Nope. I don't just post talking points. I back it up.
Posted By: sam on 2008-09-05
In Reply to: What's the matter? - Cat got your tongue? amfm
see above.
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
Democratic talking points 101. nm
great talking points
1. I do believe there should be some sort of civil union, marriage, whatever you call it to allow homosexuals the same basic rights as married couples. As far as Christian marriage - it should be up to each individual denomination to decide. My own, PC USA is debating this issue every year. I am still on the fence about it.
2. As to welfare, I don't think the current program works. Some welfare-to-work, or something similar would be better. I have a friend who gets a child-care subsidy to help pay with that. If she gets a job making just 25 cents more an hour, she completly looses that, so there is no incentive to get a better job. Same with welfare, food stamps, etc. Maybe phase them out as income increases, to encourage better jobs, growth, etc.
3. As for abortion, I agree with pxmt. Don't like it, don't have one. No matter how I personally feel about it, it is not my place (or anyone elses) to tell a woman what to do with her body, or make someone carry a child to term. As far as I am concerned, it is a medical procedure and should be between the woman and her doctor.
wow.....the talking points are down cold....
what structure? The free enterprise system for one...through hard work able to move up in the world as far as your talent and ambition will take you. Obama wants to penalize those people by talking their money and redistributing it those who did not have the talent or ambition to EARN their way to the "top." Yes, socialism will destroy what makes America great...ingenuity, ambition, and working for what you want or need. And Barack Obama is more of socialist than Hillary Clinton ever thought about being. Yes, she is a socialist...Obama is to the LEFT of her on that issue.
The propaganda and war machine? Good grief!! We were ATTACKED on 9-11, which brought about this whole Iraq thing. And please, do your research...the Iraq Liberation Act was authored during the CLINTON administration, enthusiastically supported by both Clintons and the entire Democratic congress. So please...don't give me the old Bush lied chestnut. It is just not true. If he did, it was because he believed George tenet and Richard Clarke (Both of whom he kept over from the Clinton administration...his first mistake).
Decaying economy? It is not as bad as Carter's term. Our economy was MUCH worse then. Yes, gas prices are high. So for Pete's sake, can we finally drill here???
Shameful health care system? What a ridiculous statement. We have one of the best health care systems in the world. Why does everyone come HERE to be treated? Have you ever transcribed notes for the premier facilities in this country? How many patients come from other countries? How many doctors from other countries come here to train? That is PRECISELY because we don't have "universal" government run health care. If it is so great in Europe, why do those people bring their children to America to be treated for serious diseases? Can we please be serious about this? It is NOT the responsibility of government to insure us. Wait..let me rephrase that in a truthful manner. It is not the responsibility of our fellow citizens to insure us. All government-controlled universal health care will accomplish is a lower standard of care for everyone, premier teaching hospitals will cease to exist, and THEN you will have the shameful health care system you THINK you have now.
Well...while I would not use the words "My way or the highway," we have not been attacked on our oil soil against since 9-11, which is a direct result of our action in Iraq. There are those who will bury their heads in the sand and deny this, but it seems pretty obvious to me with all their actions everywhere else in the world (the terrorists).
As to Europe being our allies....I would again refer you to history. The only allies we have who are still grateful for us pulling their fat out of the fire in WWII is England. France...Italy...oh they wanted us there when we liberated them from Nazi Germany and facism...but have now conveniently forgotten it. Let them be attacked or feel threatened today and who do you think they are going to call? The EU? Yeah, right. Yo, America....helppppp.
As to a little input from them...did not work out very well last time, did it? Whose intelligence agencies agreed with the intelligence Bush was getting? Well....France...Germany...toname two. Yeah, input from Europe is JUST what we need.
As far as hatchet job we have done on ourselves...again, France and Germany have never cared a whit about the US...a lot of jealousy there in case you had not noticed. They will take, take, take...comes time to give, they run like scalded dogs. If that is what you consider an "ally," maybe so. Me, not so much. Compare what we have done in the world and what they have done...what we have contributed to poor and needy all over the world compared to what they have done...and there you will have your story. And again...first sign of trouble and you know who they will go running to? Not each other or the EU...Us. And because we are who we are...we will go and help. History has proven that time and time again. We give everything and get nothing and keep on giving. And these are the opinions you care about??
Wimpy regarding Russia? You have GOT to be kidding. You think Sarkozy of the EU was the least bit influential in getting Russia to dial it down? You SURELY are kidding. It is that hateful stupid "cowboy" Bush who got it done and don't think for a moment it isn't. If Obama was in the White House today he would be kissing the toukas of Russia and Georgia would be a smoking mess and dragged back into Russia under their rule. To quote Teddy Roosevelt you have to talk softly and carry a big stick...Russia knows as long a we have a Prez like Bush there is definitely a stick to contend with. With Obama, more like throwing a sack of daisies at them. There is no way he could ever put up a tough enough front. "Can't we all just get along?" Uh...no, we can't. Because to get along, all parties gotta want to. In what alternate universe does Russia WANT to? The only thing that keeps them from rolling over every country around them is the fear that the US would intervene. Once that is removed...Katy bar the door. And if you look at the history of how russia has behaved...and think anything else, then, I am sorry, you are naive. You have to look at countries and their histories...
