Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Radical Agenda...

Posted By: sm on 2009-02-26
In Reply to:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/25/boxer-seeks-ratify-treaty-erode-rights/


 


 




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

They have the same agenda. The only thing different sm
about Democrats and Republicans are the issues, and the issues are what divide us. The issues cause arguments, which distract us - the old divide and conquer tactic better known as the false left right paradigm. The Bush and Clinton families are quite friendly, even vacation together.
I merely posted who they are and what their agenda is...
that is not attacking the messenger. That is presenting the other side. Why do you object to presenting the other side?
Behind the Obama Agenda....sm




http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/election/546-behind-the-obama-agenda
a bold agenda

and worthwhile getting started but I believe you have to be dead 100 days or 100 years to get a national holiday. Something about historic prespective or some such.


 


Since you seem to know, just what is the "conservative agenda", please? sm
..and kindly provide references from the conservative sources themselves, not from liberal sources that are a little too prone to misinterpretations and mischaracterizations.

Thank you. I apologize in advance if this request imposes a burden on you to get your facts straight, but you'll be better informed for having made the effort.
I do not understand what the agenda
is when scientists around the world have already declared their findings do not support gore's. We are not doing anything to effect melting of ice caps on jupiter. The sun has just entered its new 11 year sun spot cycle with the peak about halfway through and as a ham operator I know what this does to communications. why is this myth persisting. what a bunch of youknowwhat. take the old nursery rhyme of "black sheep, black sheep have you any wool" and change it to black sheep, black sheep, have you any bull. yes sir, yes sir, 3 bags full". and before anyone even goes there, I have heard that in my mind for years and it has nothing to do with O. I do have a question for someone: On my phone bill since I came up to stay with Mother, I am being charged $5 a month for NOT using long distance. This is now taxed city, state and federal. Does this seem legal?
I'd appreciate it if you would leave my daughter out of your agenda.

I mentioned nothing of her political opinions or what she "thinks." I merely said I baby-sit for her occasionally and use her computer.  for you to try to drag her into your accusations is typical of what I have seen happen on the other board.  It's inflammatory and untrue, but it's how you people seem to create your "facts." I can assure you that my daughter has her own political opinions, and she and I don't always agree, unlike you, but we at least respect each other's right to their opinion and often have respectable, interesting, informative debates with each other.  She was taught respect and learned it very well. You can't hold a candle to the intelligent, respectful young lady that she is, so don't even try because you're way out of your league. As far as going back to the conservative board, thanks, but no thanks. I've already explained my reasons for not going back there any more. People are much more respectful of differing opinions on this board.


My post to gt was simply to tell her that I understand what it's like to be accused of all sorts of things simply because you post on a board.  It happened to me on the conservative board on my first (and last) visit there, which is why I won't return.


Do I think some of the things gt said were over the top?  I sure do.  Do I understand why she said them?  My guess is that she was trying to communicate with you in the only way you seem to understand, since civil attempts don't seem to work with some of you people.  I think I can "understand" her motives, just like some of you "understand" why Eric Rudolph murdered innocent people. And between the two, I'd much rather try to "understand" gt than "Eric" (as he appears to be affectionately referred to elsewhere on this board).


Americans tired of GOP agenda.
From pensitoreview.com where full story can be read:

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Sen. Nelson: Americans Are Fed Up with GOP
Posted October 5th, 2005 at 10:06 am by Jon

Boston.com:

The nation has become fed up with Republican leadership and the United States can still free itself of foreign oil in 10 years if it focuses on alternative fuel like ethanol, Sen. Bill Nelson said Tuesday.

In a wide ranging interview with reporters, Nelson, D-Fla., cited Republicans’ intervention in the Terri Schiavo case, the skyrocketing federal budget deficits and the war in Iraq as reasons why public opinion is turning against the GOP.

“It started with Terri Schiavo,” Nelson said. “I think what you’re seeing is a reaction — that people are saying I have enough of this intolerance and trying to cram their agenda down the people’s throats. People are getting tired of that.

He also points to the White House not responding quickly enough when Hurricane Katrina flooded New Orleans and Mississippi and failing to work with oil companies to reign in rising gas prices.

“I can’t tell you how many Republicans have come up to me and said ‘I am off the reservation because of the fiscal policies of this administration, spending so much money like a drunken sailor,’” Nelson said. “All of these things are coming home to roost.”
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Better late than never, I guess - now all we have to do is get rid of those hackable electronic voting machines and we can do something constructive about it.
No, it's not an evil agenda...I agree...sm
And in a perfect world America would be 100% Christian and we all would believe and think the same way, but we don't. Along with bringing their faith, our leaders have to bring the wisdom on how to be a leader for 100% of the people, and that includes the 49% that didn't vote for him.

Go to Obama's web site to see his agenda. sm
There you will find very detailed solutions that he lays out for America.  Of course experience is a good thing, but the trouble is the longer a person is embedded in the political establishment the more entrenched they become in "business as usual." Business as usual has netted little in this country, especially regarding the middle class.  I can't say Obama is the magic bullet here, after all he too is a politician, but a little less entrenched, and maybe it's worth a shot to see if someone with a little less "insider experience" could start to turn the country in a different and better, direction.  What do we have to lose?
And LOUDLY indicative of O's agenda! nm
nm
Freedom agenda in the Middle East?

