Nothing sexist about reality. Palin's wink is of her own making.
Posted By: I supported Hillary and will be voting for Obama. on 2008-11-01 In Reply to:I think this is a tough one - Chele
The sexist pandering of a failing candidate who chose an unqualified token running mate, thinking we would vote with our genitals and come-a-running to save his maverick behind was the ultimate insult. The wrong woman with anti-feminist policies made it easy to rally behind Hillary, her party and her candidate. Yes, we have given it some thought.
Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread
or not. You can still be predjucial against others, and you obviously have problems with women.
Oh please....how sexist can you possibly be???
She governed when she was pregnant with the child and she was back at work soon after. If you had watched her speech, you see she has a wonderful support system in her husband and her older daughter. Are you really saying a woman is incapable of taking care of her family and running the country and a man is? Simply by virtue of their sex?
Alaska is not a small state. It is more than twice the size of Texas.
If McCain keeled over two days after they took office (God forbid!), we would still have a President with more experience in executive office than we will have Obama is elected on day 1.
That is simply the fact. He will need multiple advisors, she would need multiple advisors. There is nothing in his resume that says he is more qualified to lead, and govern, than she is.
And she is not running for the #1...he is.
Not a sexist insult....
"we need our eyes on the gulf, not the skirt." Amazing. Kind of sucked the air right out of the indignant post.
That being said, I agree, we need to be thinking about those on the gulf.
when female commentator on Fox morning show made comment about Sara being nominated because she has "t**s" (female mammary glands). I saw the clip -- have heard no anguished cries from the conservatives about sexist on this one.
This is NOT a sexist insult for the poor, victimized SP.
Unbelievable. This is NOT about SP. What does she know about a mass evacuation of 5 million people? Not only does she need to stay away from us, she needs to be taken off the TV screen long enough to broadcast announcements of mandatory evacuation areas, evacuation routes, contra-flow designations on major highway systems, announcements from local officials in the affected areas and maybe just a little coverage on how to prepare for the onslaught of a category 3/4 hurricane in a geographic area of such dense population. Evacuations when done improperly are FATAL, as Houstonians found out during the evacuation for Hurricane Rita when 110 people lost their lives out on the roads trying to run from the storm. They are phased events and need wide-scale news coverage from any and all media outlets. This is about the 5 million people who are running for their lives. The comment was about the irresponsible news coverage and the spell that people seem to be under to the exclusion of even an tacit awareness that death is just around the corner for possibly hundreds of their fellow-citizens. You can live without SP media saturation for a day or two. We need our eyes on the gulf, not on the skirt.
Me, sexist? That's laughable, being a very strong independent woman myself, but
I am afraid of a woman who has some sort of God complex and has nothing to lose. We should all be very afraid by somebody like that!
Sarah Palin fans are as whack as Palin.
Even John McCain's top adviser referred to Sarah Palin as a whack job.
Unfortunately the reality is....
that liberals get a HUGE PASS when it comes to verbal spillage. I've heard some of the most hateful things come out of Howard Dean and all we hear about is what Karl Rove said, and a lot of it was taken out of context. He didn't say ALL Democrats, he said SOME liberals, i.e. Move On.Org and George Soros. There WERE groups demonstrating against the war in Afghanistan. That was a fact. And how does the Democratic party get by with a former KKK member (Byrd)? That wouldn't be allowed for 2 seconds on the Republican side.
You should try to relax. Music always helps me. Try this. LOL.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjXyqcx-mYY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBk32JsV9l8
Reality
You obviously saw Senator John Ensign (R-NV) on Meet The Press this morning along with Congressman Barney Frank (not Barney Fife). Ensign says that Frank is "fearmongering" and says that state budgets are "bloated" and that we should be "cutting back."
Well, how's your state doing, Senator Ensign? The state of Nevada has to cut 38% from its state budget. The Nevada schools are facing a 15% cut. Outpatient oncology services at University Medical Center in Las Vegas have CLOSED because of state Medicaid cuts. If you're lucky, maybe your gynecologic oncologist will open a chemotherapy center in his clinic's storage room like Dr. Nick Spirtos did.
