Obama will get every excuse in the world. "He is
Posted By: young, nervous, inexperienced". Great, our Prez on 2009-01-20
In Reply to: Oh, right. If that is the case, he should have been - able to state it properly. He stood there ..."u
nm
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
"He (Obama) chairs the subcommittee on Europe. ... He's held not one substantive hearing to do
Fischer, who is a minority staff member of the Foreign Relations Committee, said something as major as NATO’s role in Afghanistan would typically be held before the full Foreign Relations Committee, rather than Obama’s European subcommittee.
In fact, the Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on Afghanistan on Jan. 31, 2008, and NATO was a part of the discussion. Obama attended a Democratic debate in California that day. Clinton is not on the committee.
The Clinton campaign put out a statement reiterating Clinton’s comments to reinforce the theme that Obama is more about talk than action.
“Given the opportunity to take the reins of leadership and shape two critical areas of U.S. foreign policy — Afghanistan and our alliances in Europe — Senator Obama has done next to nothing,” the statement said.
Obama’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment.
So let’s look at Clinton’s statement:
“He chairs the subcommittee on Europe.” Yep.
“It has jurisdiction over NATO.” Yep.
“NATO is critical to our mission in Afghanistan. He’s held not one substantive hearing to do oversight, to figure out what we can do to actually have a stronger presence with NATO in Afghanistan.” Yep.
Some may argue that the issue of NATO’s role in Afghanistan typically and more appropriately would come before the full Foreign Relations Committee. But Clinton is right when she says Obama’s subcommittee has been largely dormant while Obama has campaigned for president. We rate her comment True.
Foreign policy advisors
Barack Obama is currently advised on foreign policy by a support group of approximately 300 people organized into 20 teams based upon subject.[89] A core group of advisors, led by Susan E. Rice and Anthony Lake, filters hundreds of papers and messages daily to provide the Senator with more concise positions on foreign policy and more specific reactions to international developments. Obama's foreign policy advisers have included Richard Danzig, Mark Lippert, Gregory Craig, Dennis McDonough, Daniel Shapiro, Scott Gration, Sarah Sewall, Ivo Daalder, Jeffrey Bader, Mark Brzezinski, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Richard Clarke, Roger Cressey, Philip Gordon, Lawrence Korb, James Ludes, Robert Malley, Bruce Riedel, Dennis Ross, Mona Sutphen, and Samantha Power (resigned March 7, 2008).[90][91][92]
If he is such an expert why does he need 300 advisors?
Excuse me. Obama did not "invent" anything.
President Elect, and has been ever since 1963. Bush had one....he just did not use it in the same way. He certainly is not exactly famous for being open and transparent. Your post is juvenile whining nitpicking, not to mention based on false premise. Here's the research:
Articles of various dates talking about the Office of the President Elect:
1. President Bush announces selections for ITA and other commerce posts - International Trade Administration, dated March 27, 1989, 3rd paragraph, page 2 of the article: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1052/is_n6_v110/ai_7464165/pg_3?tag=artBody;col1
2. Memorandum #185 From President Nixon to Secretary of State Rogers, dated January 31, 1969: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/nixon/iv/15576.htm
3. Memorandum to Designated Agency Ethics Officials on Presidential Transition, dated December 28, 2000: http://www.usoge.gov/ethics_guidance/daeograms/dgr_files/2000/do00048.txt
4. Public Law 88-277 (language of the act):
http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/contentView.do?contentType=GSA_BASIC&contentId=24780
Excuse me, but I voted for Obama and
I have never questioned the authenticity of his birth certificate. I am not a supporter of Bush but he is our President until Obama is sworn in as President. GP, you jumped to all types of conclusions because I mentioned it was time to stop ranting and raving about Bush. That does not mean I am a Bush supporter.
Even Obama has made his peace with Bush and he is working with him. I think it is high-time you allowed for difference of opinions between dems and pubs. If the pubs want to question Obama's birth certificate athenticity, then so be it.
Excuse me? I would hardly call Obama
a far-liberal! I really believe that you are doing far better on the 'Word help board', that's where you belong.
Sounds like an excuse for it being okay for Obama to have leaked this...nm
Excuse me, did you miss the part where Obama
said out of his own lips that he would close Gitmo?
This should come as no surprise.... Obama has wanted to shut this down from the start and will do so completely! This is just a starting point. If you don't like the words, then stop listening to Obama 'cause he has yammered on and on about how ALL us American citizens want this package. REALLY? Strange,seeming how the white house switchboard is overwhelmed with calls saying NO to this package!!!