Did Bush campaign promising a freedom agenda in the Middle East?  I must have missed that during the debates.  In fact, he specifically said he was against nation building when he debated Gore, although in all fairness, he didn't say he was against nation wrecking.


I guess he doesn't understand that the decider created more suiciders than he got rid of.


I can't wait to see how his base spins the long awaited truth from Bush's own lips that there were no WMDs and that Iraq had no ties to 9/11.


May God help us all.


Bush had a personal agenda for this invasion.
Al queada is in 80 different countries, mostly Pakistan.

No, this is about the children. Because if we cannot get this country straightened out now, it could send the entire globe into a recession since it is a dollar based economy world wide for the most part. Imagine: Tube socks at Wal-Mart costing 55.00 rather than 5.99. Imagine, a dollar having the value of a nickel.
Imagine empty store shelves. This is what is at stake.

You need to read more books from both sides. Tune into all stations. I force myself to listen to Bill O'really and Rush ::gags:: when major events take place just to see what their perception of events are.

There really is two Americas and you and I, we live in the same one. McCain doesn't consider a person rich unless they have 5 million dollars - doesn't that say something?

did you watch the 9-11 coverage on national geo? Did you see the errors made prior to the attacks and during the attacks? It was due to an unsophisticated system which the military used. Two fighter jets were out over the Atlantic ocean while the 2nd jet flew into the 2nd tower. "We were confused" "fog of war" how many lives that would have saved.

No, militarily the U.S. is weak and just about every general has said this that wasn't hand picked by Bush as a puppet. And have you heard: Iraq has a 63 billion dollar surplus but is not paying back the U.S. because "they destroyed the country." What????

Beating a dead horse. I can hear you now.

There are even wealthy democrats who would like to see McCain win - for the tax cuts. I am very suspicious the delegates who voted for Obama may have considered that. Even Keith Obermann, who actually read Obama's speech minutes before he hit the stage, ruining the ability for the audience to experience a thoughtful speech. He read it off like it was a lunch menu. And he is supposed to be a liberal democrat.

When the rich are against the poor, a country ends up corrupt. And that is what McCain is representing, the wealthy class.

Republicans = the rich and the fools.
What exactly was President Bush's agenda for locking them up?

Somebody has to pay for 9/11.  Somebody has to pay for the USS Cole.  The right people are locked up.  Excuse me for not crying about their civil rights or worrying about how they are interrogated.  National security is why President Bush locked those terrorists up, national security and justice. 


And I do have a grip -- a firm grip on reality.  I don't live in Obama-land.


Ending the Hidden Agenda Behind Tax Cuts

by: Joe Brewer, t r u t h o u t | Perspective


photo
The way that taxation is viewed by the public has a lot to do with the way politicians frame the debate. (Artwork: inventions-guide.com)



    Something as simple as a metaphor can mean the difference between shared prosperity and widespread suffering.

    It's time to tell the truth about tax cuts. This phrase dominates political discourse and is coughed out every time a conservative public figure opens his mouth. It is treated like the basis of sound reasoning, yet no one points out what should be obvious - that "tax relief" and "tax cuts" are just code words for destroying the capacity of government to serve the public.

    We've heard over and over again that the source of society's problems is the government. The solution that follows is to "trim the fat," "cut out the waste," "shrink the government" and provide "relief" to millions of citizens who suffer the burden of exploitation by Washington elites. This story flies in the face of the facts, yet it makes sense to a significant portion of the US population. How can this be?

    The answer has to do with how we make sense of things in the world. Our experiences shape what seems legitimate by reinforcing (or undermining) our ideas about the way things work. So, for example, a progressive politician may speak honestly and forcefully about the positive role of government in our lives. But this will fall on deaf ears if our typical experience is at odds with such claims. This observation demonstrates a key element of what George Lakoff and I have dubbed the Cognitive Criterion for Public Support:

    An effective policy must be popular if it is to stand the test of time and it must be popular for the right reasons, namely because it promotes the right long-term values in the minds of citizens, reinforced through the lived experience.

    The reason many people accept conservative claims about taxation and government is that they hold up for many common experiences, especially when conservatives are in control of the government. Conservative officials enact policies that make life worse for people while claiming that things will get better. Then they draw upon these negative experiences to advance their agenda. No Child Left Behind is an excellent example. The strategy works like this (a more detailed analysis can be found here):

1. Declare that the agenda is to "improve" public education.


2. Pass legislation that cripples public schools.

3. Cry out for "reform" when people see how bad our schools are doing.

4. Get rid of public schools and replace them with private schools, especially schools that teach conservative ideology (e.g. elite charter schools, religious schools, etc.).


    This strategy demonstrates how *cognitive policy* works. Emphasis is given to how people understand what is happening. The goal is to ensure that our experiences are interpreted through a conservative lens. It is not literally the case that taxation is a burden (a provocative metaphor), but rather that our common sense is influenced by a combination of our experiences in the world and the interpretive filters that give them meaning. (A key feature of how the political mind works, as I discuss in The Great Political Blind Spot.)