Don't know about mtmt's vision of the future, but mine is with an Obama presidency we might just get what little old ugly bald-headed Kruschev told us years ago...we will be taken from inside without firing a shot. Food for thought.
talk about republican talking points
Can't you people say one thing that isnt a direct quote from fox news? Im beginning to see why people have T-shirts that say vote rpublican its easier than thinking. Yes and your right, due to the lies of this administration, we have on big mess on our hands. and you wonder why people are ticked off. But ill be sure to tell my daughter how the terrorists love her because she wanted her husband out of iraq before he was killed for a lie. Unfortunately, that did not happen. But hey Ill just tll her how he was spreading democracy, im sure tha will make her feel bettr. Its only the what..27th rationalization this administration gave for this war?
Biden did nothing but regurgitate talking points....
nothing original in what he said. Same old, same old...just like what he said: "I will not change. I have been in the senate for 30 years. I will not change." and then a breath later, said "Barack and I will bring change." Hmmm....I won't change. I have been in the senate 30 years and I won't change. BUT Barack and I will bring change. puleezzeee.
The staple far-left talking points. Do you have a
brain to think for yourself?
The talking points must have mentioned using the word *impeach* as often as possible, too. NM
Lots of confirmation of the talking points you mention.
Especially the inevitability of New Orleans. You can research the local papers and find articles that go back years. The funding to research and fix this has been the last 3 years W. has been in office. That is a fact. The Army Corps of Engineers chief quit in disgust over this issue some time ago and the former FEMA chairman was fired; the one who got things done, by the Bush administration..I don't know why. Our leadership is lacking. We need a leader. We need someone to step up to the plate and start the ball rolling; to date, doctors, nurses, entertainers, basketball players and ordinary everyday people with some necessary skills have been on the ground working in a haphazard manner because there is no leadership. Bush 41 and Clinton have started their tsunami crusade a la New Orleans and I have to tell you, the both of them sitting on my TV screen asking for money, were more believable, more compassionate than anything we have seen from the WH. A lot of defensive people up there. Why doesn't someone lead. As the mayor of New Orleans said, Washington sent one John Wayne guy down there and he is evidently kicking butt, getting things done. Where are the leaders???
He has precisely identified the viable talking points.
nm
Note that the democratic talking points memo of the week must contain sm
stuff about utilities, cuz I sure see it on here a lot. I guess it was okay when Saddam was in power cuz people could flush their toilets and drown out the screams of those being tortured and raped.
Nope. -was protecting the country instead of talking
nm
Nope, never said I wasn't black, but I remember the argument you're talking about...sm
Nan, Military Brat and Bush supporter took me to task over whether or not I was black when I said *and who said I was black anyway* I'm trying to find this in archives.
But, what I can't stand is people having a preformed opinion about how I am going to think or should think since I'm black, that's why I don't post my race. Once I posted that I was African American that's when they started the *I thought you said you weren't black.* Which I have never denied my race. Sorry, but not true.
Nice post piglet. All your points are well made.
I agree 100% with what you had to say. Too many Americans have been brainwashed by fear, and I think many Americans who are against universal healthcare are just buying into the Chicken Little syndrome that is so prevelent in this country lately. The sky will fall if all of our citizens have access to affordable healthcare!
As you said, using France's system as a model does not mean we have to do everything exactly as France has, but they are a great example of a system that is working.
I found several opposition articles and will post the high points....
and actually I was surprised to see that there were some common concerns and actually very little concerning *a move toward socialized medicine.* This is what I found:
Proposals to expand coverage to children from families earning three or four times the federal poverty limit ($61,940 and $82,600, respectively, for a family of four) also highlights the question of just how many should be subsidized, necessarily at others' expense. The $61,940 eligibility limit would cover median-income families in 14 states, and the $82,600 limit would do so in 42 states. Parents earning such incomes do not need additional subsidies for their children to get health care.
************************
Baucus, Grassley Comment
Senate Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and the committee's ranking Republican Chuck Grassley (Iowa) jointly requested the CBO study but "had divergent views of its findings," according to CQ Today.
Baucus, who supports spending $50 billion over five years to expand SCHIP, said the report validates the program. CQ Today reports that Baucus "expressed little concern" that people would leave private insurance plans to enroll in SCHIP, saying that every public health insurance program provides coverage to some people who might be able to obtain private health insurance (CQ Today, 5/10). Baucus said, "The fact that uninsurance for children in higher-income families has stayed about the same means that SCHIP is helping the lower-income families it's meant to serve."
Grassley said the report supports his argument that SCHIP eligibility should not be expanded beyond 200% of the poverty level. He said, "This report tells us that Congress needs to make sure that whatever it does, it should actually result in more kids having health insurance, rather than simply shifting children from private to public health insurance" (CongressDaily, 5/10).