What part of "he has" do you not comprehend?
the same piece of paper over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. Got it? Evidently not, because you fools will bankroll the attys and their law suits to nowhere over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again and still won't be satisfied. That's why nobody cares about this stupidity. The entire notion is, how shall I say this....INSANE.
Did they say "he makes me sick" or did you?
You were giving more than figures.
How the World REALLY Feels About Obama
This is an excellent article. It includes pretty dramatic graphs that I wasn't able to copy and post, and I would urge anyone who is unbiased and is truly interested in giving the President-Elect a chance to succeed -- JUST A CHANCE -- click on the link and see for yourselves.
Foreign poll favours Democrat but shows hostility to US
Julian Glover
guardian.co.uk, Friday October 17 2008 00.01 BST
People around the world are pinning their hopes on Barack Obama in next month's presidential election, according to an international survey published today. It shows that America can no longer count on the friendship even of its closest neighbours and allies after eight years of the Bush presidency. Only a minority in the countries surveyed describe relations with the US as friendly.
The research, carried out by eight leading newspapers including the Guardian, finds overwhelming support for the Democratic candidate. He would win by a landslide in every country surveyed, including Britain, where he is ahead of the Republican candidate John McCain by 64% to 15%.
Support for Obama is stronger than backing for John Kerry in 2004, when the Guardian participated in a similar polling exercise. Then, the Democrat was the preferred candidate of 50% of British people.
The poll, conducted by papers including France's Le Monde, Japan's Yomiuri Shimbun, Canada's LA Presse and Mexico's Reforma, also shows that opinion of America has dropped sharply since the start of the decade. In France 75% say their view of the US has got worse or much worse since President George Bush replaced Bill Clinton in 2001; in Canada 77%; in Switzerland 86% and in Japan 62%.
People everywhere have turned to Obama. He would win by a simple majority in six of the eight countries surveyed, including Canada, where he leads McCain by 70%-14%, and Japan, where the margin is 61%-13%.
French voters are even more hostile to the Republican candidate, who gets the backing of only 5%, against 68% who hope Obama will win.
In British results, from ICM/Guardian polling, 67% of voters say their opinion of the US is worse than it was before the Bush presidency began. Only 21% say it has improved.
But the special relationship endures. People in Britain are more likely than in any of the other seven countries surveyed to say relations are friendly: 49% think this is the case, against 18% who say relations are tense and 30% who say they are neutral.
Support for an Obama presidency is strong among all types of voters in Britain - 64% want him to win. He is most popular among more prosperous voters, where he has 71% backing, and least popular among people at the bottom of the socio-economic scale, 54% of whom want him to become president.
Elsewhere, only in Poland and Mexico, both emerging democracies, is there any hesitation about the prospect of an Obama victory. In Poland he leads by 43% to 26% and in Mexico by 46% to 13%.
Many people now fear rather than warm to America. In France 25% of voters say relations with the US are tense, against 38% who say they are friendly and 39% who think they are neutral. In Japan only 16% say friendship and 19% tension, with 62% neutral. In no country does a majority think relations should be described as friendly.
Even America's two neighbouring states are sceptical of US intentions. Only 23% of Mexicans describe relations as friendly and 28% say they are tense. In Canada, which has just re-elected a Conservative minority government, voters are strongly supportive of a Democratic presidency; 43% say relations with the US are friendly and 14% tense.
The survey also finds strong opposition to any attack on Iran and - in the six countries questioned on the issue - majority support for a rapid withdrawal of US forces from Iraq.
The possibility of military intervention in Iran is opposed by a majority everywhere except in Poland and Britain.
In Britain 47% say the next president should specifically rule out an attack, against 42% who say options should be left open.
Each newspaper involved in the survey used professional polling organisations, including ICM for the Guardian in Britain. Research was carried out this month, except in Poland, where polling took place in September.
Although the methodologies used differ - which may affect exact comparisons - the scale of Obama's lead everywhere outweighs any variation in results.