    Back to the hidden agenda behind tax cuts; we can apply this insight to see that conservatives *want* people to have negative experiences with government. Why? Because it supports decades of propaganda - and an underlying belief that stems from their worldview - that government is the problem. In the early 1970's, conservative elites started investing heavily in the creation of idea factories to spread their views far and wide so that they eventually became the new common sense of our culture. They had to work tirelessly for years to change the underlying values of American citizens because our long history has been devoted to advancing our most cherished values, which happen to be progressive. But, as we can see by the pervasiveness of their ideas today, this effort has been catastrophically successful.

    Now is the time to nip their bankrupt idea about taxation in the bud. The way to do it is simple. Take their reasoning to its logical conclusion and see what happens if it is applied to the real world. We can test the conservative belief about taxation against our own and decide what's best by looking at the outcomes.

    First, we'll need to be very clear about just what conservatives and progressives mean by taxation. Then we can apply these understandings to the world to see their consequences. (The insights that follow come from linguistic analysis of cognitive "frames" that shape political thought.)

    Taxation as Conservatives Understand It

    I've already alluded to an interesting metaphor that helps make sense of conservative thought about taxes, which I'll call Taxes Are a Burden to make it explicit. The understanding of taxation that follows from this metaphor can be seen in this story:

    Hard-working Americans are in need of some tax relief. Years of mismanagement by tax-and-spend liberals have taken money out of the hands of working people and put it into bloated government programs that serve special interests. We need to cut taxes, return fiscal responsibility to government, and put money back in the hands of taxpayers who know best how to spend it.

    This perspective is grounded in two beliefs: (1) The world is comprised of individuals; and (2) People are inherently bad and must learn right from wrong through self-discipline. I like to call this the "Me First" perspective because it assumes that people must help themselves before thinking about others. It can be summarized with the declaration, "You're on your own!" The Me First perspective assumes that any assistance from the community would be "coddling" or "spoiling" us. This claim is asserted as truth in the conservative worldview.

    Taxation as Progressives Understand It

    Progressives have a different understanding of taxation that can be expressed through a variety of metaphors: Taxes Are an Investment, Taxes Are Membership Dues, Taxes Are Pathways to Opportunity, Taxes Are Infrastructure and Taxes Are a Duty. (Read more about progressive taxation in "Progressive Taxation: Some Hidden Truths") Reasoning that emerges with these metaphors can be seen in this progressive story:

    Our great nation was founded on a promise of protection and opportunity. Through our shared wealth, pooled together by taxation with representation, we have invested in the public infrastructure that makes possible the creation of new wealth. We have a sacred trust to keep this promise alive throughout our lifetimes, expand it as we are able, and pass it along to our children.

    This perspective is grounded in the beliefs that (1) Individuals are influenced significantly by our communities; and (2) People are inherently good and benefit from cooperation with others. I like to call this the "People First" perspective because it assumes that people must help each other in order to enhance their ability to help themselves. It can be summarized with the declaration, "We're all in this together!" The People First perspective assumes that we are greater than the sum of our parts and that new opportunities emerge when we make wise investments with the common wealth we share.

    Truth and Consequences

    Now that we have a clear sense of what taxation means to conservatives and progressives, we can see what happens if these different ideas are used as governing principles for shaping society. This analysis accomplishes two purposes. First, it reveals key truths about taxation that complicate arguments made by conservatives, truths that don't get talked about nearly enough. And second, it exposes a covert agenda that deceptively exploits real concerns of people to advance an otherwise unpopular agenda.

    What happens if the Me First perspective is applied to taxation? Just look to the world we find ourselves in today. A problem defined as "too much spending" leads to budget cuts. This results in a diminished capacity to provide vital services. Public goods like education, civil and criminal courts, road maintenance and fundamental scientific research are too costly for individuals - or even multinational corporations - to afford. So these services are cut and people lose their jobs. Thousands of teachers no longer cultivating young minds. Countless construction workers laid off when city and state governments halt infrastructure projects. Graduates with advanced degrees unable to find work because public agencies are "tightening their belts" and cutting back on grants to academia, nonprofits and the private sector.

    Beyond the direct human suffering of disrupted lives, there is substantial reduction in government programs that protect the public against harm. The FDA cannot staff enough inspectors to keep toxic peanuts out of the food supply. The EPA lacks capacity to keep drinking water clean in cities and towns across the country. The SEC is unable to keep a watchful eye on runaway speculation and our economy spins wildly out of control. Bridges crumble and levies break because funds are in short supply.

    The consequence of conservative ideology is a self-fulfilling prophecy. People are forced to be "on their own" with no protection against serious threats and no assistance to get them beyond their current means. When disasters strike, there is widespread suffering and death because the tapestry of society - our precious safety net - has withered and decayed. Think I'm exaggerating? I'll just say one word - Katrina.

    And despite their claims to the contrary, conservative leaders want this to happen.

