Read all the responses to your message - sm
Posted By: sammypot on 2009-06-26
In Reply to: Double standards?...(sm) - Just the big bad
and try to understand what we are saying.
There is just no justifiable reason for this luau and/or any other diversion Obama is into. Does not seem as though many people agree with you and, for the record, I am not here to argue with you, just to try to get you to see past the fog.
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
I can also read them and post responses to them
if I like and sometimes I choose to, and I don't use use rage to get my point across like you do. You are the one that needs to take a serious chill pill...that is if you want to, but I seriously doubt it. You revel in your rage.
When I read the ugly responses here to my
post, I know that Jesus is real and that He not only gives someone a new heart but a new mind, a mind not corrupted by the world as the majority of the minds are of you who responded here with your attacks. Of course, you think you are attacking me, some of you on a very personal level, not even knowing who I am, asking such a stupid question as to whether I have children or even suggesting sending brown envelopes filled with feces to people like me.
I don’t know who you are either, but I can tell you that I pray God forgive you for your blindness and hate just as He forgave me when I surrendered my life to Him.
This post is not about me. It is about innocent life, life that never asks to be born, defenseless life that no matter the circumstances of conception is holy and valued in the eyes of its Creator. For everyone of YOU reading this, someone gave you a chance at life. That is more than 50 million aborted babies and counting have had. Their lives have been snuffed out before they had a chance for life, liberty, and the pursuit of justice. They have been murdered for convenience and a lack of responsibility. We all have choices in life, and yes, responsibility does begin with conception. Even a baby conceived in a rape has the same right to life as any other. It didn’t have a choice as to its parentage or the circumstances of its conception.
The Red Envelope Project is to protest millions more innocent babies being murdered across the globe using U. S. taxpayer monies. Woe to you if you support this administration’s unbridled hatred of innocent lives.
I do put my money where my mouth is by working with pregnant women in my community, giving of my time, talents, energy, and financial resources in giving them an alternative to abortion. Many have become pregnant under the most awful circumstances imaginable to the human mind. Yet, these women are far more courageous than most of you who call us terrorists because we want to protect life. In fact, these women are thankful that there are those of us who are willing to sacrifice for them so that their babies have a chance at life. Not even the most vile of you on this board can take away the profound satisfaction and love we have of defending and protecting the most innocent among us. When I see a mother look into the face of her baby and know that she has chosen life, whether she has decided to raise her baby or to give it up for adoption, then I know that all my time, talents, energy, and financial resources have gone into and been made to that which is worthy and glorifies my Lord, and another child has been born who will have an opportunity to become all that God created him or her to be.
Someone made a choice of life for you. Why would you want to deny that for another innocent baby? Why would you want to support an evil president who celebrates death instead of life?
Re-read your message
**At any rate, a lot of Democrats cared to.** Did you mean **too** as in **also**?
I think you read my message wrong.
Your saying what I said. Maybe I didn't say it correctly. I don't trust Obama because for that fact. Lined his pockets and now the tax payers are having to pay it back while they get to keep all the money they received and not paying any of it back. Dodd & Hillary are right on top with Obama too. This is why I don't trust the dems. McCain was saying a couple years ago not to do it but the dems didn't listen and passed whatever they passed and lined their pockets.
Dems are at top of the guilty line. I don't trust them and would never ever vote for Obama.
No, no, no. I think you read my message wrong
It was more of a statement (don't know the correct word to use - faceeshish? gosh, can't even spell it), I was making a joke of something we already knew about her. I've never trusted Condi or any of the Bush administration. I think they've been lying to everyone about everything all along and I don't think this is any different. That's why I said "and this is news how???. Without the right words to say I can't explain exactly what I was trying to say except that she is just a liar period and this is no different than any of the other lies they've told.
Thank you - read the links - see message
There were a lot of links - see why you couldn't post them all. This is what I found researching through link after link.
President Kennedy - I could not find anything anywhere showing that he used to have weekly frat parties. I do understand the necessity of holding formal dinners for dignitaries of other countries. That is a most respectful and dignified "use" of the white house. President Kennedy and First Lady Jackie, honored their roles and kept the dignity of the white house and never did anything to make the American people ashamed.
Bill Clinton - While I certainly was no fan of BC's, I also could not find anything about him turning the white house into a party palace. I saw numerous article after article about state dinners, etc. Again, a most acceptable use for the white house. He entertained dignitaries, held the usual Christmas dinners, etc, but no where could I find any articles about weekly parties (especially when the countries economy was not nearly as bad as it is today).
President Carter - nothing
President George Bush - Again nothing (much unfortunately for the Bush-bashers).
So with all the past president they utilized the white house for the purpose it was intended for. They did not "disgrace" it with weekly parties for staff members.
Then we have the O - weekly wednesday parties, conga lines, high priced entertainers, all at the expenses of the taxpayers. And when everyone in the country is losing their jobs, homes, health benefits, no hope for the future, they are partying it up back there.
