Perhaps if you would try to make sense people could answer your questions. nm
Posted By: MeMT on 2008-10-29
In Reply to: Read the post your thread appears under. - The one about the questions...sm
x
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
Let me answer your questions:
I'm going to repost your post and answer the questions in context:
I happen to agree with you, but does this also mean:
That all liberals aren't as bad as they are routinely portrayed on the conservative board? I'm sure there are some liberals that aren't as jaded as you and some others here. They routinely show up here only to be labeled a conservative when they don't go to the extremes that you do.
That all Muslims aren't death-seeking people? Maybe there are Muslims that are not death seeking. Where are they? Point them out to me? Why are they allowing their faith to over-run by extremists? Many of us keep waiting for the good Muslims to stand up against the radical Islamofascists, but they are strangely silent which leads me to believe that they are either scared of the extremists or they stand behind what the extremists are doing. I mean, there are a lot of people on many different forums and appearing on television to relay the fact that the *Jesus Camp* is an extreme fringe of Christianity and not true Christianity, but there is not a vocal majority coming out within the Muslim community to say the extremists are not representative of mainstream Islam.
That extremist fringes in any group are bad? I think I made that clear in my first post.
Muslims are routinely portrayed on this board and by the media and by Bush as lumped together in one violent clump. This is unfair, untrue and does nothing to promote peace and understanding.
Again, I don't see how it's unfair or untrue based on the evidence all around us, because the Muslim community is doing nothing to try and counter that they are anything but a religion of war (Jihad). They do not want peace. They do not want understanding They want annihilation of anyone who does not convert. If you can prove to me that the Muslim MAJORITY is peaceful then I will listen, but all the evidence I have studied up to and including some of the Koran proves otherwise.
All religions need to be respected and tolerated in America. Isn't that what America is supposed to stand for? Well sure...that is if the religion is not dead set on destroying America. America is to protect America and the Judeo-Christian beliefs it was founded upon. We tolerate any peaceful religion who wants to tolerate us in return, but if your sole purpose is to destroy America, well, common sense tells you that America has to defend herself and other weaker countries that are susceptable to bullying from the warmongering religion.
You have failed to answer any questions
You have been asked several times by different posters what you would propose to do to keep America safe. You avoid that question. All you seem to be able to do is criticize and insult others and essentially run people off this board who deviate from your extreme views. Sorry I invaded your hatefest.
HA HA.. Obama needs to answer MANY questions
nm
It would have been nice if they would have let him answer their questions
I have never seen the group on The View come down so hard on anybody like they did Glen. All because of a stupid comment he made in his radio program? Wait a minute.....he DID NOT say what they said he said. I listened to the tape and he did not do what they said.
I'm not a real big Glen Beck fan, I like him somewhat, but he does speak about things that concern us...like ACORN and the government. Did you know they have been investigating ACORN for the past week and finding out all sorts of problems with this group from the "horse's mouth" not from his mouth. Probably not because you don't believe ACORN wears a halo.
JMHO
She refused to answer the moderator's questions!
Sarah Palin had certain talking points that had been drilled into her, and she was going to get them out tonight by hook or by crook. She decided not to pay attention to the moderator's questions and just respond at whim with the canned talking points word for word. Although, she didn't officially crash and burn, she definitively did not show one ounce of intelligence. She was more like a Chatty Cathy Doll. Pull her string and she will give you a canned talking point. Pull it again...you get another canned talking point! Heaven help the entire earth if this wacko is elected to office!
Speak patiently, answer their questions, teach nm
Well that does not make sense because
Her daughter is an adult and able to make her own decisions on what she wants for her life. Unless your going to lock her inside the house and accompany her every single place she goes to outside the home its impossible.