    Contrast this with the People First perspective. Again, we can let experience be our guide. A decade of rampant deregulation, perpetrated by a conservative mindset about the relationship between government and the economy, led to the great stock market crash of 1929. A visionary progressive leader, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, stepped in and vastly expanded a wide variety of public programs. The flood of revenues accompanying this expansion was enough to put millions of unemployed back to work. New programs that embody the spirit of progress emerged in the decades that followed. Social Security, the GI Bill, Medicare and the FDIC are a few examples of the legacy this pooling of resources delivered to the American people.

    Along with this massive investment in societal infrastructure, Americans experienced tremendous growth of shared prosperity. For the first time in our history, an entire generation of children from working-class families moved up the economic ladder with college degrees in hand. Home ownership skyrocketed. Literacy rates went through the roof and new skills emerged to expand the capacity of markets. And two generations of people experienced the benefits of cooperation in their daily lives, codifying the ethic that we're all in it together as a bedrock of sound reason.

    I can attest to this from personal experience. Both of my parents came from working-class families. I was the first to get a college degree. Federal and state scholarships delivered me from the rural farm to the hallowed halls. And now society gets to benefit from the fruits of my labor as I work to transform our political system for the betterment of society. The cognitive policy of the People First perspective is a foundation of my identity in the world.

    The Hidden Agenda Exposed

    The progress of our nation is being held hostage by a malicious metaphor. Treating taxation as nothing more than a burden is tantamount to declaring that citizenship is nothing more than getting all you can for yourself … everyone else be damned. Conservative elites have undermined the responsibilities we have to one another to advance their agenda. They are fully committed to crafting the world in their image, as we've seen all too clearly these last eight years and throughout the current debate about economic recovery under the Obama administration.

    I say enough is enough. Let's call this tactic out for what it is. People are hurting in every corner of the land and they're looking for help where they haven't dared to look for quite some time - in the service of our representatives in the federal government. Conservatives will try to convince us that our hardships are caused by excessive government. The truth is that we are suffering under excessive conservative ideology of governance, which is a very different beast. They continue to claim that we can't get ahead because we're overtaxed. This claim is absurd!

    Not a single home foreclosure throughout this crisis has been caused by excessive taxation. The misfortune of illness in a dysfunctional health system has burdened people with horrendous debt. Where did this problem come from? Profit-driven health care created under the Nixon administration.

    Banks haven't failed catastrophically through oversized personal W-2 forms. Radical deregulation is the culprit. Who deregulated the market? Conservative ideologues from both political parties. (This is what the word "centrist" really means - conservatives who've infiltrated the Democratic Party.)

    Companies haven't been driven to huge layoffs because their tax burden is too high. They are victims of an unraveling market. What undermined the integrity of the global economy? An extremist philosophy of governance that is blind to the role of the regulatory frameworks that give stabilizing structure to our markets.

    What can we do to stop the conservative agenda? Call it out for what it is. When someone says, "People need tax relief," respond by letting them know that "We really need to invest in one another." Make it clear what the consequences of tax cuts really are - the destruction of our mechanisms for protecting and empowering one another. And let's stop taking their language for granted just because everyone is doing it. That logic didn't make much sense in middle school. It's all the more dangerous to follow as adults. Challenge the conservative meaning of taxation directly. Declare that we are decidedly NOT on our own. Point to the benefits we've taken for granted too long, things like education and schools and roads and courts.

    We mustn't stop with a critique of their ideas either. We need to fervently argue for our own. Together we are greater than the sum of our parts. A prosperous community is a place where neighbors pool their efforts for the greater good. Taxes provide resources for investments larger than anything we could build on our own. And these benefits create a space for new ideas to take hold and expand our wealth.

    Ideas matter. Words are important. We cannot afford to let a radical minority set the tone of public debate any longer. The time is ripe for moving beyond the era of misguided individualism. Let's take the momentum we've built in the last few years and place the United States back on a course that resonates with our deeply held values - caring for one another, expanding freedoms to the marginalized, and recognizing that our shared prosperity is at the core of our success as a nation.


They aren't pushing a "gay agenda"...(sm)
They're pushing TOLERANCE.....something you could obviously use a lessen in.
EPA slants analysis to favor Bush's agenda

Report Accuses EPA of Slanting Analysis
Hill
Researchers Say Agency Fixed Pollution Study to Favor Bush's 'Clear
Skies'



By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday,
December 3, 2005; A08


The Bush administration skewed its analysis of pending legislation on air
pollution to favor its bill over two competing proposals, according to a new
report by the Congressional Research Service.


The Environmental Protection Agency's Oct. 27 analysis of its plan -- along
with those of Sens. Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.) and James M. Jeffords (I-Vt.) --
exaggerated the costs and underestimated the benefits of imposing more stringent
pollution curbs, the independent, nonpartisan congressional researchers wrote in
a Nov. 23 report. The EPA issued its analysis -- which Carper had demanded this
spring, threatening to hold up the nomination of EPA Administrator Stephen L.
Johnson -- in part to revive its proposal, which is stalled in the Senate.