Entertaining foreign diplomats and having dinners is one thing. But having weekly parties while the rest of us are saying "what in the world is going on, you told us we have to cut back, is a whole nother thing". You think George & Martha Washington, and John & Abigale Adams and the other founding fathers even thought that one day the once respectful white house would be turned into a party-house. I don't think so. It's disgraceful.
The White House has stood as a symbol of the presidency, the government and the people of the country. This is gluttony and disgrace. While GB may have not been the president, never did I feel as ashamed as I do today to know this is how they treat a national landmark that is suppose to represent us.
I read your message and stand by my response. (nm)
xx
I hope you come back to read this message
I agree with you 100%. I too am not happy, but as I heard someone say - what are you going to do about it. What's done is done. However I find that even though the democrats won they are still so bitter they have to post horrendous bitter nasty posts about Palin and GW and us that supported the republican ticket. I'm thinking blimey! Give it a break. Your guy got in there, let it go. I'm like you. I want issues. I want to know what's going on, who is he picking for his cabinet, what is their experience, what promises is he going to keep and what promises is he breaking. I've already read that he broke one of his promises to get rid of (or re-do) the Patriot Act but now he's keeping that stronger than ever.
I come to read articles and post articles that show other points of view. I visit a lot of websites written by people in other countries and I'll tell you, there are not a whole lot of countries that are NOT in support of him (except our enemies that is). I agree with your whole post.
Nope, didn't think you'd read my message
Let me repeat....
Actually Cavuto didn't say Fox News. He said Fox.
Murdock and Fox have been in the business since 1985.
I watched the videos.
You sound arrogant and pompous - please read my message
Please keep an open mind and listen to what I have to say and try and see it how others do. I've been reading your previous posts and you sound like you are on a mission to save all the aborted babies (before being aborted). This is the way I feel...I believe in a higher power (our Creator). I feel so strongly that he is a powerful and just God. I believe that when a soul dies it goes to the other side and will live forever in a world of love and will be taken care of. I would rather know that a soul that has been aborted is now living on the other side with our creator in a life of love and compassion being taken care of by the people who have passed on before us. I would rather know they are there rather than having to spend an eternity in he!! on this earth. A baby that lives but was going to be aborted will never be loved the way a baby should be loved. For those with stories that their mother was going to abort but decided to keep you and you were born and you had the most loving family that is wonderful. But I think we all know very well that too many times it doesn't work out like that. The baby is born into a world where the mother blames it for everything bad that happens to her. I have a freind who's mother blames her for being born. She tells her if she never had her then her (the mother) life would have been so much better and she would have been able to accomplish everything she wanted to do, but society forced her into having the baby and now everything is my friends fault and my friend has never felt the kind of love most of us have when growing up. It is so so so sad to see and unfortunately it happens a lot. So as horrible as abortion may seem to some, I think its a Godsend to the unborn baby that is now in the heavens with our God. When being aborted the time length between life and death is short which is a lot better than having to live their whole lives (sometimes over 80 years) in a life of he!!
There are so many reasons that people have to have abortions and I don't think it is anyone's right to judge them for their actions.
I also believe after a person departs this earth and meets our Creator they will have to face some serious times. If you have an abortion of necessity that is one thing, but if you aborted a fetus that is developed or had been born already that is a whole other situation - again between the creator and the person.
I think its very very important that a woman is allowed to make a serious decision like this between themselves, their doctor and nobody else. No political figure or some religious figure giving their opinions of what should be done based on what they believe.
So, that is just my opinion.
Your responses come as no
surprise. I was actually expecting worse. I guess i should thank you for your temperance. All that I said was that when I heard the Governor speak, it crossed my mind how no one representing this administration has attended any funerals of Iraqi soldiers. You say the others have attended none to some...that is more than this administration sees fit.
This IS the only administration where the president or an envoy of some sort has not attended a funeral or 2. It just simply crossed my mind while listening to the governor going on and on about W's compassionate self. I do not, contrary to popular belief, suffer from BDS. He is so completely inconsequential that I almost feel sorry for him. I watched him in Ohio giving a speech and he was rambling about chickens and plucking and something else...really not making a lot of sense. I was embarrassed for him. I have never seen a presidential campaign start as early as this one and I believe, IMHO, that the reason is that the nation pretty much considers this administration chopped liver. You have got to admit that the scandals (enough to make any CEO proud) have kept this administration from governing, with the exception of **staying the course,** not attending a funeral here or there.
I did not get my information on other presidents' funeral attendances from **liberal sources,** it is pretty much common knowledge and has been bandied around every time someone talks or writes about the numbers, the lack of photos, the **no draped caskets** rule quite a few times,...at any rate, I DID go to a **liberal** site today and found an article written by a man who had the same response I did and I will enclose it for your reading enjoyment. His focus covers the Iraqi civilians while I confess I had not thought of them as much as the soldiers and I should have.What those poor people go through on a daily basis, every day, every single day, with numbers in the 3 digits some of the time is heartbreaking.
The Human Face of Death
by Louis Freedberg
What the green hills of Blacksburg, Va., and the dusty streets of Baghdad have in common is that in the last few days terrible acts of violence have been perpetrated there.
But the reactions to that violence could not have been more different.