That's only one example. Do yourself a favor and read the article. There are plenty more examples in plenty of other states. The idea that states need to "cut back" in the midst of a recession is absolutely idiotic and so is Senator Ensign.
Reality?
The majority of voters in the United States have dismissed your idea of reality and voted against it. Maybe it is you who needs to get a cup of coffee and join the majority.
This is reality Reality
Reality and Glenn Beck have nothing to do with each other.
You are the one not dealing in reality
there's so many wrong statements in your post I wouldn't know where to begin in rebutting them... I pity you and your pessimistic outlook on our country. You are one very bitter and jaded person. Just like Cindy Sheehan who has to blame someone else for her life's problems. I'm sorry her mother had a stroke, and I hope that everything is okay, but I think Cindy Sheehan needs to take this as a sign to take care of her family that is living...which I'm glad she is doing right now for the sake of her mother.
Reality check
You just cannot stay off this board can you? Don't you get it? We don't want to debate with you. We are just as set in our beliefs as you are in yours. No one here is interested in anything you have to say, so please, get a life or at least stay on your own board.
For Reality Check. sm
I think my post did sound a little hateful. I am sure you are a very nice person. You see, this is a country divided, and I am certain I am not the only one on this board, to feel that GWB has had a lot to do with that. Like I said, I am sure you are a nice person. However, this is a country divided, nothing will make me change my mind about this administration. I fear for either party that gets in next time, if it is a democrat, they cannot hardly get ahead because of the blunders made by the current administration. In a nutshell, I sincerely feel like this country has never been more divided, and perhaps that is why the moderators decided to split the two boards to begin with. Post all you want, you will get no more nasty responses for me. I however will feel at liberty to post jokes when I feel like it. I lurk on the conservative board, but do not post. There are many right-winged jokes and cartoons over there and I do not post my opinion - because that is their board.
Reality check.
October 2001 to February 2003. That’s how long it took to sell the war to Congress, democrats and republicans alike, and to the American public, according to Colonel Sam Gardiner (USAF, Ret.). Not some left-wing wacko. Just a high-rank retired Air Force colonel who conducted a study.
A Strategy of Lies: How the White House Fed the Public a Steady Diet of Falsehoods
http://www.rense.com/general44/50.htm.
The power of propaganda. They bought it, hook, line and sinker. That was then and this is now, and what we know NOW is that Bush lied. No WMDs. No Iraq-sponsored terrorism. It's still about the oil.
BTW, there is a Bechtel-commissioned BTC pipeline in Georgia, "secured" by US troops, who also provide advisors and training to Georgia military. Russia doesn't like US-trained troops in its backyard either. You won't hear it on Fox, but Russia has not confined it's invasion to Ossetia. They targeted that pipeline 18 hours ago. Sometimes you follow the money. Other times, you follow the oil.
Fox News, YouTube, nohussein.org? Consider the source. Abortion is legal. The issue is choice. Some choose not to do it, others choose to exercise their right to choose. Those who do appreciate any politician who is willing to go to the mat to uphold Roe vs Wade. Unlikely to be reversed anytime soon and, in this election, far down on the list of priorities. Reality check #2.
No need to wonder what the colonel would have to say about that uranium since the issue was extensively scrutinized in his study.
It has been known for decades that Iraq had a reactor at Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Center and a nuclear materials testing facility at Osiraq, damaged in a bombing by the Iranians in 1980 and disabled by Israeli air attacks in 1981 in an operation that was condemned by the US at the time since we were backing Saddam against Iran. Ten years later, these same facilities were completely destroyed by Americans in the 1991 Gulf War, 12 years before Bush sold his version of Gulf War II to the American public.
This would be the same 500 metric tons of reactor grade uranium (the kind used as fuel in producing clean electricity). It was NOT weapons grade uranium. Being well documented by the UN and the IAEA, this stash of uranium was legal and had been controlled and monitored in accordance with international law since the Gulf War. The uranium was removed from Iraq and transported to Canada to be used in their nuclear energy facilities. The inspections team found NO EVIDENCE of any yellowcake in Iraq dating from after 1991. So if the terrorists had managed to get their hands on it, the US would be held accountable since they destroyed the reactor, knew about the stock piles, returned to occupy Iraq in 2003, but were too busy killing Iraqis to bother with disposing of the uranium for 5 full years. No wonder they were keeping it a secret.