The administration's Clear Skies legislation aims to achieve a 70 percent cut
in emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide after 2018, while Carper's and
Jeffords's bills demand steeper and faster cuts and would also reduce emissions
of carbon dioxide, which are linked to global warming. The Bush plan would also
cut emissions of neurotoxic mercury by 70 percent, while Jeffords's bill reduces
them by 90 percent.


Although it represents a step toward understanding the impacts of legislative
options, EPA's analysis is not as useful as one could hope, the Research Service
report said. The result is an analysis that some will argue is no longer
sufficiently up-to-date to contribute substantially to congressional debate.


The congressional report, which was not commissioned by a lawmaker as is
customary, said the EPA analysis boosted its own proposal by overestimating the
cost of controlling mercury and playing down the economic benefits of reducing
premature deaths and illnesses linked to air pollution.


EPA estimated the administration's plan would cost coal-fired power plants as
much as $6 billion annually, compared with up to $10 billion in Carper's measure
and as much as $51 billion for Jeffords's. It calculated that Bush's proposal
would produce $143 billion a year in health benefits while Carper's would
generate $161 billion and Jeffords would yield $211 billion. Carper's measure
would achieve most of its reductions by 2013, while Jeffords's bill would enact
even more ambitious pollution cuts by 2010.


EPA spokeswoman Eryn Witcher said the agency based its cost estimates on
mercury controls by gathering comments from boilermaker workers, power companies
and emission control companies, whereas the Research Service used a single study
to reach its conclusions on mercury.


Clear Skies delivers dramatic health benefits across the nation without
raising energy costs and does it with certainty and simplicity, instead of
regulation and litigation, Witcher said. Because of our commitment to see this
become a reality, EPA went above and beyond to provide the most comprehensive
legislative analysis of air ever prepared by the agency, so it does a real
disservice to this discussion to have a report that largely ignores and
misinterprets our analysis.


But aides to Carper and Jeffords said they felt vindicated by the
congressional study.


The CRS report backs up a lot of what we initially said about EPA's latest
analysis, that it overstated the costs of controlling mercury and understated
the overall health benefits of Senator Carper's legislation, said Carper
spokesman Bill Ghent. The report clearly states that there's no reason to settle
for the president's Clear Skies plan because the legislation doesn't clean the
air much better than current law.


© 2005 The Washington Post
Company

Well at least the blame agenda is still alive in the liberal movement. sm
Nice to see some things never change. 
What I find wrong is that he's pushing his own ego-driven agenda
regardless of what anyone thinks. I think this is called FALSE reassurance.
Okay, but you didn't answer the question... What was Bush's agenda?
?
radical jew
Radical jew:  Whew, I have known many.  Dress in all black, top hat, long side burns down to the elbows practically.  Will not even look towards anyone that isnt orthodox jew and believes like them, will dismiss you in an instant.  The ones who check restaurants and such places serving or making foods, they are paid off so the radical rabbis/orthodox jews give a clean bill of health for kosher, even though the establishments are kosher but the radical jews question it until they get $500.00 or more to give the okay and the establishments will pay cause without that okay that it is kosher, your company will go broke, at least in heavily jewish areas, NY, where I grew up.  They act like organized crime, for pete sake.  These guys are quite smart, they know how to work the system.  They get welfare.  They refuse to work as orthodox jews are supposed to pray and read and study all day and night, so the state (Im talking about NY state) gives them welfare as they are *holy men*.  They wont accept anyone that isnt born jewish.  Forget about marrying a non jew.  That person is a non person and will NEVER be accepted no matter what, not even if they become jewish.  Their children, born to a jew and non jew will also be nothing in the orthodox jews eyes.  I can go on and on.  Like I said, I invite you to check out New City, NY, Borough Park, Brooklyn and see what radical orthodox jews are all about.  I grew up with them.  Plus, a women is nothing in their eyes. If you go to synagogue with them, you sit in the back of the room. 
I guess it is the idea that in the spirit of Christmas the NRA is pushing their agenda...sm
Is nothing sacred? And that goes beyond politics.

Santa with a gun. Right over baby Jesus. Insinuating that Muslims want to blow up Christianity. All in the name of being able to bear arms.

I can't name ONE act of terrorism in American history in the last 100 years that a citizen bearing arms would have saved ONE person from a terrorist.

A gun wouldn't have helped anyone in the trade center, can't take them on a plane so wouldn't have saved any of the passengers, Oklahoma bombing, nope a gunn wouldn't have helped those victims. Just another scare tactic, exploiting 9/11 to push their agenda that was here before waaaayyy before the fact.


No more of a radical than Jesus was.

:)


Especially among the radical and oh-so-holy
Incredibly homophobic, too. Ever hear anything so silly as that 'pray-away-the-gay' convention going on up in Palin's hometown?
I am not radical because I am a Christian....
You need to do your homework and stop believing things you know nothing about.

My Bible teaches to love everyone, even those that hate you. The Muslim Qur'an teaches hate, hate, hate, to hate anyone who is not Muslim and to pray for their demise and they pray daily for only themselves, not others. All men are not created equal under Islam, according to their teaching. They believe that even their own people who may be handicapped are not equal to them. They believe in different levels of human value.