Research was carried out by: La Presse, Canada (1,500 telephone sample); the Guardian, UK (1,007 telephone, October 10-12 2008); Le Temps, Switzerland (600 telephone); Le Monde, France (1,000 face to face); Yomiuri Shimbun, Japan (3,000 face to face); Reforma, Mexico (850 telephone); Le Soir, Belgium (1,007 telephone); Gazeta Wyborcza, Poland, (1,000 telephone)
q · This article was amended on Tuesday October 21 2008. A graphic showing the results of a poll on how the US is viewed around the world reversed the findings for Belgium. We stated that 39% of Belgians polled said their opinion of the US had changed for the worse since the start of the Bush presidency, and 52% said it had changed for the better. Those figures should have been the other way round.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/17/uselections2008-barackobama1
Obama has proclaimed himself a "citizen of the world.."
McCain says "country first." I know where I stand.
Our image around the world will be repaired by Obama...sm
Right now Bush has just about tanked this country. We sorely need to repair our relationships around the world. People do not hate us for our freedoms as Hannity would tell you. If that were true, they'd pick on Sweden who is far more free with everything than we are. I have a friend from Germany who said everyone was rooting for Obama and she hadn't even heard of McCain. They want change for us as well as we do. The American people have spoken and Obama has won.
"He (MCSAME) will expand free trade so we can be even more competitive.” NM
1
Hmmm...Gives new meaning to "He's an empty suit", doesn't it?
x
Obama's eloquence just might restore our image around the world
xx
Obama's Plan to Rejoin the World Community...
http://townhall.com/Columnists/PhyllisSchlafly/2008/12/23/obamas_plan_to_rejoin_the_world_community
Kissinger: Obama's 'task' is to help create a 'new world order'
"New World Order," the phrase previously attributed to "whacky conspiracy theorists," is now being PUBLICLY advocated by this senile old man. I hope Obama is too smart and too reasonable for this "NWO" stuff because this is one of the reasons I voted for him.
Kissinger: Obama's 'task' is to help create a 'new world order'
RAW STORY
Published: Tuesday January 6, 2009
|
President Nixon's Secretary of State, the aging Henry Kissinger, recently told CNBC that he believes the current world economic crisis is a "great opportunity" for President-elect Obama to help create a "new world order."
"What do you think the most important thing is for Barack Obama?" Kissinger was asked. "... If you had to say, this is going to be the country, or the conflict, or the place that will define the Obama administration, what would it be?"
Kissinger replied: "The President-elect is coming into office at a moment when there are upheavals in many part of the world simultaneously. You have India-Pakistan. You have, ah, a jihadist movement."
"But," continued Kissinger, "he can give new imputus to American foreign policy, partly because the ascension of him is so extraordinary and admirable.
"I think that his task will be to develop an overall strategy for America in this period, when really a "New World Order" can be created. It's a great opportunity. It isn't such a crisis."
In response to a parting question, Kissinger added that Obama's cabinet is an "extraordinarily able group of people."
"The phrase 'new world order' traces back at least as far as 1940, when author H.G. Wells used it as the title of a book about a socialist, unified, one-world government," writes Drew Zahn. "The phrase has also been linked to American presidents, including Woodrow Wilson, whose work on establishing the League of Nations pioneered the concept of international government bodies, and to the first President Bush, who used the phrase in a 1989 speech."
In that 1989 speech, the elder Bush told Congress, "A new partnership of nations has begun, and we stand today at a unique and extraordinary moment. Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective –– a new world order –– can emerge: A new era …… in which the nations of the world, east and west, north and south, can prosper and live in harmony."
It is a quote echoed across the Internet by those who believe a non-elected governing body is forming at the very top of the world's elite, and spreading.
Kissinger previously spoke at some length about this "new world order" during an interview with Charlie Rose.
"I think that when the new administration assess the position in which it finds itself it will see a huge crisis and terrible problems, but I can see that it could see a glimmer in which it could construct an international system out of it," Kissinger told Rose in a Dec. 2008 conversation.
"The jihadist crisis is bringing it home to everybody, that international affairs cannot be conducted entirely by drawing borders and defining international politics by who crosses what borders with organized military force," he said. "This has now been reinforced by the financial crisis, which totally unexpectedly has spread around the world. It limits the resources that each country has for a foreign policy geared to an assertion of its own pure interests."
Kissinger publicly supported McCain for President in 2008.
The following video was aired on CNBC on Jan. 5, 2009.
Find story and video at:
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Henry_Kissinger_Obama_should_act_to_0106.html
Excuse me.....
How can it be easy enough to prove with ISP numbers if the ISP numbers are not available? Yes, I may be blowing this out of proportion but you seem to be contradicting yourself and your posts, as well as some others did raise the specter (sp?) of this being a nonsecure website.