Speaking of yellowcake uranium and propaganda, back in January 2003, Bush accused Saddam of trying to buy it from Niger, based on Italian, British and French intelligence sources. Notice this occurred between October 2001 and February 2003, as stated in the previous post, when Bush was busy doing anything and everything he could to dupe the Congress and public into supporting his war. The polite word for this intelligence is “faulty.” A more accurate description would be forgery. The colonel talks about this too, but his study is a bit obscure and hard to locate. Google Niger uranium and Iraq and this link pops up in case anybody wants to read more about that one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger_uranium_forgeries
As for the chemical and biological weapons used against his own people, that would be the Kurdish town of Halabja in March 1988, when 7000 civilians died and in 14 other Kurd villages. The reason we knew about those chemical and biological weapons is because the US sold them to Saddam to use against the Iranians (as did the UK, Germany, France and others). Check out the Senate committee's reports on US Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual-Use Exports to Iraq from a 1992 report. Reagan and Bush Sr. sold Iraq anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs, botulism, germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia, Salmonella, E. coli, brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene, to name a few.
From 1991 to 1998 UNSCOM inspected and scoured Iraq, accounting for some 95+% of the known agents before they left. Despite all the suspicions put forth by the Bush propaganda machine in 2003 and the best search efforts of the US since the occupation, no evidence of the remaining inventory has been uncovered.
Like it or not, abortion has been legal in the US for 35 years. The answer to your questions about choice is simple. It’s the mother’s body, not yours, not the government’s. Her choice. Nobody’s else’s. That is the law. The law does not force abortion for those who do not believe in it, nor does it prevent it for those who do. Morality can be legislated after the American theocracy has been established. Until then, it is about choice.
Bush’s contempt for the courts is no secret. They do not simply uphold law. They also interpret it and have discretionary authority to issue decisions and opinions. The constitution provides us with 3 executive branches for a reason. It’s called checks and balances. No candidate or president should be opposed to seeing that part of the constitution upheld. Running From Reality
If there was one pre-eminent characteristic of the Republican convention this week, it was the quality of deception. Words completely lost their meaning. Reality was turned upside down.
From the faux populist gibberish mouthed by speaker after speaker, you would never have known that the Republicans have been in power over the past several years and used that titanic power to lead the country to its present sorry state.
Summary On the defensive over the extent of multiple McCain homes, the GOP candidate strikes back. But his TV spot gives an oversimplified and misleading account of how Obama bought his own $1.6 million house in Chicago.
The ad says Chicago power broker Tony Rezko got "political favors" including "$14 million from taxpayers." But there's no evidence of any connection to the Obama home purchase. The $14 million was to build apartments for low-income seniors. Obama wrote a letter supporting the "worthy" project, but both men say Rezko didn't ask for the letter.
It says Rezko "purchased part of the property [Obama] couldn't afford." Rezko's wife did buy an adjoining tract but later sold the land at a profit. Obama paid market price for his home.
McCain launched the attack after Obama ran one capitalizing on McCain's inability to recall for an interviewer how many homes the McCains own. Obama's ad says it's seven. The best tally we've seen puts the figure at eight, counting all the apartments and homes owned by McCain's wife, Cindy, and various family trusts, for themselves and their children.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/154782
REALITY? Do you know who deregulated
xx
Not a break from reality,
but more a trance. Freaks me out. Thanks for the statements you posted. This is not a normal election, but more of a movement. Hope it will not be like it was in the 60's with riots going on. Getting more and more like the Book of Revelations. A person who will deceive the nations with persuasive language and have massive christ-like appeal and people will flock to him as he will promise false hope and world peace, but destroys everything. FREAKS ME OUT. He keeps changing his mind and now he and his campaign want to try to kill the expectations of what he has been stating for months. Beyond creepy. This is not your normal every four year election.