Here's some examples. I joined the military without asking my parents. Would you hold my parents responsible for that. My cousin grew up in strict Christian home (church 3 times a week, sang in chorus, taught in their sunday school. And she was 17 years old. She also got pregnant (and this was in a town of less than 10,000 people so her parents knew where she was at all the time. My aunt and uncle should not be held accountable for what their daughter does. A lot of kids are getting pregnant at earlier and earlier ages. There is a point where they have minds of their own and decide what it is they want to do with their lives and a lot of them want to have families. Gov. Palin's daughter evidently did too. She's an adult and do not need to tell or get permission from her parents on that.
As for Gov. Pailin dealing with her issues at home? There are no issues to deal with and she is doing just fine.
U don't make sense.
.
That does make sense...... thank you. sm
but I really want to know WHY the post was moved when it related to a topic that had been discussed here.
You make little sense
for someone claiming to have a triple digit IQ, or at least I think that's what you mean.
You miss my point altogether.
And then have to resort to outhouse jokes to boot. *sigh*
I was trying to figure out what you meant by calling me a potty mouth, and I just couldn't get it....must be my low IQ showing...or maybe it's yours.
Anyway, if you're referring to my comment about your initials, that's a term of endearment in my family, as well as a favorite movie candy from our youth. You probably don't remember them. Nothing else was meant or implied. Apologies, if you took it any other way.
Thank you Thank you! You make so much sense.
nm
Can't make sense of your respone.
No, I haven't got the picture. The picture is incomplete. So you suggest that anyone can look at the ISPs to see if a poster has more than one alias but then you say only the administrator can do it. You don't make sense. Is the administrator giving out ISP information to certain people, or just you, or no one? Please explain
Can't make sense of your post.
Are you saying that the conservatives believe only videos portray the truth? Then wouldn't the videotape of soldiers being interviewed for 60 MInutes also be the truth then?
Military Times is not a military newspaper and does not speak for servicemen? Who does it cater to primarily if not the military? Hairdressers?????? Medical transcriptionists???? Yes, it is privately owned and is a Gannett publication. While their survey may not be the most scientific thing ever done it still has merit. See below:
A poll for the Military Times newspapers, which questioned 6,000 randomly selected active-duty members, gives us a much better sense. In case the myth that military personnel still widely support the president's policy hadn't been debunked enough, these results should do the trick.
Barely one in three service members approve of the way the president is handling the war, according to the new poll for the four papers (Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times and Marine Times). In another startling finding, only 41% now feel it was the right idea to go to war in Iraq in the first place.
And the number who feel success there is likely has shrunk from 83% in 2004 to about 50% today. A surprising 13% say there should be no U.S. troops in Iraq at all. [...]
Nearly three-quarters of the respondents think today's military is stretched too thin to be effective.
As for the escalation, only 38% of those surveyed believe more troops should be sent to Iraq, while 39% think there should be the same number or less than there are now. (The rest said they didn't know.)
Other plans out there make more sense
I've been researching other candidates and their plans.
On the Dem side - Kucinich has a plan for only one insurance provider to everyone. Sends all the bloodsucking insurance companies and their "preexisting conditions" and "not medically necessary" straight out of business. I kinda like that plan, as I used to do billing and it would sure cut through a ton of red tape for doctors, hospitals, their staff and the patients.
On the Rep side - Huckabee has a plan that does away with employers providing insurance. That's kind of scary, as "pooling" to get better insurance rates has always been the cheaper way to go.
But any plan I've seen doesn't worry me as much as Hillary's!
Anybody else who has heard of a candidate with a good plan, please chime in!
Let's see if we can make a little sense out of this mess....
You said:
The subject is not the name of the proceedings, the intent of the inquiry, whether or not you think he should or should not be impeached or any of the other distractions you have thrown up in this thread.
Answer: I know what Dennis Kucinich says. It is not new. I have heard it. I have heard it from any number of Democrats. All I am saying is if they think they have the evidence to impeach him, why the heck don't they do it?? That is not a distraction, it is a valid question. I don't care what they call it...all I said was, what they are doing now, even the chairman said was not an impeachment hearing. HE said it, I didn't, so why don't you accuse HIM of throwing up distractions and circling around, yada yada. Perhaps because when Democrat throws up distractions and circles around that is fine in your books??