****************************
SCHIP is a joint state-federal program that provides health coverage to 6.6 million children from families that live above the poverty line but have difficulty paying for private insurance. Already, the program is generous. A family of four with an income of more than $72,000 (350% of the federal poverty level) is eligible for SCHIP's subsidized insurance. Now, Congress wants to expand coverage even further, to families making up to 400% of the federal poverty level ($82,600 for a family of four). But, according to the Congressional Budget Office, 89% of families earning between 300% and 400% of the federal poverty level already have coverage. The CBO estimates that some 2 million kids already covered under private insurance would be switched over to government insurance. The only purpose of all of this seems to be to turn children's health insurance into an outright entitlement — part of the Democrat's broader push to move all of America's health-care industry under government control.
Along with expanding SCHIP coverage to include people higher and higher up in the middle class, the Democrats' bill would also give states incentives to sign up aggressively new "clients," by loosening requirements to join the program and encouraging states to market the program (anyone who rides the New York City subway knows how active the Empire State is already being on this front). How is all of this to be funded? Well, the bill would impose a 61-cent increase in the 39-cent a pack federal cigarette tax, bringing it up to an even dollar. We've written before on how corrupt is the government's interest in the cigarette business. It turns out that the government needs to keep people smoking; the Heritage Foundation estimates the government would need to sign up some 22 million more Americans to take up smoking by 2017 to fund this increase in SCHIP. To add to the irony, most smokers are low-income Americans, meaning that the poor essentially will be funding the health insurance of the middle class. Mr. Bush would be right to veto it while working to increase access to private insurance through tax breaks and deregulation.
****************************
So, it would appear to me that the major problems some have against it are: it will shift children who are now covered by private insurance onto a program unncessarily; it will allow for more adults on the program, something that was never intended; that paying for it with a tobacco tax targets the very people who need the assistance, the lower income families as statistically that is where the most smokers are...essentially shifting the burden for adding middle class families to the lower income families...and I think we can all agree that is not a good thing.
In my research I also found something VERY interesting...
I am sorry to say I did not know the particulars of the President's proposal regarding insuring children...only his proposal extends to everyone, not just children...sure have not seen the media report it....
Opposing view: President's plan is better
Extend SCHIP program without spending billions to expand it.
By Mike Leavitt
We all want to see every American insured, and President Bush has proposed a plan to see that everyone is. Congress, instead, is pushing a massive expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) that grows government without helping nearly as many children.
The president's plan, announced last January, would fix our discriminatory tax policy so that every American family received a $15,000 tax break for purchasing health insurance. If Congress acted on the president's plan, nearly 20 million more Americans would have health insurance, according to the independent Lewin Group.
In contrast, Democrats in Congress would more than double government spending on SCHIP and extend the program to families earning as much as $83,000 a year. But their plan would add fewer than 3 million children to SCHIP, and many of the newly eligible children already have private insurance. So instead of insuring nearly 20 million more Americans privately, Congress would spend billions of dollars to move middle-income Americans off private insurance and onto public assistance.
The Democrats' plan has other problems. It would fund SCHIP's expansion with a gimmick that hides its true cost. It would allocate billions of dollars more than is needed to cover eligible kids. And it would allow states to continue diverting SCHIP money from children to adults. This is a boon for the states but costs the federal government more.
Ideology is really behind the Democrats' plan. They trust government more than the free choices of American consumers. Some in Congress want the federal government to pay for everyone's health care, and expanding SCHIP is a step in that direction.
SCHIP is part of the fix for low-income children, and Congress should put politics aside and send the president a clean, temporary extension of the current program. Expanding SCHIP is not the only way or the best way to insure the uninsured. The president's plan is better. It would benefit many more Americans. It would focus SCHIP on the children who need help most. And it would move us more sensibly toward our common goal of every American insured.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I think a $15,000 tax break would help more American families afford health insurance, thereby covering more kids AND adults, which is the goal, right? And no raising of taxes or targeting the lower income families with a tobacco tax...sounds like a win-win. I don't care if it is Bush's idea or the Democratic Congress' idea...it is a good idea. This time it happened to be Bush's.
Just my take on it.
If you want to find the articles, just put *expanding SCHIP* in a Google search. I read several articles in support of both sides. I did not see much about the income leveling, except in one article, which did mention that New York had a "sliding scale." It did not define it, but I am thinking it is at the purview of the states, and if New York did it others probably could too?
Really, really good points, just shows how complicated it all is! provocative thoughtful post, than
nm
Nope - I have to take all the blame for what I post.
One thing you have to understand is that I've been staggering around this old planet for quite awhile, and I've seen a lot of water flow under the bridge. I keep my eyes open - at least to the point that I haven't yet fallen into any open manholes - and I try to make sense out of the world around me the best I can.
So, if I yell "Here be dragons!" when I see fire belching from the cave and you think to yourself "What nonsense! It's only Dave Mann the Caveman burning his brontosaurus steaks again!", that's perfectly okee-dokee with me. Different strokes for different folks.