Within a day of the Virginia Tech massacre, the 32 victims were memorialized in detailed biographies, news stories, photos and “interactive features” on a range of Web sites.
Here’s an excerpt from the Washington Post’s write-up on 19-year-old Emily Hilscher, the first student killed by the deranged Cho Seung-Hui. Apparently, Hilscher liked every kind of music except country and classical. “Give me something I can bang my head to or dance like crazy and I’m all over it,” she wrote in her My Space profile.
Of Ryan Clark, another early victim, the New York Times wrote, “Ryan Clark was known as Stack on campus, an amiable senior memorable for his ready smile and thoughtful ways … Tall and thin, Mr. Clark, a resident of August, Ga., was well liked and a member of the university’s marching band, the Marching Virginians.”
It is entirely appropriate that the violence at Blacksburg be personalized. Putting the human face on death will help focus the nation’s attention on an out-of-control culture of violence, which allows easy access to guns to the most demented among us.
If the violence in Iraq were humanized to the same extent, perhaps the war in Iraq would be over by now.
Yet, instead of putting a human face on the carnage there, the human toll in Iraq has been mostly reduced to body counts. The victims of the Iraq war have received little of the outpouring of grief and national attention focused on the Virginia victims.
Here’s a cold number: as of this week, 3,309 U.S. servicemen and women have been killed in Iraq. Typically, the victims get a story or two in their hometown newspaper or a report on local television. (I just read my colleague Steve Rubenstein’s wrenching obituary on Sgt. Mario De Leon from Rohnert Park, who died in Baghdad on Monday. “Sweet, polite kind,” his wife said of her 26-year-old husband, who loved to watch his collection of “Star Wars” movies. “I never met anyone like him.”)
But then everyone moves on (except, of course, the survivors).
Some might say soldiers are in a line of work where casualties are expected. Mass homicide on a college campus, they’d argue, is a different story that deserve special attention.
But the civilian casualties of the civil war in Iraq rarely emerge as human beings who have lives as rich and complex lives as the Virginia dead. News reports from Iraq invariably provide a daily casualty count in a sentence or two, the numbers usually prefaced by the words “at least.”
On the Saturday just before the Virginia Tech massacre, “at least” 37 people were killed, and another 150 wounded in a car bomb explosion in Karbala.
On Sunday, 34 people were killed in two suicide bombings in Baghdad. Of those who died half were women and children, according to a report.
On Wednesday, “at least” 158 people were killed in Baghdad in some of the deadliest attacks of the war.
So it goes, each day in Iraq. More deaths. More numbers.
I’ve been searching for a report profiling even one of yesterday’s victims in Iraq. What did they look like? What music were they interested in? What were their hobbies? Who is mourning them?
I’ll concede that it’s tough to identify victims of suicide and car bombings. Language and security barriers make it difficult for reporters to track down relatives and friends of the victims.
Of course, they aren’t Americans. It’s understandable we would care more about our own.
The daily statistical reports from Baghdad on the latest atrocity are numbing to the point where we hardly pay attention to them anymore. They read like a table from Dow Jones Industrial index — up today, down tomorrow.
Imagine what would happen if mass killings on the scale of the Virginia Tech massacre — or multiples thereof — occurred each day in the United States.
Yet that is exactly what is happening in Iraq, a country one-tenth our size.
The Virginia victims deserve to be remembered as vibrant human beings. The images of them that dominate the airwaves have the potential to spark action to make sure something like it does not happen again.
But the anonymous victims of a war begun by the United States should also be memorialized. By reducing them to ciphers, it’s too easy to avoid confronting the full impact of the catastrophe that has overtaken Iraq.
And so the war goes on.
Louis Freedberg is a Chronicle editorial writer. E-mail him at lfreedberg@sfchronicle.com.
© 2007 The San Francisco Chronicle
Discuss this story
If your not getting responses
It seems like some posters below are attacking others for not aggreeing with them, however, they are being ignored. People are attacking others and luckly the original posters know what their game is and decided to not respond anymore, however, some (a) poster has taken it to a new level and decided to try to instigate more trouble. I would say no response is the best response they deserve.
Your responses are disturbing.
I don't believe I have ever seen a more angry and irrational person.
Thank you for your candid responses.
It helped solidify a few things in my head. I guess for me the bottom line is, whatever your beliefs are on the subject, if you have religion in your life or a pagan like myself, it does not give the right for a special interest group to subjugate another, and that is the end result. I don't think that they can effectively stop abortion using this method.
I think it all goes back to educating people. I guess it is easier for some individuals to stand on their moral high ground and point fingers than to truly come up with a workable solution. The unborn do not need their voice. They have a mother to make decisions for them, which is where it should stay. Selective benevolence? Not for me. If one is so emphatic in the decision to embrace life and fight for it, then fight for all. Do not pick and choose who or what's life is in more need. Pro-life to me means anti-war, anti-starvation, anti-subjugation, etcetera, for all living things.