You know nothing of what you speak because if you did, you would realize my faith is NOTHING like that.
ma is tied to one radical after another.
nm
How ANYONE could vote for O with his RADICAL
nm
I think the artciles are a little radical

but it depends how you look at it. I will be looking into this some more. As with any new bill, it is outrageously large.


Further on in the bill, it states what must be done and I must say, it may put a lot of restaurants, small fishing fleets, etc. out of business. The records that must be kept are absolutely ridiculous. I did see where food producers must keep a record of what they use to grow the food (fertilizers, other nutrients, food for animals etc.), where it comes from, and some really nitpicky rules.


Mainly, what I get from this bill is to protect the American people from big farm producers in meats, poultry, and veggies, and foreign meat and veggies so the illnesses that have become part of the American way of life are no more (dream on government).


From the bill itself:



      (5) CATEGORY 1 FOOD ESTABLISHMENT- The term `category 1 food establishment' means a food establishment (other than a seafood processing establishment) that slaughters, for the purpose of producing food, animals that are not subject to inspection under the Federal Meat Inspection Act or poultry that are not subject to inspection under the Poultry Products Inspection Act.



      (6) CATEGORY 2 FOOD ESTABLISHMENT- The term `category 2 food establishment' means a seafood processing establishment or other food establishment (other than a category 1 establishment) not subject to inspection under the Federal Meat Inspection Act, the Poultry Products Inspection Act, or the Egg Products Inspection Act, that processes raw seafood or other raw animal products, whether fresh or frozen, or other products that the Administrator determines by regulation to pose a significant risk of hazardous contamination.



      (7) CATEGORY 3 FOOD ESTABLISHMENT- The term `category 3 food establishment' means a food establishment (other than a category 1 or category 2 establishment) that processes cooked, pasteurized, or otherwise ready-to-eat seafood or other animal products, fresh produce in ready-to-eat raw form, or other products that pose a risk of hazardous contamination.



      (8) CATEGORY 4 FOOD ESTABLISHMENT- The term `category 4 food establishment' means a food establishment that processes all other categories of food products not described in paragraphs (5) through (7).



      (9) CATEGORY 5 FOOD ESTABLISHMENT- The term `category 5 food establishment' means a food establishment that stores, holds, or transports food products prior to delivery for retail sale.



      (10) CONTAMINANT- The term `contaminant' includes a bacterium, chemical, natural toxin or manufactured toxicant, virus, parasite, prion, physical hazard, or other human pathogen that when found on or in food can cause human illness, injury, or death.



      (11) HAZARDOUS CONTAMINATION- The term `hazardous contamination' refers to the presence of a contaminant in food at levels that pose a risk of human illness, injury, or death or are capable of reaching levels that pose such risk during the shelf life of the product.



      (12) FOOD- The term `food' means a product intended to be used for food or drink for a human or an animal and components thereof.



      (13) FOOD ESTABLISHMENT-




        (A) IN GENERAL- The term `food establishment' means a slaughterhouse (except those regulated under the Federal Meat Inspection Act or the Poultry Products Inspection Act), factory, warehouse, or facility owned or operated by a person located in any State that processes food or a facility that holds, stores, or transports food or food ingredients.




        (B) EXCLUSIONS- For the purposes of registration, the term `food establishment' does not include a food production facility as defined in paragraph (14), restaurant, other retail food establishment, nonprofit food establishment in which food is prepared for or served directly to the consumer, or fishing vessel (other than a fishing vessel engaged in processing, as that term is defined in section 123.3 of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations).



      (14) FOOD PRODUCTION FACILITY- The term `food production facility' means any farm, ranch, orchard, vineyard, aquaculture facility, or confined animal-feeding operation.

You are voting for a radical socialist.
Be VERY careful what you ask for.
That's not far right wing radical Christians..that's the
>>
Obama is the one with radical friends and
nm
I hate any of these radical groups
and the panthers are no better than the klan was and it does seem like the news media just ignores what they don't want to report. They certainly should not be allowed to block the entrance which they were doing this morning. I have heard cops have been preparing for rioting, so all please be careful. I am reminded of Rodney King and rabblerousers just started attacking whites with no regard for how they may have felt as individuals. And, once again, the military vote will not be counted - how long are we going to tolerate that? It arrived "too late", probably because it was sent too late by Washington. Amazing.
He is a radical.. wants to be Robin-Hood.
nm
Radical Islam is not a religion......
--
So when do we canonize this radical anti-American? sm

Hugo Chavez I believe is a growing symbol on the American radical Left like his mentor Fidel Castro. Chavez is a paranoid anti-American who believes America is out to get him just like Fidel believed the same thing.


Robertson’s comments to assassinate Chavez, unfortnately strengthens Chavez’s tyrannical grip over his people (and his paranoia). Chavez himself is becoming a tyrant who is funding international terrorism. From al-Qaeda to FARC. Chavez’s mentor Fidel Castro has funded international terrorism from the PLO, Hezbollah, Tamil Tigers, African National Congress and a whole bunch of other terrorist groups.