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?
Here is the post I am talking about. SM
Posted By: GT on 2005-08-08,
In Reply to: It doesn't matter, this post is unforgiveable. SM - Metrics
Yup, exactly what I said..and I stand by it. Unforgiveable? Good, sweetie pie, dont forgive me, I couldnt care less. I dont live my day and night worrying about what you think of me. I dont forgive Bush and his administration nor his family for this war and for sending our military and not their children..and making everyone of us a target for terrorists for years to come..and destroying an ancient country, for nothing..and yes, Laura Bush did kill a school friend when she was drunk and driving when a teenager. Did that truth hurt? If Hiliary or Chelsea had killed a friend while drunk they would have been vilified. If anyone should get banned, it should be the person who posted that I would chain myself to the WH and blow myself up. That post is about the most sick and whacko I have read on the political boards I wear your unforgivingness as a badge of honor..
I remember the post you are talking about. SM
It has been removed, I am sure because this Dixie person posted a horrible post to Nan and if memory serves, Nan's response was not to call her a drunk but to ask if the bars had closed early. It seems to be gt is the one calling people a drunk. Just an observation.
I remember the post you are talking about...sm
and even during the Lunsford trial back on the old board this did not seem to be a conservative concern. Liberals posted more about this and conservatives posted more about the Shiavo case. I'm not going to get into who cares or who doesn't because all I know is child molestion is hovering at the top of the list for me. I think while this is a morality issue, it is a legal and political one as well. Our legal system has to protect the most vunerable in society - the children, and our politicians should do whatever in their power, i.e., change laws to protect them.
This is the one topic that I see eye to eye with Bill O'Rielly on. He thinks every state should adopt Jessica's Law and I agree and I think people should consider if the person they are voting for will make changes in this direction. Just look at the Groene children and how the man who killed that family and abducted the two young children was out on BOND for molesting a 6 year-old. A repetitive offender can waltz around with no worries and continue his spree on innocent people.
Jessica's Law should apply to the leader of the Oregon Christian Coalition too. The thing that disturbs me the most about the priests and religious leaders is that oftentimes other people know what's going on but they cover it up.
I don't know if you're talking about my post or not.
I think the subject line that All Americans Deserve to Live (or something like that).
I see that my post is gone, and if mine is the post you're referring to, I'm sorry. I can't repost it. It was just something I quickly wrote from my heart, and I didn't keep a copy of it.
I guess I'll have to start saving a copy of everything I write. :-(
my post was not talking about the past
My post was in direct reference to the OP "blaming" Bush for something that isn't his fault. DHL is looking to the future and that is why they are laying off people. Not because of anything that's happened in the past.
If you are talking about the Obama Nation post...
it was written by a black pastor and it is his opinion. He was not hired by nor affiliated with the McCain campaign. There are several black preachers who do not agree with black liberation theology. There was nothing in his post about hatred. He said homosexuality was a sin..it is. He didn't say he hated gays...just that the Bible says the ACT is a sin..and it is. Just like lying, adultery, murder, etc. It does have the distinction of being the one sin that God classified as an "abomination." All the preacher was pointing out was that when Obama said there was nothing specific in the Bible regarding homosexuality...he was wrong. Again...there is no hatred in that post. He just doesn't agree with Obama's philosophy. Where you get hate from that I don't know....did you even read the post?
And by the way....sniping and cattiness must be your strong suit? You seem to excel in that area. Can you just drop the cattiness and sniping (as you asked that I do) and go figure, as you told me to do? Thank you so very much.
Re-read my post....I was NOT talking about Obama himself...
I am talking about his followers. And yes, it is more like followers than supporters, and a great many of them, including on this board, turn into a snarling, snapping, pack attack on anyone who posts anything negative or unflattering about him. I cannot believe you can say that no one can make you hate. We all have the capacity within us to hate. But no one hates spontaneously and it most certainly can be taught. do you think Islamic terrorists were born hating? Of course not. But they are taught it, and they learn it. Just the way a lot of kids were taught racism. THey werren't born hating, it was taught to them until they thought that was the way it was supposed to be. They didn't even know it was hate. Louis Farrakhan preaches hate. The I disagree totally that hate comes from within and that no one can make you hate. Oh yes they can.
All that being said...I did not say that by design Obama makes his followers that way...I said I didn't know. But the fact remains, those are the traits they exhibit.
And I never said, not one time, that Obama was a hater. Did not say that at all. All I said was he inspired that kind of emotion in many of his followers.
Will post back later tonight after work. nm
x
it wasn't held back. See post below
nm
Can you please post links to back up your allegations...
xxx
Thank you for answering her post with a liberal talking point. :-) nm
nm
Good post. My husband and I were talking about this the other day....brrr.....sm
more than scary stuff....but you've hit the nail, smack dab on the head.
Thanks for putting it into layman's terms for everyone to understand (should they choose to, anyways).
Agree...great post. Please come back and share...sm
your ideas.
Didn't the Washington Post back Obama?