If one is strongly anti-abortion, which is strictly a moral issue, then start a movement to educate people and create viable alternatives, but leave it out of political and the legal system. I do believe that choosing a presidential candidate because of a moral or religious tendency is improper. It comes as no surprise to me that this behavior has been justified on this posting. I find it to be extremely arrogant. But it seems that some just cannot temper themselves and feels the calling to preach not realizing that when one has an opinion about everything, they lose their effectiveness. People stop listening. The need to control or dominant a conversation has nothing to do with dissent. It has everything to do with being unduly opinionated and argumentative and makes people wonder who they are trying to convince.
I was glad someone brought up the subject of the welfare of these unwanted children. If parents discover early in their pregnancy that the child has birth defects and are responsible for the welfare over the lifetime of that child, should they not have the right to abort it? If a parent has a child who has experienced a TBI who cannot survive without a ventilator and nutritional support, should they not have the right to end that child's life? To me, that is benevolence. It is wrenching decision and should not rest within the government or a special interest group. Deferring abortion law back to the states does not address the issue at its root, it just puts it in someone else's lap.
No one wants increased welfare and other government subsidies. There is a direct correlation between the poor and uneducated to welfare subsidies. If government would actually take the subject seriously and increase education funding rather than cutting it everytime tax cuts are put on the table, which tend to hit the inner cities the hardest, it would stand to reason the abortion rates would go down. I firmly believe this. But, I digress, and this is a whole other subject.
I would like to hear a presidential candidate state they are going to increase education funding. That is a reason for backing a presidential hopeful.
Responses for M and Some thoughts (sm)
M:
If they don't show progress and default on the loans, then the gov would have a controlling interest because they gave out those loans. This would lead to restructuring, and probably more of a government run industry. And yeah, they could mess it up just as bad, but we have to at least try something.
Some thoughts:
Even if they are supported financially during re-education, what would they go into? Just about every industry across the board is being hit with this financial mess, so their options would be limited. Also, we're talking about millions of people, and not everyone is cut out for higher education, which is a good thing because we actually do need workers in this country.
This also leaves us with an auto industry that would consist of imports, so we would still be oil dependent.
Thank you for your wonderful responses!
I am truly impressed by all of the posters who responded to this question in such a compassionate and intelligent way. You have renewed my faith in the people who post on this board, and for that I thank you!
Personally, I think that any medicine that can help relieve human suffering should, without a doubt, be legal and made available to those in need. The voters of California or any other state that wish to have marijuana legalized should have that right without interference from the federal governent.
Again, thank you!
Yep -Responses from the very ones I expected.
You all are SO predictable.
TTYL...I'm off to do something constructive for our country....
Obama does not inspire these responses.
xoxoxo
Unbelievable that there are no responses to this post.. All I can say is...sm
this is so true. In my opinion, people voting for the republican ticket are either right wing religious voters, rich voters, poor under-educated voters who are easily led, bigots who would never vote for a black man, or people who for whatever reason buy into the terrorist, Muslim, anti-American, anti-Christ, foreigner, not like us scare tactics that abound.
Well, I got a fair number of other responses....sm
..from people who got the point. Sorry if it zoomed past you two!
Note to self: There are a couple of simpletons on the board. Do not use parody or metaphor when writing, or you'll lose them.
Questions for dems and pubs - only serious responses need post...(sm)
If you are a democrat, is there anything that Obama has done that you don't agree with, or perhaps is there a policy that he has kept from the previous admin that you agree with that would be out of the norm for the left?
My answer: I actually agree with the decision exhibited thus far by the Obama administration to keep the "enemy combatant" thing. I think it could serve as useful, however, it should not be abused. In the case of al-Marri I think it was abused, and it should be refined. They have FINALLY brought charges against this guy who has been held in prison since 2003 with no charges, no counsel, nada. I think we need to preserve the right to hold people, but there needs to be some kind of standard for doing so.
Info on case: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gcdH1vowYGzkkCo-7c8M2imC056Q
If you are a republican is there anything that the Obama administration has done that you DO agree with?
This looks interesting. A long read, so will read it when I get home from work. nm
nm
Obviously u didnt read, I said NONE of them are moral. Read the post before spouting off.
I read on CNN (yes, I do read liberal stuff too..hehe)...sm
...that Karl Rove was actually very disappointed in the McCain campaign for airing negative type ads against Obama.
So I would say that Rove is definitely not in the hip pocket of the McCain campaign.
Good research sam - but a lot to read right now so gotta read it later
I've been goofing off too much from work. I appreciate what you wrote and will read when I'm done with work here.
sorry, should read I did not read post that way.
,
All you have to do is read up on Marxism, read up on...
black liberation theology, and look at what Obama is proposing. All of it a matter of public record, most of it from his own mouth. Your denial of it does not change the facts. If you support socialism, vote for him. Certainly your right. You are already wanting to squelch any kind of dissent...what's up with that? If you seriously consider calling someone a socialist a smear, you really need to read up on your candidate. I did not post a smear, I posted a fact. Redistribution of wealth is socialist and he already said he was going to do it...I heard him say it and it is now a campaign commercial. Sigh.
Some on this board can only read what they want to read (nm)
x
READ THE ARTICLE-READ OTHER
READERS COMMENTS!!!
see message
I think the behavior you describe is pretty common for ignorant folks. Just because they voted for him, they feel they have to uphold every stupid decision he makes.