You said: You circled around the subject when you thought you could gain some traction/advantage when trying to refute the accusations against Bush regarding lying about WMDs/yellowcake uranium intelligence, trying to make it appear that total exoneration would be a piece of cake..as if that were the only thing the democrats have on the table.
Answer: Geez, stop putting words in my mouth and assigning agendas to me I don't have. In going and doing some of the research you shouted at me to do, I found excerpts from the impeachment-trolling-factfinding-whatEVER the heck makes you happy to call it committee, I found where one of the lone Republicans on the committee made mention of a document recently declassified by the CIA that supposedly corroroborates (and I said supposedly because I don't know, because I haven't seen it, because it is part of the blacked out stuff) Bush's story about Niger and yellowcake and exposes Joe Wilson's story about the same. I did not say it myself, and I did not make it up. One of the committee members said it. Yes, I would be interested in it. I would be interested in any evidence Kucinich has other than speechifying about it. That is why I would be interested in a real impeachment trial, if that is what they want, so we can hear from ALL witnesses, see ALL the documents, and make our OWN decisions. I want more that Kucinich's word and Vincent Bugliosi's book. I want the CIA declassified document and the whole ball of wax. I want people under oath when they testify. Although, after Bill Clinton, even that is not always helpful since he chose to lie anyway, but still...not everyone is willing to perjure himself/herself. If that means I have my head in the sand, so be it. LOL.
YOU SAID: The subject is the CONTENT of the hearings, otherwise known as the ISSUES. It makes no difference where you get them from. DK is the best when it comes to explaining the positions concisely. The prosecuting parties are all amazingly consistent in their identification of what their contentions are and how they back them up.
ANSWER: Well excuse me, but didn't I read the hearings were closed and blacked out? So how do you know what the content is??? As I said, I have heard what Kucinich says. It is not new with him. I just need more than his word for it.
YOU SAID: What you are refusing to do is examine the other side of the story (that is to say, the specifics as laid out by the democrats)...that side of the story that takes you out of that safe place where you always stay...
ANSWER: Look that that finger in the mirror, points right back at you. You are completely unwilling to entertain any thought that you, and these Democrats, might just be wrong. If I was terrified, as you state, or did not want to hear anything about Bush maybe being guilty, I would not be hawking for his impeachment. What you are doing is make me the enemy, classic attack mode. Turn that mode off and try to hear me this time: I DON'T KNOW if Bush lied. NOBODY does. I don't know if he did or he didn't, but I DO KNOW that I need more than Dennis Kucinich's word or interpretation of whatever evidence he has to believe that Bush lied. You are so consumed with hatred for the man and the so-called right wing that you are ready to move right to "you're guilty." You believe he is guilty and you have not heard any of the defense. You do not WANT to hear any of the defense. How, pray tell, is your attitude any different from the one you accuse me of? If this was a Democrat president instead of a republican president, would you be on here righteously indignant presupposing his guilt based on a Republican-dominated committee and a lawyer's book who was not even close to the events that took place? Of course you wouldn't! You would be here saying it was a railroad hatchet job. Don't bother denying it. It would ring pretty hollow.
YOU SAID: that support your arguments, making nice with those who agree with your ideas, the condescending "let me enlighten you" instructions (i.e., "read up on Marxism, but let me interpret it for you if you don't see it my way" passages) and the inevitable name-calling, innuendoes, half-truths, misprepresentations, statements taken out of context, jumping to far-fetched conclusions when making degrading statements about democrats, and the vitriol that issues forth in your endless Obama bashing.
ANSWER: Talk about throwing up a distraction. As to condescending, when that tone is used with me I respond in kind. If you don't like it, don't condescend to me.