You need a dose of reality.
nm
EU reality check....
1. Member states in the EU all maintain their separate set of laws. Members of the EU Parliament are elected every 5 years by all citizens of the EU. It operates in much the same way as the US federal system.
2. Member states are responsible for their own defense. Many, but not all, are members of NATO (by choice). Nascent EU military forces (as opposed to separate national forces) have engaged in peacekeeping missions and humanitarian aid missions in Africa, the former Yugoslavia and in the Middle East.
3. Each member state maintains it's own legal system. EU laws are analogous to our US federal laws. No threat here. As a matter of fact, national sovereignty is stronger under this system than states' rights are in the US. EU law mainly relates to enforcement of treaties, the environment and fundamental rights of member states.
4. 15 of the 27 EU countries have adopted the euro....again, by choice: Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain. I hate to break this to you, but the Euro already is worth more than the US dollar (1 Euro = 1.2652 US dollars)....they must be doing something right.
5. The EU has PROGRESSIVE policy oversight on it's own agriculture, energy and infrastructure (as it should be) and is competitive in world markets based on the value of their currency...again, higher in value than the US dollar.
No need to "research" the NAU. I know what it is and I know what it is not. The NAU is a THEORETICAL region. It does not exist. There are no current government plans in Canada, the US or Mexico to form such an entity. NAFTA is the closest manifestation of the CONCEPT of an NAU.
Your version of the NAU is nothing more to me than a conspiracy theory...paranoia on a grand scale. I have a few questions for you. Ever heard of evolution. How about survival of the fittest? Do you believe in these concepts? Here's the deal. The world we live in now is not the same world your parents and grandparents grew up in...especially in terms of population and technology. The survival of the human race and of the nations depends upon their ability to adapt and CHANGE. IF (and I emphasize the word IF) there is a better economic or governing system around the evolutionary corner, then no amount of belly-aching and conspiracy theory spin is going to keep it at bay. PROGRESS HAPPENS. Reality check.........sm
So you don't need to research the NAU? I hope the sand will protect your little brain when all heck breaks loose.
The concept of the NAU has been actively pursued by our government (Bush) and the government of Canada and Mexico since 2005. Check it out.
The blueprint President Bush is following was laid out in a 2005 report entitled "Building a North American Community" published by the left-of-center Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). The CFR report connects the dots between the Bush administration's actual policy on illegal immigration and the drive to create the North American Union:
At their meeting in Waco, Texas, at the end of March 2005, U.S. President George W. Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin committed their governments to a path of cooperation and joint action. We welcome this important development and offer this report to add urgency and specific recommendations to strengthen their efforts.
What is the plan? Simple, erase the borders. The plan is contained in a "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" little noticed when President Bush and President Fox created it in March 2005:
In March 2005, the leaders of Canada, Mexico, and the United States adopted a Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), establishing ministerial-level working groups to address key security and economic issues facing North America and setting a short deadline for reporting progress back to their governments. President Bush described the significance of the SPP as putting forward a common commitment "to markets and democracy, freedom and trade, and mutual prosperity and security." The policy framework articulated by the three leaders is a significant commitment that will benefit from broad discussion and advice. The Task Force is pleased to provide specific advice on how the partnership can be pursued and realized.
To that end, the Task Force proposes the creation by 2010 of a North American community to enhance security, prosperity, and opportunity. We propose a community based on the principle affirmed in the March 2005 Joint Statement of the three leaders that "our security and prosperity are mutually dependent and complementary." Its boundaries will be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter within which the movement of people, products, and capital will be legal, orderly and safe. Its goal will be to guarantee a free, secure, just, and prosperous North America.
I cannot believe there are people living today who actually believe that there are not hidden agendas in our government and that "we the people" actually know what is going on.
Thank you for the dose of reality.
It seems people like to think in exponentials lately. 'Bush was the worst president in the history of time.' Obama will face 'the most daunting challenge in the history of the country.'
Goodness sakes. Are these posters just so bubble-wrapped in their protective cocoons that they don't know anything about US History?