Thank you - please see message
I'm glad you felt comfortable responding to my post. I didn't realize how heated things had gotten but could tell from what remains on the conservative board that it had gotten pretty ugly, and I thought the tax issue was a fairly safe issue to broach to provide a cooling period while discussing an issue that pretty much everyone agrees on - a need for tax reform.
Note, though, that it was one post on one topic and the first I have submitted in some time. Most of the threads on the board begin with an issue/article posted by Nan or AG.
However, regardless of who contributes most to the conservative forum, I must agree with Brunson and thank him/her for recognizing that the conservative forum is the conservative forum. I realize that tempers have flared there and things got out of hand, but the conservative posters have given no worse than they received. It seems to me that, at any time, liberal posters tired of dealing with Nan and AG (and MT, as well) on the conservative board could have done as Nan and AG did - remained on the forum dedicated to their point of view.
Thank you for your welcome to this forum - you have been very congenial, and I have enjoyed the discussion today. Frankly, I cannot see myself fitting into this liberal forum - as I said, my views on most issues tend to be pretty conservative. I don't see much point in hanging around the conservative forum if there isn't anybody there, so it looks like I'll probably just be peeking in now and again to see if/when discussion resumes. If I reply again on this forum, I will certainly try to do so with as much respect and kindness as you have shown me today, even though my opinions will probably differ.
Hey.....see my message!
I live in a rural area, have three dogs and do weight training also!!!
Actually it is said by the experts that if you are inexperienced with a gun you're better off not having one. It's kind of complex, but check out the info if you're interested.
I used to have military mace (actually from when I lived in a big city) - not sure if it's available to the public - probably easier to use than a gun and just as effective. Otherwise, not sure who we're supposed to be afraid of here.....I generally am not afraid of intruders and I don't have any weapons in my house other than my dogs and my mouth!!!
See Message.
Maybe if you were more tolerant and didn't pose such a rude message, someone would be interested in debating with you. I think it's just human nature to not want to associate with people who approach others in such a nasty confrontational way. If you were nicer to others, others would be nicer to you.
See message.
I can't wait to see what Fitzgerald's investigation unfolds.
Libby and Rove both were sources for the leak of Plame's occupation.
This was after Joe Wilson made public that Bush's claim that Saddam Hussein was purchasing uranium to make nukes was FALSE. The administration KNEW it was false, yet Bush used this fake threat of nukes in his State of the Union address to scare the heebie-jeebies out of the American public so they would support this bogus war.
That's how Bushies handle people who cross them. Don't DARE tell the truth or expose the administration for what it truly is. If you do, they'll not only put the life of a CIA agent in danger, but every single person she worked with around the globe pertaining to WMD. Why isn't this treason? It's the Bush way of doing things, and Karl Rove is an expert and accomplished thug.
I hope this goes beyond Rove and Libby and goes straight to Bush and Cheney. This is definitely an illegal war, brought on totally false premises, and Bush and Cheney should be personally held accountable for all the deaths (American and Iraqi) that have resulted from their lies.
It's truly sad when the only man on earth who can make Saddam look not so bad is GEORGE W. BUSH. I'm very ashamed of my government. 
See message.
I'm writing to my Congressman and Senator and see if this is true, express my objection and see if they can BOUNCE the *blank check* they gave him regarding Iraq and require Congressional approval for air strikes.
The article you posted included the following:
After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the former official said, he was told that Bush felt that “God put me here” to deal with the war on terror. The President’s belief was fortified by the Republican sweep in the 2002 congressional elections; Bush saw the victory as a purposeful message from God that “he’s the man,” the former official said. Publicly, Bush depicted his reëlection as a referendum on the war; privately, he spoke of it as another manifestation of divine purpose.
Someone needs to tell Bush that God thinks Bush is too engulfed in his own ego to fully understand God's REAL message to him, and that's why God gave us POLLS.
See message.
I don't believe religious symbols of ANY kind belong in schools (unless they're religious schools) or government buildings. If Walmart or Target wish to be inclusive to all religious beliefs, more power to them. Private businesses should be free to do as they wish. If they want to limit it to the religious Christmas and exclude the secular *Christmas,* some people might not want to shop in that kind of *exclusive* shop. You can bet their profit margin is the bottom line for them.
For every religion out there, there are buildings: churches, mosques, temples, etc. where like-minded people gather to worship. Trying to control the very WORDS people say isn't going to work unless and until you guys figure out a way to implant a chip in every American that will force them to speak, think, believe and worship just like you do. Maybe some of us think you'd do that if you had the ability, and maybe THAT'S the underlying thing that people are fighting.
OMG!!! (see message)
That mental image HURTS.
I am so SICK of this man's lies. Bush needs to get them straight. When he said the following in 2004, he was clearly lying and KNEW IT, as we now all know. I just wonder if there's ever been just ONE TIME in the last 5 years when he's actually told the truth. Have you seen this?
Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order, he said on April 20, 2004 in Buffalo, New York.
Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so, he added.