Chavez is a threat to America because of his ties to Fidel Castro and to international terrorism. I mean if the radical Left really believe Robertson’s comments were wrong, why does it give them the right to support Fidel Castro and his pal Hugo Chavez? Why does the left-wing media like people such as Ted Turner who owns CNN get away with being Fidel Castro’s admirer? Yet when there are reports of Castro and Chavez killing or making tyrannical iron fist rules against their own people, it’s okay but complain whenever someone like Robertson or someone else makes a harsh comments against their idols (i.e. Castro and Chavez)?


There in lines the double-standard of the American radical Left and how much influence they have over the media. If it’s wrong for Pat Robertson to make those comments, then it’s ten times worse for any hardline Lefty in the American media to admire Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez. But that never seems to be scorned by the media. Only Robertson’s statements.


and he was raised by his radical islamic stepfather

Be very aware..........


and if his wife is a member of the CFR - trust me, he's involved too.....


New World Order - New American Century - Skull and Bones - read up on it.........


And the radical religious right in America teaches...sm
that no one gets to heaven unless they believe in the "Lord Jesus Christ". I do not agree with either, but they both have the same belief that there is no way but their way. There is no difference.
It doesnt bother dems at all regarding O's radical
nm
Obama is a fraud and a radical, but the people will
nm
Radical relationships proved or hear say?

Unless you're talking about preacher Wright?  I am beginning to wonder why that is not an issue since John Mccain is so righteous.


Prophets of Doom - liberal! - radical!

The GOP's new message: Despair







THE FIFTH COLUMNIST by P.M. Carpenter






Either word-torturer Frank Luntz has been writing memos to the brass and issuing orders to the troops again, or the GOP is taking its verbal cues from none other than the certifiable Alan Keyes.


Have you noticed? "Radical" is the new socialist, the new liberal, the creeping unhinged hyperbole suitable for all occasions in describing President Obama's budget proposal. It's now conservative chic, simply all the rage: big-government "liberal" is so yesterday.


Gee, it's almost as if someone -- listening, Frank? -- has focus-grouped the lingering efficacy of again hauling out that old "liberal" bogeyman, only to find that most voters no longer care. After partaking of the desolating fruits of right-wing rule for so long, if liberal is its antithesis, then bring it on, they say.


They're finally numb to the right's tireless stigmatization of the word; hence a new one -- one with more shock-value kick to it -- was desperately needed. And "Radical" must have pegged the bogeyman-o-meter.


Never mind that what Obama now proposes is more or less the same he proposed for roughly two years on the campaign trail; and above all never mind that what he proposes is far more organically pragmatic than schematically liberal. For the right, debate is all about innovative exaggeration and ominous labeling -- "framing" remains the hot-button word for the partisan presentation of hot-button issues -- since an honest argument carries the insufferable risk of losing it.


Yes, I know the word has been thrown about by the right for some time now, or, to pinpoint its origination in application to Obama, since the fizzled phenomenon of William Ayers. But it was just yesterday that I noticed on the Sunday talk shows the word's almost Post-It-reminder-note-on-the-forehead usage by the distinguished gentlemen from the GOP.


The president is engaging in radical exercises, intoned the increasingly preprogrammed Sen. Lindsey Graham on "Meet the Press," oblivious to the profoundly non-radical nature of, say, even corporate support for some form of universal health care. Nor is equal opportunity of education -- so that, perhaps, just maybe, this nation can compete more effectively in the global rat race of capitalism -- customarily regarded by political theorists as Leninist to its core.


But hey, it's a lot more fun to bend reality when reality is incompatible with one's political agenda; and, of course, in this crowded age of competing messages, the bending must be done with overwhelming force and unprecedented volume.


Later, during MTP's roundtable discussion, the solemn consensus among three-fourths of the four-member panel was that the restoration of American confidence is indispensable as the first step in the restoration of the American economy.


Then came Panel Member Number Four, Newt Gingrich, the Big Idea Man, blasting away at -- any guesses? -- yep, Obama's radicalism. It was segment two; removed was the cardboard cut-out of Lindsey and installed was the cardboard cut-out of Newt. Yet the viewer would have hardly noticed the change in personnel. Both were reading from the same Orwellian Luntzism -- Obama's "radicalism" is double ungood.


What was Newt's alternative Big Idea? What, I hear you ask, was his counterproposition for solving what his party has created in the monstrous form of nearly insoluble problems?


Well, he didn't have one. Not one, not even a little Big Idea. Not even a whiff of one. Instead, he wanted us only to know that Obama's radicalism was undermining the very confidence that Newt's fellow panelists sought.


Newt wasn't doing that, mind you. Obama is, or rather, his radicalism is -- which at any rate just won't work, because it's too big in purpose, it's too challenging, it's simply too much for the American people to handle.


As I listened to Graham's rehearsed shock and awe, then Gingrich's, then a bit later Sen. Richard Shelby's strikingly similar exasperation on ABC's "This Week," it occurred to me that what now underlies the conservative argument is the precise opposite of what conservatives have argued for decades: that given a big enough challenge, Americans can accomplish anything -- but first, the gauntlet must be thrown.