Our country was forged with blood and steal. This ain't a country for whimps. But I guess we'll find out now what happens when we elect a man who feels it is necessary to apologize for America instead of defend it.
Yup. The one's that's based in reality.
As in the real deal.
Reality check...(sm)
While I do think that Blago needs to go down, I think it should be recognized that this happens in politics ALL THE TIME. That pay to play mentality among politicians is nothing new. I don't think Blago did anything worse than most do. His big mistake was getting caught.
Reality check............ sm
Did you even read the article? It says in part...
"The Obama administration moved on Friday to undo a last-minute Bush administration rule granting broad protections to health workers who refuse to take part in abortions or provide other health care that goes against their consciences."
It goes on to say: "The rule prohibits recipients of federal money from discriminating against doctors, nurses and other health care workers who refuse to perform or assist in abortions or sterilization procedures because of their “religious beliefs or moral convictions.” "
This sounds to me like providers who refuse to do abortions or provide other health care that goes against their religious/moral/personal convictions will lose protection from "discrimination" (read prosecution) by "recipients of federal money" (read welfare recipients). In other words, if this protection is lifted and a woman goes to a physician who refuses to perfrom an abortion because of moral beliefs, then that woman would be free to sue the doctor for withholding medical care....and who would be more prone to sue a physician than one who is on welfare and always looking for free money?
It has nothing to do with asking a health care professional to perform a procedure or deliver health care outside of his/her realm of education or specialization.
Maybe you should consider jumping into reality
You don't give someone like the Queen of England an IPOD for pete's sake. I'll bet his kids pick it out themselves??? This is the Queen of England. He should have consulted with his staff or someone who is more knowledgeable as to what to give a foreign diplomat, especially someone like the Queen of England. And evidently she already has one. You would have thought he would have checked with someone in his office that is knowledgeable about what a proper gift to give would be. Ya think????? But that goes to show there is no one in his cabinet qualified on such issues. The gift should be a symbol of the US. Sorry but I and evidently many others don't think of IPODs when they think of the US. How juvenile to assume everyone would want an IPOD. Somehow I don't see the Queen bee-boppin to tunes stored on an IPOD. But what's worse...he downloaded all of his speeches. Can we say ewwww! Maybe he should have downloaded some episodes of South Park for her too.
If he could have shown how little he cared about a gift to her he just did. American is filled with many wonderful and talented artists. A very nice piece of art would have been much more appropriate than a friggin IPOD.
I keep seeing posts telling us to "drop ridiculous charges", etc about Obama's b/c. You may not realize this yet, but we are just MTs here voicing our opinion that we do not believe the b/c issue has been resolved (because it hasn't) and that we are glad there are others (judges, lawyers, politicians, etc) who are suing and taking this to the supreme court. However to tell us to "drop the charges" is just too silly. We're not the ones who are going to courts, only voicing our opinions. And last I knew that is what this site is for.
I see many posts with interesting articles written by jounalists and people who have been involved in the case since it all began (and even people outside the country), and those posts are met with such replies all screaming how any article that is posted is not a "credible source". I saw someone give news headlines and was told "show us a credible source". Yet time and time again those same people will come back and cite pro-Obama sites like Factcheck.org, PolitiFact, Huffington Post, etc as credible sources (I even saw someone state Obama's own website as a credible source - had to laugh at that one).
People from all over the country (and the world) are writing articles about this. That means there is something to it. People who are journalists, lawyers, etc, are not going to write articles based on nothing. If it was all based on nothing we'd be seeing more lawsuits filed against the people writing the articles.
On this board I see that the people who want the issue resolved and are looking forward to hearing what the supreme courts have to say, and the outcome of all the other numerous lawsuits are doing just that and voicing their opinions. No need to treat them with disrespect. You can post your own post on why you believe what you do. We are all entitled to our opinions, and I enjoy reading the articles.
So let me just say once more....people on this board - we are just MT'sn not the actual people going to the courts suing Obama, hence we have no "charges to drop". We leave that to more capable hands. We are voicing our opinions here and will continue to do so until the issue has been resolved. Don't tell us it has been resolved otherwise there would be no court cases out there.