My math isn't wrong. Gov. Blago+Mrs. Blago (real estate agent, or did you forget?)+Rezko=Obama. Can I make it any clearer?
If you go back and reread the post gt posted about Laura I responded to that. sm
And, if you were following what I was saying I was talking about the posts on the neocon board between Nan, AG and the Nameless Trolls.
Get the picture?
When McBush is talking, he isn't talking to you unless you are wealthy or CEO
who provides campaign funds. Do you know why lobbyists are making the headlines? Because they are bribing the politicians of both parties - lobbyists work for private interests (AIPAC) along with the pharmaceutical company ($280.00 for a bottle of pills? Only in America, folks), oil industry (record profits at your expense) credit card companies and unethical banking procedures (Funny isn't it how Visa wrote the reformed BK bill, making virtually everyone end up in ch 13 (garnishing income, including SS) after raising credit limits and offering transfer balances at 0 percent to everyone with a last name and a roof over their head? Along with mtgs that were bound to turn into bad loans when house prices dropped which they always do after a bubble. God, I could go on and on here but I get tired. The nation is in such trouble. Serious serious trouble. There is a huge loan to an unfriendly country (did you watch the Olympics? did you ever see Bush look more uncomfortable other than during the Stephen Colbert roast during the national press conference. lol.
Well I want you to know what fascism. And I want you to know that those treasury notes are backed up by the taxpayers (you) and real estate including roads and govt buildings and parks. Have you noticed why Save-Mart Center is owned by savemart and not a community business or the community itself? There is somethign happening slowly and surely and it is NOT going to benefit middle class america one iota. You must know that as a poor person, you have no power, no voice. Elections are rigged and the politicans cease to care whether you like them or not - oh wait, that has already happened.
THINK ABOUT THIS!!!! Your 401Ks and investments/assets are what at are stake!
Fascist governments nationalized key industries and made massive state investments. They also introduced price controls, wage controls and other types of Soviet-style economic planning measures.[12] Property rights and private initiative were contingent upon service to the state.[13].[14] Fascists promoted their ideology as a "third way" between capitalism and Marxian socialism.[15] Fascists in Germany and Italy claimed that they opposed reactionaries, and that they were actually revolutionary political movements that fused with conservative social values.
Talking to them is talking to a brick wall.
nm
a few points
I couldn't find the Russert quote because you misquoted. I believe both Cheney and Russert changed their positions since this interview.....
As far as the "747" you mention -- I couldn't find it because it was actually a "707" and here is another opinion on its significance:
"a former C.I.A. station chief and a former military intelligence analyst said that the camp near Salman Pak had been built not for terrorism training but for counter-terrorism training. In the mid-eighties, Islamic terrorists were routinely hijacking aircraft. In 1986, an Iraqi airliner was seized by pro-Iranian extremists and crashed, after a hand grenade was triggered, killing at least sixty-five people. (At the time, Iran and Iraq were at war, and America favored Iraq.) Iraq then sought assistance from the West, and got what it wanted from Britain’s MI6. The C.I.A. offered similar training in counter-terrorism throughout the Middle East. “We were helping our allies everywhere we had a liaison,” the former station chief told me. Inspectors recalled seeing the body of an airplane—which appeared to be used for counter-terrorism training—when they visited a biological-weapons facility near Salman Pak in 1991, ten years before September 11th. It is, of course, possible for such a camp to be converted from one purpose to another. The former C.I.A. official noted, however, that terrorists would not practice on airplanes in the open. “That’s Hollywood rinky-dink stuff,” the former agent said. “They train in basements. You don’t need a real airplane to practice hijacking. The 9/11 terrorists went to gyms. But to take one back you have to practice on the real thing.”
Salman Pak was overrun by American troops on April 6th. Apparently, neither the camp nor the former biological facility has yielded evidence to substantiate the claims made before the war."
two points
Here we go with the celebrity subject again. Also I don't want the Spears family used as a standard against which to select our national leaders.
No points for you or
And you know this how? Gibson was repeating his questions because he was expecting to hear a little more than what she gave. He did not ask her about the general function of NATO. The NATO question was within the context of Georgia. As I explained in the last post, any US foreign policy toward Georgia is an extremely tricky proposition, whether it is a member of NATO (not any time soon) or not, given global relationships between the US and Russia, US and Eastern European nations and the dynamics between Europe and it's relation to former Eastern bloc countries in terms of their recognition by NATO, which historically is a precursor to inclusion within the European Union.
Georgia's entry into NATO is not a foregone conclusion, especially in view of its recent aggression in South Ossetia. This was no trick question for Palin. The South Ossetia episode is quite recent and the answer to this question should have reflected some sort of awareness of that conflict, the nature of which remains in question in terms of who started the aggression. That episode has complicated Georgia's NATO aspirations. An informed candidate would have naturally expressed that within the context of the question.