As far as that other litany, it would apply to Dennis Kucinich and Vincent Bugliosi as well. If they have documentation and not opinion to back up what they are saying, then why (and please stop dodging this fundamentally important question as you have so artfully what, three times now?): If they have the evidence, all these "prosecutors," why don't they go to trial?? That is a simple question. Answer it, please. As I said, I would WELCOME a trial, where BOTH sides are heard, under oath, all the documents in evidence, and no opinion, just fact. I mean that. And if it was proven that Bush lied, that he cooked intelligence, abused executive privilege or whatever and they convict him he should be thrown out of office (which would be largely symbolic, doncha think, since he has what, about 3-4 months left? Sheesh). I have no problem with that. My question is why don't they do it?? And if they are unwilling to, why are you so incensed at me? It is not MY fault they won't impeach him.
You can sure see the splinter in my eye, but the timber in your own seems to escape you.
As to Obama bashing, I gave opinion on what are known facts. His association with Reverend Wright...his church's association with Louis Farrakhan...his church's black liberation theology...his radical way left pro abortion stance...all facts. There is plenty of McCain bashing going on too. I don't hear any righteous indignation on your part concerning McCain bashing. So it is okay to bash Republicans? I see.
YOU SAID: Obstruction is something the right-wingers have down to an art. You have mastered well.
Answer: Ahem. Seems like the Democrats are the obstructive ones. Last time I looked, Pelosi was a Democrat, and she is obstructing an impeachment. Take your rant to her where it might do some good. I would tell them if you think you have the goods, bring it on. Ms. Pelosi is obstructing that.
You said: At the same time, it is an extremely transparent and ineffective way to address issues that are vital to our country.
Answer: Issues vital to our country? Impeaching a president who only has 3 more months in office is vital to our country? For everyone to just assume dennis Kucinich and these prosecutors are telling the truth and the accused has no opportunity for defense? That sounds more like Russia than America.
You said: Clearly, you are unwilling to attempt to look at, let alone participate in any kind of real debate that excludes the tactics you use in these posts.
Answer: Debate involves both sides being willing to hear both sides. You are not willing to entertain the thought of Bush not being guilty. In fact, absolutely will not entertain it. I, on the other hand, said let's have the impeachment trial and get it all out in the open once and for all, both sides. That sounds like I am very willing to hear both sides. Unlike you.
YOU SAID: That would involve actually knowing what you are talking about...and the only way to get that is to peek inside the hearings and focus on the ISSUES under discussion. Somehow this seems to terrify you. No problem. There are plenty of places beyond this forum where really informed discourse is available.
Answer: Peeking inside hearings where only one side is presented is NOT debate, and it is NOT the way to find the truth. Anyone with a reasoning OPEN mind sees that. Impeachment would be televised. We would hear testimony first hand. We could see documents first hand. None of this behind the door whispering stuff. Get it ALL out in the open. THAT seems to terrify you, not me. Seems to terrify Democrats, otherwise Nancy Pelosi would not be blocking it. That is common sense.
As to knowing what I am talking about...you only know what Dennis Kucinich is talking about and what little leaks out of those closed hearings. One-sided without anything from the other side. That is decided UNdemocratic for someone who calls himself/herself a Democrat. I am just amazed that you cannot see that everything you accuse me of, you are in spades. LOL. Amazing.
You said: Go head. Stick your head in the sand, and keep it there, if that's what makes you happy. That's what a comfort zone is...a world where you can be right 100% of the time and live under the pretense that you know all there is to know.
Answer: Sheesh. Dial it back a notch will ya. You just described yourself to a tee. "Your comfort zone where you can be right 100% of the time and live under the pretense that you know all there is to know." You have basically been lecturing to me paragraph after paragraph that you know all there is to know, YOU know the truth, and I just refuse to see it. You say honest debate, yet you have no intention of entertaining any such thing. If you did, you would want to hear both sides in an open forum. You don't. You want a select committee comprised of majority partisan Democrats calling witnesses they know are going to support their aim without asking anyone who might refute any of it...come ON. Talk about transparent. Lynch mob mentality, hang him and ask questions later. All this drama over a man who is leaving office in 3 months. All this anger....