I do know such outings' with a lot more info that just ISP numbers have occurred on other political forums, i.e., proteswarrior.com (although I am bracing myself right now for the retaliation this mention will bring from right-wingers).
Golly, I kind of feel like this forum is in the midst of being hijacked by the conservative in-your-face folks somewhat.
Excuse me, but I'm AO.
You are careless. Even a small brain like mine can see there are major differences in gt and ao's writing styles. Check it out. Besides, we don't even live in the same part of the country. I'm sure the administrator can verify that for you if it makes an important difference in your life.
Also, AO is not Another Observer, in case that was your next accusation. See, there's more than one of us out here.
Excuse me but it should have said *did not*
Geesh, I forgot that this forum doesn't like apostrophes. Do you ever make a mistake? I don't make fun of people's typos, but evidently because you can't stick to the subject or respond directly to my post without calling names it's just a rabbit trail to discredit me. You know, whatever, you've proven that you're not worth my time.
See ya...
Excuse me, but it's a law. sm
She was asked to comply by the police and she IGNORED THEM. She is not above the law. None of us are. Everyone should be concerned about this behavior. Bush had nothing to do with it! My gosh, the things you say.
Excuse me.
If you don't want my opinions then don't read them. It's that simple.
Sorry I dared to enter your high and mighty world. I'll leave you to your hate.
Excuse me, but yes you did. sm
I usually don't post here, but here is what you said below. You have posted on our board, so I am posting here. By the way, your temper tantrums and attacks are not doing anyone any favors. Not an attack but an observation. Here is what you said below.
*The neocons, of course, can't have this, so they send our threads to people like you to crash the liberal board, utilizing their very own name calling and intimidation tactics. They never gave a hoot about Israel in the past, but suddenly they see Israel as their new best friend. They're winking at God and saying, See? We're on Israel's side now and won't be one of the groups against Israel, so bring on the Rapture. We've secured our place with God. The Rapture Index has indicated it's fasten your seatbelt time and they can't wait.*
As far as for the rest of what you have said, most of us have always been on Israel's side. You are showing how really and truly uninformed you are by statements like this.
Excuse me.....
the first settlers were not slave owners and came here for religious freedom. The founding fathers were deeply seated in Christianity. The country WAS founded on those principles. However, others came who did not ascribe to those principles, just as there are those who do not ascribe to those principles now. May I also remind you that slavery was introduced here by Dutch traders who bought slaves in Africa and brought them to America...much later. And who sold those slaves to Dutch traders? I believe it was other Africans, who enslaved and sold their own people. The original colonists at first got along with the Indians. It was much later, in the plains, where the near annihilation as you call it occurred. All during that time were present the Christian missionaries who tried to intervene, were often killed for it, by whites and Indians alike. I am Choctaw, I am descended from the indigenous peoples. Indians also killed and enslaved one another. It is not an *American* invention. And...who said I was painting anything as *rosy?* My point was, and still is, and is borne out daily, that the further you travel from Christian principles the more acceptable killing, slavery, and all other ill of the world becomes. Turning the blind eye so to speak. And it is generalizations like you state above, that the entire country is responsible for what a few did...it is that kind of mindset, like the other poster who thinks *Republicans* need to be destroyed. That kind of generalization is dangerous. Blaming an entire country, an entire group of people, for what a few do is not realistic. Not everyone in the country condoned everything. All through history you will see Christians spoke out against slavery, spoke out against what was happening with the Indians, spoke out against segregation, spoke out against abortion, and on and on and on. Perhap I should stop saying *this country* and say *the people in it.* *This country* was founded on Christian principles, and for a long time for the most part most of the people in it followed those principles. As time went on, fewer did. And somehow, the tide has completely turned and Christians are the enemy. But, I do stand corrected. America, the concept of America, has not chnaged. But the people in it most certainly have.
Excuse me again...
See my responses below.
You said: You need to read up on your history of this country.
I say: Right back at you. And you need to look deeply into books published 100 years ago as well as ones published in this century so you get the whole picture.
You said: Why does it matter what the origins of slavery were? The fact is, most of the founding fathers either owned slaves or families' had owned slaves. Washington owned hundreds of slaves, although he freed them as part of his will upon his death.