In addition, the US has pipeline stuff happening there and there is a direct conflict of interests between the US and Russia in terms of the oil reserves and who is going to exploit them. Why do you think Russia has such interest in Georgia? Another talking point is the fact that US troops are already spread so thin between Iraq and Afganistan. Can we really afford to open a third front? NOT. If Palin really knew anything about any of this, she missed a great opportunity Gibson gave her to "show her stuff." He even gave her the opportunity not once, not twice, but three times…thus the repeated questions. She did not recognize the opportunity and was unable to respond because of her fundamental lack of knowledge on the subject. No point for Palin.
Your contention about the so-called "liberal media" not interviewing Obama about foreign policy is a crock. Maybe in Fox Land. Do you not recall the little overseas trip he made earlier in the summer? There was a whole blitz of interviews, both televised and in print media, in the days leading up to that trip. Fareed Zakaria had a one-hour interview Obama on July 13 on CNN during the GPS program he hosts every Sunday. This link will take you there where you can see the photo and content of the interview.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/13/zakaria.obama/
He was interviewed on Face the Nation. Here's the link.
http://bourbonroom.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/07/20/obama-never-has-doubts-about-foreign-policy-experience/
Here's a link to the CSPAN interview:
http://econ4obama.blogspot.com/2007/12/interview-with-obama-foreign-policy.html
Here's a link to the NY Times interview:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/01/us/politics/02obama-transcript.html
Here's a more recent one:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26612909/
O'reilly questioned him on foreign policy:
http://utube.smashits.com/video/HuXKyXKu0dM/O-Reilly-questions-Obama-on-foreign-policy.html
I could go on, but I think you get the idea.
Obama has foreign policy experience. He is a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In this capacity, he has made numerous trips to many countries. Read about this here under the 109th and 110th Congress sections.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_career_of_Barack_Obama#Initial_work
He has been asked about his experience as you can see in the transcripts from the links provided above. Furthermore, he has a number of ideas and strategies that were also discussed. These types of interviews will be the ones that the pub party will shield Palin from, but that will not save her from the foreign policy segments that lay ahead of her against Joe Biden (can't WAIT for that one!) in the VP debates. Your comment about video, as usual, is taken out of context and your contention is debunked by the content of the above links. No point for you either. Palin is a pipsqueak on foreign policy and no amount of spin from you or from her party is going to be able to save her from herself.
Your points are all well taken.......sm
I don't really know that there is a "bigger picture," however, in terms of one situation being worse than the other. If we proceed with the bailout, will that be the end of it? Who will be at Capitol Hill next holding out their hat? The construction companies? The grocery store chains? The shipping industry? The logging industry? Where is the money going to come from? China is pretty much tired of our useless dollar. Maybe Russia or North Korea will come to our aid. Or perhaps, those of us who are working will be taxed to the point of not being able to feed and provide for our families and decide "what's the point in working?" and just get in line with everyone else and then the government can bail us out, too.
My point is that, either way, this is going to hurt our economy....not hurt, probably crucify. If government would stay out of the free enterprise system, it would eventually right itself. If we bail out the big 3 this time, how long before they will crash and burn for good? And then what? Just go to the Xerox and print up some dollars, because that's about what our dollar is worth these days?
America has fallen down, and there is no one to help her get back up again.
Three Points:
First: "In other words, I didn't campaign and say, 'Please vote for me, I'll be able to handle an attack,'" he said. "In other words, I didn't anticipate war. Presidents -- one of the things about the modern presidency is that the unexpected will happen."
Bush "anticipated" this war as far back as 1999 when he said if he ever had the chance to invade Iraq, he would, so he could be seen as a war-time President and thus have a successful presidency. This was two years BEFORE 9/11 happened and one year before he was President.
So this nonsense of "not anticipating war" is just another Bush lie, and I would encourage anyone who is truly interested in the "integrity" of George W. Bush to read the link I provided below in its entirety because it is quite revealing. It not only includes this tidbit about his wanting to invade Iraq but also shows, once again, how an innocent man who was his ghost writer on a book (and also a family friend of the Bushes) had his character attacked after the Karen Hughes and others came in, realized that Bush said too much, and the author (Mr. Herskowitz) was fired, citing personal habits that interfered with his writing -- totally false and another example of how Bushies will destroy anyone -- even friends of the family. It shows just how despicable they all are.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1028-01.htm
Second: His comment regarding the economic crisis: "You know, I'm the president during this period of time, but I think when the history of this period is written, people will realize a lot of the decisions that were made on Wall Street took place over a decade or so, before I arrived in president," Bush said.
He threw his own father under the bus on this one because the administration in control "over a decade or so" before Bush's installment as President was Bush 41.
Third: Bush said that he regrets that he was unable to change the partisan tone in Washington -- one that permeated his presidency.
"I didn't go into this naively; I knew it would be tough," he said. "But I also knew that the president has the responsibility to try to elevate the tone.
And, frankly, it just didn't work, much as I'd like to have it work."
"9/11 unified the country, and that was a moment where Washington decided to work together," he said. "I think one of the big disappointments of the presidency has been the fact that the tone in Washington got worse, not better."