I heard none of that yesterday. What I did hear was rote defeatism -- that determined countermeasures to undo what the right has wrought are doomed as radical impossibilities. In short, conservatives of Ronald Reagan's American Mornings are now banking on utmost despair, trusting that Americans will prefer that to "radical exercises."


And that's quite the seismic shift in their own message, a shift even greater than the one they're trying to impose on Obama's.


 


Protest Warriors was hacked by radical leftists. SM
The administrator's had nothing to do with it.  In fact, they fight this on a daily basis.  As far as ISP numbers, I don't know of a chat board anywhere where the administrator does not keep track.  And I don't know of one anywhere where the information is shared.
Are there any good books on *the radical terrorist mind*? sm
and whose the author?
his cousin is Raila Odinga - radical muslim

y'all need to further investigate and not via snopes either....Barack's cousin, Raila Odinga, executes genocide in Kenya.....


you all can just Google this issue and read all about it, I've been reading about it for months on end....and please do not shoot the messenger (me)  LOL


SqlSpace Breaking Political News - No Censorship Zone • View topic ...




Obama's muslim cousin Odinga executing genocide in Kenya ... I'm Barack Obama's cousin says Raila Odinga Kenya's defeated presidential challenger Raila ...
www.sqlspace.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=52220&view=next - 45k - Cached - Similar pages


ISLAMIC ZIONISM




The leader of the Kenyan Orange Democratic Movement opposition leader, Raila Odinga, is Barack Obama’s cousin. Barack may not put much stock in the ...
groups.msn.com/ISLAMICZIONISM/general.msnw?action=get_message&mview=1&ID_Message=10375 - 27k - Cached - Similar pages


 


 


Your arrogance just wreaks radical leftwing politics

It wreaks so much it stinks.


I weighed in with my radical retired Teamster husband

to make sure I get it right.  Having been married to me for a number of years, he is fairly well versed in the field of MT.  So let's look at unions from that perspective:


Say we have an MT who cherry picks and signs off every time a dictator comes up that she doesn't want to do.  Other MTs that have to pick up after this MT complain until the company finally decides to fire this bad MT.  Okay, the firing is done.  The slacking MT files a grievance with her union.  A hearing is scheduled with the Union representative, the company representative, the bad MT and any interested parties may also appear on either side as witnesses...a sort of trial if you will.  The company must present all records for the bad MT to day 1 of employment.  Co-workers can speak for or against the person.  Let's say that the documentation backs up the bad MT firing.  She is fired.......end of story.


Another real example:  Radical Teamster husband once had a hot-shot supervisor.  Husband got so angry one day that he threw a trash can at the supervisor.  He was fired.  He filed a greviance and was suspended until the hearing.  At the hearing the company brought their records of some 20 odd years of hard work and being a good employee, 1 episode of, I think they called it insubordination.    Co-workers appeared on behalf of husband.  Husband received a reprimand from the union about the trash can throwing incident and went back to his job.  Shortly thereafter the company fired the supervisor. Supervisors were not represented by the union and he was fired...period.


Wouldn't it be nice if MTs had someone to stand up for them today?


It's interesting how radical liberals have labeled themselves "moderate"...
and anyone who is conservative has been labeled extreme. I really think that it depends on who you are. I feel that gay marriage is an extremely liberal thing to support, as do, apparently, the majority voters in California, yet the liberal left would have us believe that being against gay marriage is extreme and for it is moderate. Just something to think about.
What, in your opinion, would have made things with radical terrorirst islamofascists better? sm

I am interested in hearing the strategy.  How should we have responded to 9/11 and threats of further terror?  Also, the use of the word all is not appropriate, unless you mean all leftists.  I don't include myself in that all and most people I associate with don't either.  Did you read the document?  I did. 


A key quote from the document:

The Iraq conflict has become the cause celebre for jihadists, breeding a deep
resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for
the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves,
and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry
on the fight.

Doesn't that seem to say that once we win the war in Iraq, the Jihadists cause will be weaker? Therefore, winning the war in Iraq is the best course of action, in the short term. If you continue to read the document, regarding what to do about the threats, which, I contend is the most important part, you will perceive that the best long term solution is to promote...

Greater pluralism and more responsive political systems in Muslim majority nations would alleviate some of the grievances jihadists exploit. Over time, such progress, together with sustained, multifaceted programs targeting the vulnerabilities of the jihadist movement and continued pressure on al-Qa’ida, could erode support for the jihadists.

What does that mean?.....ta da, that the spread of freedom and democracy throughout the Middle East, is the best chance to defeat the Jihadists. Isn't that precisely what we are doing?


My favorite part of the report, though:  Anti-US and anti-globalization sentiment is on the rise and fueling other radical ideologies. This could prompt some leftist, nationalist, or separatist groups to adopt terrorist methods to attack US interests.


Fortunately, Lurker, many on the left realize the threat from radical Islam. sm
It isn't political, but it has been made that way.  That's why a lot of you have been lulled into being apologist for murdering Islamofascists. 
The protesters, who were reportedly made up of followers of radical Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr...
nm
The protesters, who were reportedly made up of followers of radical Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr...

and also have burned American flags.