On April 19, 2004, Bush said the Patriot Act enabled law-enforcement officials to use roving wiretaps, which are not fixed to a particular telephone, against terrorism, as they had been against organized crime.
You see, what that meant is if you got a wiretap by court order -- and by the way, everything you hear about requires court order, requires there to be permission from a FISA court, for example, he said in Hershey, Pennsylvania.
Please see message.
I totally agree this absolutely reaches across the board. This monster repeatedly raped this child for 3 years, but the damage he's done to her is going to affect her entire life. How about putting him in jail FOREVER so he can't hurt anyone else??? I also wouldn't have a problem with the death penalty for animals such as this.
I've recently seen this judge on TV, actually defending his actions, as if there is a defense for them. Thank God for Bill O'Reilly (I don't usually care for him) and Joe Scarborough and Dan Abrams (and others, I'm sure) who are publicizing this. Hopefully, this judge will be removed soon so maybe more children won't suffer. This judge, in my opinion, is just as guilty as the molester himself.
I sat here, trying to put myself in the parents' shoes, and I wonder how many parents will begin to feel that taking the law into their own hands and killing these rabid animals is the only way to keep their children safe in lieu of a judge that cares more about the criminals than their victims. If and when that happens, I'm not sure I could blame them.
I've written to Vermont's governor, as well. I'm glad so many people are writing and publicizing this issue. It's the only way things will change.
See message.
Number one, despite what is so *obvious* to you, I do not hate my country. In fact, I miss it very much. And I don't hate Bush because I don't *hate* anyone. When he took over the Presidency, I began my impressions of him on an even keel. Slowly, bit by bit, he has corroded any good impressions I ever may have had of him with his constant lying, dirty tricks, contempt for the Constitution, total and complete refusal to admit that he is NOT PERFECT, blatant disregard for the security of our borders, presiding over an econmy where people can barely afford gas but oil company executives get richer and richer, etc., etc. I truly and sincerely believe he poses a HUGE threat to the security of every American citizen.
Regardless of what the Iranian President (his name is Ahmadinejad, by the way) claims to have, they don't have the capacity to nuke anyone, but the USA does, and Bush has a ZERO record when it comes to diplomacy. Again, both Bush and Ahmadinejad are whack jobs, and neither can be reasoned with. I believe this is a very dangerous combination of two out-of-control egos, and the end of humanity could very well be imminent. I'm not going to apologize for caring if my grandchildren might not have the opportunity to reach voting age in this country because of a president who doesn't care about his legacy because, when asked, he said Who cares? We'll all be dead, anyway. That statement, combined with his love of war, I find to be quite chilling.
As far as being *lost in my world,* I can see very clearly a President who is losing more and more credibility, not on a daily basis any more but on an HOURLY basis. I have ZERO faith or trust in this man. Again, contrary to your implied intimate knowledge of me, my brain, my heart and my soul, these aren't because of any preconceived notions I might have about Bush. These are because the actions of Bush himself. As polls are evidencing more and more each day, I'm not alone in my skepticism of him.
Regarding where I got the quotes, if you are genuinely interested, I would suggest you Google them. You've already indicated an inclination to not believe them, so I'm not going to waste my time by going back to the multiple sources I found, simply to provide you with a link that you've already decided not to believe. If your interest is sincere, you'll look it up. 
Regarding your response to my *shopping spree* statement, I'm sorry, but it didn't come across as a joke to me. It sounded like a negative character judgment regarding someone who doesn't agree with you, which is a common Neocon MO from Bush and his cronies all the way down to the lowest peon on the totem pole who is convinced Bush is on his or her side. 
Likewise, you can't possibly know the extent of my intelligence since you don't know me, have never met me and aren't qualified to offer such an opinion. Inherent in your assessment that I'm *not that stupid* is the notion that you feel I do possess a certain degree of stupidity, which leads me to your comment that I feel I have to *label everyone who disagrees* with me as *uninformed and unthinking.* I respectfully point out that these *labels* are YOUR words, not mine, and I would challenge you to point to those words in my above post to you.
Have a very pleasant day. 
Please see message.
I try to get my information from a variety of sources. These days, it's hard to find a completely neutral source.
The main thing I'm interested in is finding the truth, and it seems that the party with the most to hide is the least likely to provide it.
When Clinton was President, I listened to a lot of right-leaning news sources for the very same reason. I thought the lack of respect Clinton showed in the Oval Office was terrible, and I was actually in favor of impeaching him for that. I didn't buy into and agree with the notion that what he did in his private life was his business. In my opinion, the Oval Office doesn't belong to the President; it belongs to every American tax-paying citizen.
I voted for Ronald Reagan, and to this day, I still think of him as a wonderful President. Historians may disagree with me on that point, and they may be right, because I'm obviously no expert in that field. I even voted for George Herbert Walker Bush, so I'm not some hardline lefty who hates the United States, is godless and has no moral values.
(I just wanted to share a thumbprint of who I really am because some people want to crucify me on this board simply because they see my name and couldn't care less what I have to say. You, on the other hand, have been posting here in a very respectful, intelligent manner, and I'm very appreciative of that and hope you continue to do so. I'm beginning to look forward to reading your posts after the last day or so.)