9/11 DID bring the people of this country together until BUSH, through his actions, brought about the divisions and the low morale that exists today and might never disappear. The tone in Washington got worse because Bush continually thumbed his nose at the Constitution and at the Congress with all his "signing statements," "executive orders," playing deadly politics with outting a CIA agent, etc., etc., etc. He laughed and joking about WMDs, pretending to look for them under his desk, and quipping, "Nope. They're not there." He showed his contempt for our brave soldiers during a ceremony where he was distributing medals to the survivors of soldiers who had been killed and told a griefstricken mother, "Now, don't go selling this on eBay." (heh heh, smirk smirk) He has used every conceivable opportunity to "raise the terror level" whenever it was politically convenient in order to keep this country in a constant state of fear and submission.
He has only ever cared about the richest top 1%-ers in this country. The current (and never-ending) "bailout" will continue to make his rich criminal cronies even richer, and that's fine because we always have enough money to do THAT. We just never have enough money to help the citizens of the USA. Indeed, to suggest that we might even need help results in accusations of us being lazy or living beyond our means, etc. There is no doubt about it. All these "bailouts" are Bush's babies (complete with same secrecy and lack of transparency which has become his trademark), and buying up banks is fascism, plain and simple. He can't blame Clinton, can't blame his father, and he can't blame Obama.
We still have way too much time (in my opinion) left with him as the Commander-in-Chief, and he can do a lot more damage (besides all the safety regulations he is in a frenzy to dismantle, each of which that will make Americans UNSAFE).
With all the things he has done and is continuing to do, the only worry on this board is whether or not the Supreme Court will overthrow the will of the people (which could be very convenient for Bush in instituting martial law and promoting himself to "Dictator-in-Chief," the prospect about which he's "joked" on three separate occasions. I wonder when the last time was that Scalia went hunting with Cheney and what their plans for this whole birth certificate non-issue are.
I suppose if the Supreme Court refuses to hear the case, then everyone on this board will say the Supreme Court is hiding something and go on an anti-Supreme Court tirade for a few months.
Or they might just let it go and return to questioning the "true motive" behind Obama getting his daughters a puppy (the "timing" of which has already been questioned on this board, which is even more bizarre).
All these terrible things that Bush has done over the last eight years -- and is still doing -- including stating that the Constitution is just a (insert Rev. Wright's "God" phrase here) piece of paper. (How telling that I can't even properly quote the President of the United States because his language is too vulgar.) I'm ashamed that Bush has not only talked that Constitutional talk but has consistently walked that Constitutional walk, as well.
His "divide and conquer" technique has certainly worked, as is evidenced by a quick look at this board and the negative judgment of the President-Elect before he has even taken the oath of office.
I've stated before that I will support Obama, as I supported Bush (before Bush gave me a TON of reasons not to). However, it's clear to me that no matter how much Obama proves he loves this country, no matter how hard he works to unite us once again, no matter how devoted he is to bringing back the "American Dream," and no matter how hard he works to fix all the damage done by Bush, there are certain people on this board that will still invent reasons to condemn him, and they'll continue to jump from one non-issue to another non-issue.
I wonder where they all were during eight years of Bush's contempt for the Constitution and how loud their voices were in disapproval of his actions.
Bush can try to rewrite history all he wants, but I will remember what he did and what he's still doing.
THESE are exactly the points where
you are wrong. Obama is not kissing anyone's backside, the contrary. He tries to implementreal democracy, by actions, not only by words.
He is encouraging real democracy (see Iran) and justice (in Palestine).
He is sincere, but not all people can see this. I read yesterday on the Faith Board and there were implication by some people that OObama might be the Antichrist?
OMG, I cannot believe this! JTBB nipped this allegation right in the bud!
I agree with many of their points.
I feel that where they went astray, as often seems to happen on these political boards, was in making this a political issue. I have nothing but the greatest sympathy for these women, for all those who were affected by 9/11. I think Ann was not wise in the way she worded her statements, but there is a grain of truth, however small, in what she says. I am not a big fan of hers, but there are many many more victims out there who have chosen not to take the political path. Still, as I said, I agree with their points, especially the porous borders.
Good points.
I keep hoping that Krazy Katherine (Harris) will begin to spill her guts about it all since the Bushes have turned their backs on her, after she saw to it that he took Florida. She's probably waiting for her payback and isn't getting it from them.
I agree with you on many points.
Living a responsible life with care and reverence for life seems to have been pushed to the side in these times, though. I do believe that in many instances, not all but many, abortion is being used as a means of birth control. In fact, I am absolutely positive about that because I transcribe many reports where women have had multiple abortions on a continuing basis. And to think that anyone would vote that a teenager has a right to an abortion without parental involvement is chilling.