I say: I never said the founding fathers did not hold slaves. Re-read my post. I said that the original colonists did not hold slaves, and they did not. Jamestown was settled in 1607...slaves were introduced to this country around 1640, several years later. That is the truth and that is what I said. What matters about the origins of slavery is you want to condemn this country for holding slaves. I don't see you railing against Africa for starting the slave trade...if no slaves to sell, none would be bought. If you are going to rail against something, rail at the source. That is like blaming the school child for taking the drugs the dealer sold him.
You said: What do you mean, slavery came much later. Later than what?
I say: See my answer above.
You said: This country still condoned slavery for 100 years.
I say: Please do not say *this country condoned* because this country as a whole did NOT *condone.* Huge numbers of people did not own slaves. You know that. Only the more well to do folks could afford it. And through the years several thousand people did speak out about it and did what they could, and in case it escaped your attention, we finally fought a civil war in which one of the principles was to abolish slavery.
You sid:
As far as the founding fathers and our rights we protect here's some info:
It's important to differentiate the Constitution that the Founding Fathers cooked up from the Bill of Rights. Today when we think of the protections of the American system, we usually think of the shining example of ethics and goodness contained in the Bill of Rights. These are the first ten amendments to the Constitution. They are primarily the work of George Mason (1725-1792). He would have been a Founding Father because he was a delegate to the convention from Virginia, but he refused to sign the Constitution. He realized that it failed to protect individual liberties and failed to oppose slavery.
I say:
Excuse me, yet again, but isn't this the same George Mason who himself held slaves? Yes, he did. What he did was speak out about the slave trade, but he did not give up the slaves he already had. Don't know if he released them upon his death or not, like Washington did. He was holding slaves at the time he was criticizing the practice. Pardon me if I do not see that as the height of hypocrisy. And you are wrong,because the Constitution did not address slavery is NOT one of the reasons he did not sign it. You are correct that he did not sign it because he did not feel it addressed individual freedoms; but, in fact, he spoke OUT against including mention of slavery in the Constitution (probably because he owned slaves himself). Get your facts straight.
I can find no mention at all of the founding fathers lobbying against the Bill of Rights. Please supply me with the historical references.
You said: Mr. Mason lobbied against adoption of the Constitution just as many of the Founding Fathers lobbied against the Bill of Rights. Most of the Founding Fathers disapproved of giving ordinary citizens such liberties as freedom of religion, freedom from unreasonable search and torture, the right of free speech and so forth. In fact, when John Adams (1735-1826) was president (1797-1801), he took away freedom of speech.
I say: Well, what John Adams did then is no different than what the Democrats are trying to do now in shutting down talk radio. Same song, second verse. Get after them with equal zeal, I challenge you.
You said:
The Bill of Rights is really the people's voice against the Founding Fathers; liberty against conformity.
I say:
You are very liberal with your interpretation.
_________
You said:
As far as the Native American disgrace/slaughter, all I can say is you have an interesting viewpoint that is not shared by many indigenous. Bhoo-zhoo.
I say:
It is shared by many more than you are aware. But remember my friend...we are still entitled to our opinion, whether or not it agrees with yours. Question for you: if you still hold such emnity today, hundreds of years later, what could be done about it? You cannot turn back time. Most tribes are doing very well, have their own lands, pay no federal taxes on those lands, and are among some of the more well-to-do among us. If the Nation does not share that wealth properly with the tribe, then the people should take it up with the Nation, which many of us are doing. Native Americans did not just suffer at the hands of white men. They have also suffered a great deal at the hands of their own, and that has nothing to do with this country and everything to do with human beings. There are the good and bad among us, always have been, always will be...in every culture, every population, until the end of time. And dwelling in the past does nothing to help. Learn from the past, yes; but do not dwell there.
And try to get your information from several sources. Study for yourself, research for yourself. I learned long ago that is necessary.
Excuse me....
Thou shalt not kill - there is a federal law against murder. Thou shalt not steal - there is a federal law against stealing...you will have to do better than separation of church and state. That being said, the words "separation of church and state" are not in the Constitution. It says that there shall be no state-sponsored religion. To my knowledge there is no religion called United States of America. Did that happen while I wasn't looking? Funny to me that the government can pull many laws right out of the Bible, but come to one that that doesn't suit the more liberal ones among us and they start yelling separation of church and state. Go figure.
That being said, most of the laws on the books today have "religious wacko" origins. This country was founded by "religious wackos," or was that missed in history class? Oh yes, I forgot...the more liberal among us stopped teaching that inconvenient truth. However, one can still do searches and read the original writings of the founding fathers...if one is really interested in the truth.