I will try to say this again, and maybe you can dial back your disdain and condescencion just long enough to hear it...I have stated emphatically and will state it again: I DON'T know all there is to know. I have heard stuff from both sides, both sides equally convinced of innocent and guilt, but neither able to prove it definitively. Which is why I said...impeach the man. If you feel like they have the goods, then you should be lobbying the Democratic leadership not to block impeachment, little obstructionists that they are. Let's get it ALL out in the open. Both sides. ALL of it. And if they are not willing to do it...then in my opinion, they should fold their tent and HUSH. And that is the difference between you and me...if this was a Democratic President I would be saying the same thing to a Republican committee...if you aren't going to do anything other than a political exercise, fold up your tents and HUSH.
Yes, I agree with that, this make sense...nm
nm
does this make sense? Surely,
the CIA knows the truth or Scotland Yard?
You and Myth make sense
I had forgotten to look at it that way, but on reflecting on it, that does make sense. Heck, I even voted for Jimmy Carter when I was a young wild-child. I, too, have grown a bit more conservative, but I'm somewhere in the middle. It also does make sense about the celebs. Much like back during the red scare when McCarthy had anyone with suspected communist sympathies blacklisted, the pendulum has swung to where anyone with a conservative viewpoint would probably have a hard time finding work.
Thanks for 'splaining, Lucy!
Your rants make absolutely no sense
none at all....
No, honestly it does not make grammatical sense
no it doesn't
Huh?? This post doesn't even make sense
.
yeah, but could care less really doesn't make sense if you think about it -nm
x
Don't bother...... you'll never be able to make sense of ignorance
--
Do ya think lithium would help here? (only kidding, doesn't make sense, but this is Capitol Hill
nm
Why can't some people just use common sense?
Obama is going to try to "force" those who want healthcare to be unionized..... which is illegal, but you hide and watch........which will, of course, kill small businesses. Ron Paul does have it right..........
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uG8MHYNY4Xs
You people have a sick sense of humor.
From the August 29 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: I love these kinds of stories, 'cause we're just getting them all over the place: Waistlines continue to grow in the United States. Another crisis story here, ladies and gentlemen, from our old buddies at the Associated Press. The gravy train -- make that the sausage, biscuits, and gravy train -- just keep [sic] on rolling in most of America last year. Thirty-one states showing an increase in obesity. Mississippi continued to lead the way; an estimated 30 percent of adults there are considered obese, an increase of 1.1 percentage points when compared with last year's report. Indeed, the five states with the highest obesity rates are Mississippi, Alabama, West Virginia, Louisiana, and Kentucky -- exhibit much higher rates of poverty than the national norm. Meanwhile, the five states with the lowest obesity have less poverty. They are Colorado, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
LIMBAUGH: I think you might then say that the obesity crisis could be the fault of government, liberal government. Food stamps, all those -- you know, I'm gonna tell you people a story. I -- just, well, the government, you could say, is killing these people because we know obesity kills, and the government's killing the poor. The Bush administration is killing the poor with too much food.
Most common sense people know it's welfare!!
nm
THAT is your answer? People let you get away with that?
Unacceptable answer for word verbiage. Do people actually let you get away with that?
You must run in really tolerant debate circles. Best stay in them. This kind of behavior is not tolerated in most political circles I know of. But it is a good example of how far we have slipped into the he said/she said atmosphere of debate in this country. Just say anything and never have to prove it. It works well for the MSM, of which you seem so fond. Well, should have known better. I am off for greener pastures and debate fields where people actually have to prove what they say. Imagine that!
People who make more
pay more taxes to begin with. So why up it for them? I have no problem with people receiving money from the government if they paid too much from their earnings. However, when there are people out there who aren't working and so no money is going to the government....I don't think they should get a check back from the government. You should have to contribute before you get anything back. That is taking money from hard working individuals and giving it to people including the ones who don't work. That isn't fair and that is nothing but welfare.
I think what he really does is make people think.
What he says may sound outrageous, but once you think about what he's really saying, some of it makes sense.
