who wants the WHOLE of the Westbank, the whole of Jerusalem all for itself.
What else do you expect??? For sure there will be a pro-Israel demonstration in Union Square.
Sorry, I never say anyone on either side say things like this. You are sick. NM
So lying is okay when it benefits your side
Okay. I see the picture developing. It was okay that Clinton lied, but just because you think Bush lied he should be impeached post haste. Just want to be sure I'm reading you right here.
|