What would folks like in place of "religious wacko" laws? Just let everyone do whatever they want...kill you if you are annoying or a burden to them? Kill you if you are no longer wanted? Steal from you if you have something they want and can't afford to buy for themselves? America was basically a ""Christian theocracy in its infancy, meaning the basic laws all came straight from the Bible. It was also a democracy...the two are not mutually exclusive. And there it goes again, lumping Christians and any other religious group into one group of "religious wackos." Extremely divisive and unnecessary. And, it looks to me like it is not the "religious wackos" on this site who are going bananas when someone doesn't agree with them....
Excuse me?
Excuse me but I do not believe
I bashed SAHMs. I think it should be a personal decision and one should not be looked down upon if they choose to work or choose to stay home. You have no right to bash her any more than she has right to bash you for staying home. I work out of my home because my husband and I need this extra income I bring in. My sister-in-law stays home with her kids and my brother works his @ss off trying to support them and he hardly ever gets to see his kids because he is supporting his family. He wants to spend more time with them but he cannot. So why is it fair for him to never see his kids to support his family working 2 jobs? My mom stayed at home and I hardly ever saw my dad because he was working to support us. Don't you think that sucked with me never seeing my dad or was that okay because my mom was there. If my sister-in-law would get a job, my brother wouldn't have to work 2 jobs and he could see his kids more. If my mom would have worked, my dad wouldn't have had to work that OT and I would have seen him more.
It is great that you can stay at home if that is what you choose to do, but don't bash others for their choice. It isn't like SP is up and walking out of the door to never see her kids again and they do have Todd Palin, their dad, to be with them.
Excuse me, but I think that
"Divine and perfect order" originates in God and only God.
Excuse you. lol. nm
nm
Any excuse at all
Black Republican Activist Bob Parks predicts riots will ensue if Obama wins or loses the election.
Parks, a syndicated writer, talk show host, and Republican activist, lists his reasons in the video, Obama’s America: Win or Lose, as to why he believes an Obama loss would mean “things could get ugly on a grand scale” or that an Obama win would give ‘”punks” the “greatest of reasons” to take to the streets:
“Now what occasionally happens when a city’s team wins a championship? We have riots! There’s looting, hooliganism, vandalism, drunk and disorderliness, assaults, and sometimes injury or death, and this wouldn’t be about one single city. Can you imagine the potential for nationwide rioting by punks, looking an excuse and now having the greatest of reasons to do so?”
Excuse me? I was not the one
who posted that other post about being jealous. So please do not attack me when you don't know what I have or have not posted.
Well, excuse me! I am too new to this
board to be familiar with all the vernacular. I was just responding to a remark made by a poster earlier who spewed out a hateful personal attack on another poster, and someone asked the Moderator to ban that person from the board!
Excuse me....put yourself out there??
Because you ask a simple question that merits a background check and having your life made public? He is not RUNNING for ANYthing!! Do you hear yourself? The more posts I see like this the more I understand the way most socialist countries end up going....freaking amazing.
Excuse you, but...
he has already said that yes, he does fall into the over 250,000 bracket, and while noone likes to pay taxes, he would be paying taxes imposed on that bracket.
Excuse me?
Who gives a rip about medical records. I want proof this guy was born in the USA. I want proof before he can be elected president. Who cares about Palin's health. McCain may have skin cancer, but it is not as bad as lung cancer. Did you know Obama smokes? Shoot he could pass away from lung cancer before McCain's skin cancer. Honestly, cannot compare medical records to birth certificate.
That's the best excuse you have for the
nm
Please excuse me....(sm)
I saw scripture quoted and many references to God on here, so I assumed this must be the faith board. Funny how you didn't have a problem with that.
Excuse me?
Of course, we have the enigma of being home to some of the biggest crooks in the world (Bush, Cheney, Delay, Perry, etc.) but this is a beautiful state. Do not associate this beautiful state with the ugly criminals.
Excuse me, but I think YOU are the one with the
Whenver someone posts something you don't agree with you are quick to jump on and insult them. You have a very nasty attitude and if you don't believe me, go down the board and read some of YOUR comments. You are the one who invites attacks by your nasty attitude and name calling.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...
Excuse me.