There should have been an investigation about 9/11, yes, but did we need those families on the TV every single night repeating that? No. I can't say I hate them for doing it because it was really the fault of the journalists that kept shoving cameras in thier faces. That's not to say at all that they don't deserve compassion, but they also should have been left alone to grieve.
And yes, the Katrina victims certainly deserve compassion, but I know for a fact that if a hurricane was coming my way, I'd get as far away as I could by any means that I could find. I don't hate the people that stayed behind, but what about the people who did get out and still lost everything - do they deserve any less compassion? And you didn't hear thier stories every night.
Yes, Beck is a radical right-winger and that's why us right-wingers like him so much. I may not always agree with what he says (much like Rush), but what he says definitely makes you think.
If you want to think he's an idiot, that's fine, but him and a lot of other right-wingers on "Fixed Noise" have been and are still right about a lot of things going on in our country. The left doesn't have the market cornered on what's right just because thier man is in the White House - no one knows that better than those of us who voted for Bush and have been regretting it for several years.
All these people make up a minority
I never said that Jefferson was alone in his views just that he was in a minority. Again, from the evidence I've read on both sides liberal philosophers and professors have chosen to re-write history. I think the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights speak for themselves and literally scream about a country with it's foundations in God. You can choose to ignore the words Almighty God, Divine providence etc., but it does not make them any less there in A deist belives in a deity to answer the question posted above either by the writer of the post or the writer of the excerpted text (I could not figure out who was posing the question).
We could throw quotes back and forth all day and never see eye to eye about it, but I choose to err on the side of God and Jesus Christ. I choose to live by faith that Jesus Christ is the only way, but let's look at it in a common sense way. Say I am wrong, and there are many *paths* to God then I'm still eternally okay, because I have embraced this path of which there are many, but say there are not many paths to God and Jesus Christ is truly the only way....then that's going to leave the people on the *other paths* in sad condition when they leave this world.
How about we tax the PRODUCTS that make people fat, sm
rather than "fatness"? Modified food starch, high fructose corn syrup, soy oils hidden in products? Imagine how much $$ we could make for so-called children's health programs if we actually taxed the items (like SODA POP and crappy snacks) that are MAKING THEM FAT in the first place!
With the flat tax, people who make under 40,000 per year will not have to
pay taxes the way it reads now. They estimate that people making over 40,000 will be able to produce more tax income than the current income tax w/o including people who make under 40,000.
Q and A about the Flat Tax.
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7146/flattax.html
People like you make me ashamed to call myself
su
your mixing people up to try and make a point but not doing it well
First you compare Obama to her, but then on an issue you compare Obama to McCain because you know you don't have anything bad to compare to Gov Palin with. Then when you talk about Obama you praise him and when you talk above Gov Palin you demean her. Where is the fairness in that?
First, nobody is taking anything away from Obama. He is intelligent, articulated, has a beautiful family, has done quite well for himself both career and family wise.
Nobody is saying he is exotic and comparing it to her saying she is a quantessential American Story. People are very impressed with Obama's life history. Hawaii is a very exotic sounding state (I've never heard him described as exotic). Ahh Hawaii, beautiful oceans, white sandy beaches - everyone's dream vacation. You make it sound like people are tearing him down because he was born in Hawaii. Alaska is quite different. You have to admit that hunting moose is not your everyday experience but nowhere in any news source or anywhere have I heard people compare where they grew up in to put one down and bring the other up.
Nobody has said that because his name is Barack he's a radical unpatriotic Muslim. He's a Muslim turned Christian period, but not because of his name, and nobody has said she's a Maverick because of what she named her kids.
Nobody has said he is unstable because he graduated Harvard. On the contrary. People have said he is one of the most intelligent persons to have graduated and become the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. That's not an accomplishment many people can say they have and that is what I am hearing everywhere. And who cares how many colleges she went to (this is your first demeaning statement of her by saying they were "small" colleges instead of just saying "5 colleges"). My DH has attended about 7 colleges all because of where he was living at the time and he is far from "well grounded" and I have never heard people say that about her.