Imagine you were living in America in 1956 and someone would predict that, in the span of half a century, the culture in America would be so transformed that homosexuality would be an acceptable and even celebrated lifestyle choice, Christianity would be relegated to a private matter not to be considered in questions of public conduct, the culture that had dominated America and was an integral part of its success would be condemned as the cause of most evil in the world, the family would be on the verge of collapse as an institution, children would be listening to music that spewed obscenities and celebrated random sexual encounters and violence, teens would be having sex so commonly that some sexually transmitted diseases would become epidemic in that age group, and abortion would be the law of the land with a million and a half such procedures performed annually. Predictions of such a complete collapse of basic morality would have been considered so ridiculous that it would have been deemed possible only by the complete capitualtion of our nation's leadership to pure evil.
The collapse of morality in this nation was not organic nor imposed by force but orchestrated as part of many interlocking marketing campaigns that had as their goal the repackaging of evil in a seductive wrapping and selling it to the American public. In some cases, the motivation was socio-political while in other cases the motivation was purely financial. Yet in each case the underlying techniques of manipulaiting the public are essentially the same.
The only way to combat the manipulation around us to become aware of its existence. Manipulation is rarely as effective once the manipulated are cognizent of their fate.
Ther is an entire laundry list of movements in contemporary American culture. Although many conservatives are in some sense aware of the problem of manipulation of the public sentiment, it is still quite jarring to see all the dots connected.
The problem we face is not just with leftists but also with corporate executives who see nothing questionable in artificially generating a desire for products through deceit. The forces of the left merely picked up on these techniques and applied them to sell their product. That corporations manipulated the public to sell soap, automobiles, and cigarettes instead of political views, sexual practices, and anti-Christian bigotry does not make such manipulation a morally acceptable practice. A wonderful example of this is the legislation just voted on in Missouri for embryonic stem cell research. The largest contributor to this (quote) cause (unquote) was the company who stood to benefit the most from the research.
I say we need a call for our culture to return to principles rooted in the Christian faith. The problem is that much of the Church in America has already succumbed to the very illness that needs combatting. It is an easy target to aim at liberal churches who have surrendered on traditional morality. Much of the shallowness of contemporary Evangelical Christianity is a direct result of their adopting modern marketing techniques (as seen in the megachurches) as a means for advancing the Gospel. Such techniques may produce numbers but not necessarily disciples. Look at what has happened to the Episcopal church as a good example of having lost one's way. They are losing members by the thousands.
The American public has for a generation been sold evil as good and it has taken this long for a crack in the facade to appear. For anyone interested in the future of this country, I think it is time to realize that abortion is not a right. It never was and it never will be. For every woman who cries KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF MY BODY, there is a child, call it what you will if that will assauge your conscience, who has no voice at all. And when you are sitting with your family at Christmas or Thanksgiving and watching the children play, try and justify to yourself the ones who never had a chance to be there.
Agree with some points
I myself abused the welfare program for one year as a 19-year-old unwed mother. Well, kind of. It was not an experience I ever wanted to repeat. However, my feeling is that the difficulty lies in determining who is truly deserving and needy of welfare and who is just taking advantage of the free ride. And at what point do we also punish the children of ne'er-do-wells by denying benefits. I guess that's my concern.
OK, now I've got to get some typing done or I'll end up on welfare from losing my job!!
Good points. nm
nm
Very good points! nm
.
Here here - very good points.
I didn't catch the whole interview (just a question here and there) but I did hear him ask her about the Bush doctrine. I looked at DH and asked him "what part of it is he asking about". She had the perfect right to ask him to clarify. It was definitely a set up (or tried to be a set up). Overall I think she gave a good interview given they were trying to bait and trap her. Luckily it didn't work and she came out looking better. Maybe what they should do is get some people from other countries who have no vested interest in who gets picked to interview and be the moderators during debates because it's obvious that it doesn't matter what network you work for, if you want one candidate to win over the other your going to be condescending to the other. Boy do I miss Tim Russert.
BTW - With all that has been thrown at her from the media and the liberal sacs she sure can take care of herself. Makes me realized what a strong VP she will make.
Good points! nm
x
Interesting points
I voted by mail for McCain/Palin. Here's why.
Obama has a new ad out talking about taking the day off of work to vote. Let's face it, everyone taking the day off will NOT help the economy.
Obama keeps pointing out he will go through the budget line by line. last I knew the President does not have the ability to line item veto.
He speaks of redistributing the wealth and that it starts from the bottom up. Who defines what bottom is? And why should someone take my money or even my father's money since he makes over 250, 000 and give it to someone else?
And let's not forget the act of treason that was swept under the rug when he spoke to the Iraqi leader basically stating the current President is not capable? I can post links if needed.
McCain has his bad points as well but honestly, I would sleep better at night knowing him and Sarah are at the helm.
Yes, I agree with you on all points...sm
I will respect the office of the president. Mr. Obama must earn my trust and respect.
My husband came into my office last night with his water glass, and said we had to give the kid a chance. We had to have a toast to Obama, and wish him well. After all, we are all Americans.
We must wish him well in the days and years that are ahead. He and America will need it.
I can only wish that he will move to more to center, to do the right thing, just as Clinton did. And I think we did retain enough seats to block passage if need be, in the Senate.
So again, I will wish him well. I can do no less as an American.
I agree, you have some points there......nm
nm
|