Most of us have 401Ks and are anything but "gleeful" that 50% of the value has been wiped out. Pointing out that Obama and his Treasury chief had a significant role in the enormous drop in the market since inauguration day has nothing to do with "glee". It's just simple fact.
And even the Dems wondered when Geithner was going to get off his bony a$$ and show us the "boy wonder" that he was said to be - and isn't. Meanwhile, the markets continued to tumble. There's no disputing any of this.
And the markets have a very, VERY long way to go before any of us get back what we've lost, so I would kindly suggest that you save any and ALL market-related comments for that moment. You should know, thought, that it might be a very long time coming.
It took decades for the market to recover what it lost in the Depression. Meanwhile, of course, there were "up days" and "down days" and "up months" and "down months"...and if you had been living then, it would have been extremely foolish for you to make anything at all out of the little rallies that occurred. Don't make the same mistake here or you'll only make yourself look foolish.
Excuse me again. A little boy wants a
boyfriend and that makes him gay? Little boys have need of friends, maybe not so much as little girls, but they do have need of male friends. Where was the little boy's father at that age?
excuse me but....
This midwesterner wants to know, did you just lump people who do vote Republican and those who read the Bible with people who are illiterate, who do not get past 6th grade and do marry at age 16???
They had been looking for an excuse....(sm)
to do that anyway....and this would have been it.
excuse me?
What do you mean get back to draft registration? Draft registration is still enforced..... illegally I might add. In this state,whenever a male registers for a drivers license, unknowing to him, he is automatically registered into the draft.....ILLEGAL! ILLEGAL!
That is called forced servitude. Have you forgotten Vietnam? All that forced servitude didn't do a d@mn thing but cause the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent BOYS!
No, your military will not be good! You want people sent to war that do NOT want to be there and do NOT believe in whatever war our government has gotten us into this time? Pleeeze! Where do you come up with all this crap! I would much rather have individuals that have signed into the military of their own free will...which is exactly how legally it is supposed to be. Forced servitude is illegal and I certainly don't want someone out there that doesn't want to be!!
Heheh!! I use that excuse
all the time...cream filled doughnut why not, going to die soon anyway...dentist? Heck no - don't need these teeth much longer...term life insurance? Load up on that boys, we aren't going to make it to 70 anyway!
Heh, I can laugh but it's really kind of pathetic. I had a sister die at 52 of breast cancer nobody knew she had (walking, talking, eating, working right up to 3 days before she died!)- no health insurance of course, couldn't afford the COBRA when she left her spiffy management job of 30 years. That's life in the only industrialized nation in the world not to offer universal health care to its citizens. In other words, don't be stupid or irresponsible enough to get sick at the wrong time!
Otherwise live well and enjoy yourself while you can - I certainly do:)
Excuse me, but he did meet with her
I mean, if she's hated him for so long like she now claims then why didn't she tell that to his face the first time. Oh, the first time she was singing his praises. That's just blatantly odd. Most of us never get one appointment with the Pres., but this chick thinks she deserves a second one just because she's changed her wishy-washy mind because her son died in the military service he SIGNED UP FOR!! As John Stossel says, "give me a break!"
Excuse me, starcat said it
x
Excuse me, but I don't need your skewed
description of what I care about, and of course I care about fighting terrorism. If Bush cares so much about it, why did he thumb his nose at the 9/11 Commission?
And I don't just care that Bush lied about warrants and violated his oath to uphold the Constitution. I care very much that Bush has done nothing BUT lie since the day he entered the White House, if not before.
I can't trust a liar, and I can't trust Bush. Sometimes he scares me more than the terrorists he claims to care so much about fighting.
By the way, can you tell me how letting people carry knives on airplanes again is helping to combat terrorism?
Excuse me? Labels?
Excuse me, but I AM a Democrat and I DO
agree with Liberal's snarky comment.
Worn out excuse...sm
When I hear someone say, *I'd rather us be there [Iraq] than have them [terrorist] over here attacking our country,* I come to this question.
Does that really sound fair to Iraqis? Do you think Iraqis would rather us be there fighting [our] enemy in their country, which just so happen mostly showed up after we did, so that we don't have to fight them here? I'm sure Iraqis' are filled with joy that their country is at war so America does not have to fight at home. It's not a nobel policy and that's putting it as politically correct as I can for the purpose of posting here.
Seems the past six years blanket statements with no thought have become very popular. I've heard a lot of explanations why this war is a good idea, but to me that is the worst.
|