Second part of belittling her and raising him up is by saying he is a "brilliant" community organizer. Brilliant may be your view of him, but I would just say he was a community organizer. No need to say he is brilliant and all other words of praise while belittling her. Yes, she was on TV but she was not a "local weather girl" (another cheap shot at trying to put her down). She was a TV News anchor and covered sports. And your description of her time served as councilwoman, mayor, and governor is a little more than insulting. It goes to verify that you just hate her and what she has accomplished. You need to research all the good things she has done and whether you like it or not, she has done a lot of good things for the people and made their lives better. And to try attack the population of Alaska as though it's some kind of negative for her, and make her sound any less by saying they were small towns and state. Governer is governer. Responsibilites are the same wether your a governor of Alaska, Hawaii, California or any other state (give or take a few of the state programs). BTW Alaska is more than twice the size of Texas. And funny how Dean was the frontrunner for the dems when the population of Vermont is smaller than Alaska (yes, I'm sure you all don't want to remember that little tid bit).
Gov. Sarah Palin was on the city council for 2 years, Chaired the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Committee for 1 year, was mayor of Wasilla for 6 years. She defeated a 3-term mayor. She created positions and even reduced her salary. She cut property taxes by 75% and eliminated personal property and business inventory taxes. She made improvements to the roads and sewers and increased funding to the police department. She also procured funding for storm-water treatment to protect freshwater resources. She ran a second term and won by 74%. She's promoted oil and natural gas resource development. She sold a jet, got rid of a personal chef and drives herself to work from her home (50 miles) even though she is allowed a per diem and hotel. She got rid of the bridge to nowhere and she signed into law the AGIA. So your portrayal of what Gov. Palin has done is quite inaccurate while boosting up Obama. Gov. Palin's past qualifications will most definitely contribute and help her to be a good VP.
Obama was a state legislature from 1997-2004, in the US Senate in 2004, and became a junior senator in 2005. You can't even seriously compare the two.
Yes Obama has been married to Michelle for 19 years and their two daughters are beautiful. Sarah has been married to Todd for 20 years and they have five beautiful children. (your comparing Barack to Sarah in all your answers - so why did you jump to John McCain on this one?)
Whatever kind of safe sex education you want to give pre-schoolers (who should be
more concerned with learning how to read and write is just wrong). Gov. Palin did not advocate teaching only abstinence. And she had nothing to do with her daughter getting pregnant. The best of children come up pregnant both in democratic and republican party.
Funny how you were all for Bill Clinton getting ready to be called "First Dude", but now you have a problem with Todd Palin being called "First Dude", and don't even try to justify that one with Bill Clintons background. Are you saying the the VP's spouse is suppose to have a college education? How egotistical of you. Especially since he is a commercial fisherman, for 18 years worked in the oil fields, member of the United Steelworkers, among other things. That's a pretty stable background.
Kudo's to Michelle for graduating from Harvard, but not everyone wants to go to college to be a lawyer (and in my opinion we need less lawyers in DC, not more), but to take away from Todd Palin because he doesn't have a college degree????
And to mention such an insignificant note that he didn't vote until 25? Who cares? And I'm not sure that is even true, but just plain trivial.
This post is just another liberal post trying to trash and demean decent people, not giving credit where credit due, while propping up your candidate, with inflated statements.
Ok, much clearer now to you?
I just knew some people would make this into an argument
I just thought it was pretty cool and on the lighter side. But...as usual, some people just want to argue.
To make it easier for some people, I tallied the votes (sm)
O did not vote on the issues 289 times. He voted yea 220 times and voted nay 128 times.
I haven't had the time to really check out the yea's or nay's but I will in the next couple of days.
is it our government's job to make the world's people happy?
nm
why do we vote for people to make things complicated?
People who make their bills 900 pages should be rejected on the spot. There should be a page max to make sure that the people representing us fully understands what they are getting US into. JERKS!!!! thanks for showing me that!