I believe that many people were looking for a big change in the White House when they voted for George W. Bush. I believe they wanted some sense of decency and honor restored to it. I was one of those people.
When I look back at the thing Clinton did that I thought was so terrible, and I look at what Bush has done, I guess the only thing I can say to sum it up is what Jay Leno said in his monologue the other night: At least Clinton only screwed one American at a time (I'm paraphrasing, but that's the gist of it).
What amazes me the most about (what seems like) blind loyalty to Bush is that I wonder what they thought they were voting for, compared to what they got. I thought Republicans (conservatives) were supposed to beiin favor of less spending, smaller federal government and fiscal responsibility. After really disliking President Clinton, I actually feel that when it came to things important to the everyday lives of Americans, Clinton was a far better President.
I feel no sense of trust for President Bush. I don't feel he is on the side of the average American. I truly believe he wants to get rid of the middle class altogether, so the only ones left are the rich (who he referred to as his *base*) and the poor.
Whether he made the pejorative comment about the Constitution or not, he ACTS like he has no respect for it (as was also mentioned in the article). There is truly no need any more for Congress, regardless of whether it's a Republican or Democratic Congress because it doesn't matter what laws they write, if Bush doesn't like it, he will simply issue a *signing statement* expressing that he will do what he wants, anyway.
We have a system of checks and balances for a reason, and he seems to totally disregard it. To me, it's ironic that he seeks to search and destroy all dictatorships -- except the one that is of his own creation here in the United States.
There's a growing history of how he treats those who either tell the truth or simply don't agree with his policies. He *Swiftboats* them.
There are many stories out there about the Diebold machines being rigged so that a certain political party wins. I have a friend who voted on a Diebold machine that produced a paper receipt. Sure enough, it reflected that she voted for the other party, when, in fact, she did NOT.
I'm completely against his views on immigration. I believe we should have immediately tightened and secured ALL our borders after 9/11 and, at least for the time being, not allow ANYONE in. Instead, we used that money to go to war with Iraq, not because Saddam Hussein was a threat but because Bush needed a war to insure a *successful Presidency.* Did you know that the President's itinery was found by an ex-con in a trash can last week? Why was that allowed to happen?
Did you know that part of his Iraq war spending includes a comphrehensive healthcare plan for every Iraqi? Look at the healthcare system in the United States. Shouldn't the healthcare for Americans take precedence over the healthcare of Iraqis?
Do I want our troops to come home? You bet I do. I believe the best way we can support them is to get them out of there.
Having said that, I also believe we simply cannot *cut and run.* We simply cannot go into a country and completely destroy and then leave without fixing what we broke. I believe we morally owe it to the people of Iraq to leave their country in a better place than when we found it. I wish democracy would have worked in Iraq INSTANTLY. Then maybe Bush would have hopefully begun to worry about fixing the massive problems in his own country. Having said that, I have serious doubts that a long-lasting democracy will survive in that region. I believe that many of them view us as being evil and having no morals. (I can't really disagree with this view, considering some of the things that go on in this country.) I think Joe Biden had an excellent idea of dividing Iraq into three provinces (which is supported in the Iraqi Constitution).
Instead, I believe this war was a whim, based on his own personal goals, without regard for one single soldier he sent to die. To me, that is unforgiveable.
Should he be allowed to spy on innocent Americans during wartime? I guess that depends on the definition of *innocent.* I sure don't know any terrorists. Heck, I don't even know my own neighbors. But I have repeatedly expressed my disagreement with his policies, and I've read how innocent Americans whose only *sin* is disagreeing with this President, so I have no reason to believe that I won't find myself being *investigated* by some agency eventually, maybe even the IRS in the form of an audit or some other intimidating tactic that this President is so fond of using.
As far as the Democrats are concerned, I personally can't stand Hillary Clinton and would never vote for her (even if I DID live in a country where my vote actually counted). I'm as disgusted with the Democrats as I am with the President.
I'm not some Godless heathen without morals simply because I don't agree with Bush. I very much believe in God. In fact, I believe God has been sending Bush a series of *signs* that he has chosen to ignore. What I don't believe is pushing my religion down everyone else's throats. What I believe in most of all is tolerance and respect for everyone, regardless of their religious beliefs. When one religion acts as if it is superior to all others, that concerns me and automatically forces me further to the left. Freedom of religion in this country is a wonderful thing, and nobody's religion is better than someone else's (including those who simply don't believe at all). Yet, the fallacy that all Democrats (or anyone else who doesn't believe in Bush) are godless heathens is alive and well. Ann Coulter, who can't seem to remember her address and is under investigation for voter fraud (see http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002807.htm, complete with the complaining document) plans on releasing a book outlining evil devils (such as myself and other millions of Americans she's never met) on none other than 6/6/06. I believe that one particular religion has no place in government. Do I have a problem with *In God We Trust* on our money? Of course not. When the word *God* is used in a generic term, it's INCLUSIVE, not EXCLUSIVE. But whether or not I can read it as I purchase a newspaper is irrelevant to what I feel in my soul and my heart. I can assure you my morals are very high, and it truly hurts (thus turning to anger) when certain conservatives accuse people like me of being evil and Godless. They say that most anger is the result of fear. The times I'm most angry is truly when I'm the most frightened. It's really hard to carry on a dialogue with someone who has labeled you so negatively, a sense of self-defense kicks in, and often arguments and more name-calling ensues, none of which is productive and all of which is hurtful and fruitless.