Lets all wait and see. And as my grandma used to say to me when I was little "Stop being so silly, you silly goose you".
Well...here is a harsh dose of reality....
yes, he said that...however...he was also endorsed by terrorists (Hamas) and Iran...that in and of itself should be concerning. Why do you think they said that? Perhaps because he also said that if the winds turn ugly, he would stand with the Muslims, and they took him literally? Or perhaps he meant it literally? Who knows what he really means? He lived his way one life up until he ran for President, and then turned away from all that as each issue was brought up, because he knew it would hurt his candidacy. So who IS the real Barack Obama? Do YOU know? That is not dark and foreboding. It is being vigilant, it is asking for trust and respect to be earned...adoration is fine, but please be vigilant as well. For YOUR own good.
Pointing to reality is "fearmongering"
February 8, 2009
IT AIN'T FEARMONGERING IF IT'S TRUE.... Just today, the LA Times has a good report on the unprecedented pressure on state budgets right now -- pressure that will not be alleviated by the federal recovery plan because Sens. Collins & Co. believe state aid isn't stimulative enough. While state shortfalls will lead to painful cuts in practically every state, Nevada is poised to get hit much harder than most.
The Times report noted, for example, that Nevada is "facing the most serious shortfall," and lawmakers will have to cut a striking 38% from its state budget. The impact across the state will be both drastic and unavoidable, most notably in the state's public schools, which will soon face a 15% cut.
It wasn't surprising, then, that Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) criticized Senate "centrists" for cutting $40 billion in state aid from the stimulus package, noting that the aid, which appeared in the House version, was intended to stop states from "laying off cops and firefighters, money to help keep teachers going." Republican Sen. John Ensign of Nevada rejected Frank's comments, labeling the remarks "fearmongering." Indeed, Ensign seemed encouraged by the fact that state budgets, including his own, would have to be slashed, calling the budgets "bloated." He said, "What we should be doing is cutting back."
Got that? As the recession worsens, and government spending is needed to prevent more Americans from losing their jobs, a leading Republican senator whose own state is about to get pummeled, believes it's a good idea to "cut back." I can think of a variety of ways to respond to this nonsense, but I think Matt Yglesias summed things up nicely:
The idea that it would be good for states to cut back in the midst of the recession is stupid. The idea that the recession won't, absent federal aid, lead to layoffs of state employees such as teachers and firefighters is also stupid. But the idea that it's simultaneously true that the reason we should eschew aid is that states need to cut back and also true that it's fearmongering to warn of layoffs is doubleplus stupid. What does Ensign think cutbacks consist of? States will be reducing vital services. The cutbacks will have the immediate impact of reducing the incomes of laid-off families and beneficiaries of state programs. That will have an additional impact on businesses where the newly laid-off teachers and cops used to work.
And the reduced level of service will have its own bad economic impacts. Cutting back public safety budgets will mean fewer cops on the beat. That means more crime which will further reduce economic activity. State cutbacks to child care subsidies will make it harder for people who lose jobs to find and accept new ones. The cutbacks to mass transit services that are happening across the country will introduce additional rigidity into the labor market and reduce patronage of businesses that people are accustomed to reaching via transit. And in the most severe cases, cutbacks in assistant to the severely impoverished will have a decades-long impact on the well-being of their children.
Sen. John Ensign is entirely comfortable with all of these developments -- those dreaded state budgets are "bloated," after all -- but doesn't want anyone to acknowledge this publicly. Pointing to reality is "fearmongering." It's not enough for congressional Republicans to stand in the way of sound economic policy during a crisis; they also want to discourage everyone from talking about it
Reality is truth. I don't expect you to understand anything concerning the truth, though. People who see reality for what it is are simply just sick and tired of being lied to, whether it's by Dumbya or by those of your ilk. Thank God you don't represent the majority of Americans or we'd be in worse trouble than what we're in now.
Trying to communicate with you is impossible, so I choose not to participate in that endeavor any longer.
marks the location of current message within thread