Why does the Government have to create Laws to make people Volunteer?...
http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/2009/03/15/meet-the-compulsive-service-orwellian-give-act-to-be-voted-on-this-week/
Next up on the agenda this week is the GIVE Act, short for the “Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act”.
The ABC News headline ‘GIVE’ Act Would Give Back. Volunteer Programs Would Provide Jobs to Unemployed, Assist Those in Need says it all.
In his address to Congress last month, President Barack Obama called on lawmakers to expand federally funded national service opportunities.
“To encourage a renewed spirit of national service for this and future generations, I ask this Congress to send me the bipartisan legislation that bears the name of Sen. Orrin Hatch as well as an American who has never stopped asking what he can do for his country — Sen. Edward Kennedy,” the president said.
Democrats say they may be able to respond to that call by the end of this month.
The Senate is working on the Kennedy/Hatch Serve America Act of 2008, and the House is working on a similar bill, called the Generations Invigorating Volunteering and Education (GIVE) Act.
Here's a real nice conservative statement. How to make friends and influence people.
"Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson suggested on-air Monday, Aug. 22, 2005, that American operatives assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to stop his country from becoming "a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism."
NOBODY can make Saddam look good. But Bush seems to be the ONLY one who can make him look less
If you can't make abortion illegal, just make it impossible (sm)
That's right, Bush is still alive and well. Check this out.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#28024676
Yeah, I know it's MSNBC, but how many other people are doing a lame duck watch?
More questions...
When and where did Democrat deny in the past being African-American? I don't recall seeing a post to that effect and can't even imagine the reasons or circumstances under which such a post would even be posted. If you want to be believed, produce the post. Otherwise, it's just another necon lie, designed to take the focus off the real problem, which is a racist who apparently is proud to be such a deplorable human being.
More importantly, why are you so aggressive in your defense of such a deplorable human being when your own president has condemned what he said? Sounds like you and Bennett were cut from the same cloth, which frankly isn't surprising.
Better be careful, though. The next inconvenient group of people he might be interested in exterminating could be poor, uneducated, clueless, hateful, bigoted, ignorant white neocons.
Questions....! And more
Yep, cover their ears and yell la la la the whole way, that's the MO of the staunch repubs. What I really want to know is, what all exactly of this Bush admin are they so proud of?? What exactly have they accomplished, or even planned, that would actually succeed?? Health care? Social Security? Prescription program? Job security? Immigration? Judges and other appointees? Mishandling and misbehaviors? The environment? A straight answer for continually dumping billions overseas? But I've noticed any kind of even polite queries on that board get blasted off as usual, like a year and 2 years ago when I frequented these discussions. No direct answer whatsoever, just some name calling of us, the dumb ones. Hmmmm. Like I always say, if you're not outraged, you're not thinking....
Few questions.
I'm curious about a few things.
What do you personally do to help in your community?
What do faith do you have?
Do you have a mortage and what is the status? Been able to make payments on time, behind, lost your home?
Do you have health insurance? If not, why?
Do you have young children?
Were you for the bailout?
Do you have money invested in stocks? Have you/are you going to cash it in?
Think we should bring our troops back?
Now, who do you think you will vote for?
That's what I got, 66.67%, or 22 out of 33 questions right, I think it said...sm
I had a brain freeze on several of them, where several answers seemed right on each one....
why do you answer so stupidly, the right answer
if you had any brains, would have been......
'well, she made a mistake.'
But telling me that I need a job, is so stupid, yes, stupid AND a very weak point.
Answers to your questions.
Why would I not want you to post here anymore?
I'm happy now and was happy prior to this also. Why do you ask?
Those may be good questions.
But I probably won't take the time to research them. Politics and corruption seem to go hand in hand. Democrat or Republican.
Joe McCarthy actually started out as a Democrat.
Oh, I should mention that very big business and corruption also seem to go hand in hand -- often -- not always.
|