I'm sorry this is so long, but as I said, I enjoy reading your posts. Although I don't know you or your political beliefs, you seem to be conservative. You also seem to be intelligent and respectful and don't resort to personal attacks on posters, which is very refreshing on these boards. I was just trying to give you some insight into who I am and the reason I don't like Bush. In fact, I'm very frightened of him.
As I've said before, if I felt my President was honest, trustworthy, ethical and truly had the interests of ALL Americans foremost in his mind, I would have no problem at all with his obtaining lists of my telephone calls because I truly have nothing to hide, and if it saved one life, to me, it would be worth it. I just don't trust him to do the right thing, and that isn't based on anything I've heard or read from any left-leaning media. It's based solely on his own actions in the last six years.
I'm no far left-leaning whacko. In fact, I'm truly a middle-of-the road kind of thinker. I think there are a lot of us out there. Speaking personally, it's just that the *righter* he goes, the *lefter* I automatically wind up, not because I voluntarily choose to, but because in order to maintain my original thoughts, that's where he pushes me.
I don't expect you to agree with me. In fact, I fully expect you not to agree with me, and I hope you respond because I am very interested in hearing your views. Again, I thank you for being respectful and not resorting to name calling. You have opened the door to serious, honest and intelligent debate, and for that, I thank you.
I hope you have a wonderful weekend.
Please see message.
I hope you had an opportunity to read the article I posted before it was censored. It certainly explains the few bad apples in an otherwise wonderful military and also answers the question you raised regarding the recruiting tactics.
Please see message.
It was just a very angry hateful person who wished bad things on America. Just a one-line post on the subject line with a red angry face in the text portion of the post. (I don't want to repeat it because it might cause this thread to be deleted again.)
See Message...
I have decided to lock this thread. I do not believe the OP had bad intentions, but I do not like the direction in which this thread is going.
Moderator 
See message....
Please watch your comments. This is the second post of yours I have edited based on inappropriate remarks. Let this serve as a warning to you.
Moderator
See message...
Your comments about race were inappropriate. They were bound to offend, and it is best to leave those kind of remarks off this site.
Moderator
Please see message.
You've just summed up exactly my impression of Hillary Clinton, and my impression wasn't formed by anybody who is anti-Clinton. It was formed by Hillary's own self-portrait that she eagerly showed to the world.
Thanks - see message
Thanks - its such a breath of fresh air to hear more people feel the same way I do. I'm am sick to death of her people trying to push her in the VP slot (which just is not going to happen) but seems thats all that's on the news just can't wait for it to end. If it does happen well they can be assured that McCain will definitely win. The Clintons should not be allowed anywhere near the white house. Don't people remember what they did the last time they were in there? I listen to the people who support her and think...why? there is not one good quality about that woman. People are saying she's a good role model for their children??? People think that someone who is a liar, cheater, thief, bribes people, gives people false hope, walks all over people not caring who she steps on just as long as she is on top, is a sore loser, not humble, has a foul mouth to match her attitude, is just downright nasty to people when she doesn't get her way, etc, etc, well I then question their character. Never mind all the people whose lives and careers have been destroyed because they went against the Clintons. And another thing they talk about the Clinton Dynasty or Clinton Legacy? I always thought a Dynasty was if you have a long line of people in the family who have been in politics (like the Kennedys). It is only the two of them. Nobody in their family is in politics or is decent. These two came out of nowhere and they've only done harm to the democrat party. They are tearing the party apart for their own personal gain and they don't care.
See message...
The portion that I edited were not statements made by Hillary Clinton. Those statements were made by you. They were aggressive and strange, to say the least, and those kind of comments have no place on this site.
Moderator
Please see message.
Well, it worked just as well for me during this occasion. I think different people react differently, depending on the dosage, their tolerance, and how tired they might be. It might work differently for you than it does for me. Heck, it might (and does) work differently for ME, depending on the above. I have an illness which may (and usually does) awaken me in the middle of the night. If it's not too bad, I can take a pain pill and actually even be able to work a little. (If it's hospital-worthy, then I slap on a Fentanyl patch, and once that enters my system, I'm usually out like a light for a couple days. If that doesn't work, then it's back to the hospital again, which I try to avoid.) However, when this stuff happens, I wind up in a backwards sleep cycle and wind up being awake all night. This is what happened to me Friday/Saturday, and if you'll note, I began the post by stating I had been up most of the night.
Secondly, it was not a two-hour nap. Please read the post again and note the difference between 10:26 a.m. and 7:14 P.M.
Thank you OP - appreciate your message.
Thanks.
Sam (see message)
 If you can't stand the heat....Get out of the kitchen!
|
