Response to your analysis...sm
Posted By: TechSupport on 2009-03-22
In Reply to: I just don't get it - ok
First, let's clear away everything you said about Obama's motives, because they are completely irrelevant. A man can act from the purest of motives and the best of intentions, and yet be entirely wrong.
So, to start us off let's just concede that Obama is a patriot, has the best interests of the country at heart and has no ulterior motives or personal interests driving his agenda.
Then, let's also set aside the desirability at least most of the agenda that Obama is promoting, because that, too, is irrelevant to our disagreement with him. At bottom, "we the people" of both/all parties want much the same things. No one would argue, or is arguing, that good schools for our kids, job security with a decent wage, equal opportunity for everyone, access to affordable healthcare, safe streets and national security.
We do have some problems with parts of Obama's agenda. The "science" of global warming, for instance, is simply abominably bad, and many scientists have said so. It has become a business, starting with AL Gore and spreading outward to the greedy hands that grasp for government money allocataed to "combat" this Don Quixote windmill. It is at least strongly possible that the earth is simply going through a cyclical climate change that has existed since the earth was formed - and some of us are saying that before we undertake the enormously expensive and economically damaging measures that the "sky-is-falling folks" are demanding, let's get the science right first and stop using models that start out by assuming the truth of global warming in order to prove global warming. The science has been hijacked by greed for government money.
We do have problems with Obama's policy of appeasement, and so far we have already had three very disturbing confirmations that appeasement is a very bad idea (Russia, Iran, and North Korea). It hasn't been pleasant watching Obama get slapped around in front of the world by Putin, the Ayatollah in Iran and Kim Jong Il.
But let's get closer to home. I said that people of all parties want much the same things. The questions that divide us are not what we should do, but how these things can best be achieved, at what cost, and how rapidly.
As to how these things can best be achieved, Obama believes that government should do them. He proposes to expand government more than Roosevelt did during the New Deal, and extend government's reach into every nook and cranny of American society. Under his budget, the government will account for 25% of the American economy - spending 1 in every 4 dollars. This alone should both stagger and worry everyone, because every government dollar must first be taken away from us (the government makes no money of its own), because the government is infamous for waste and corruption that will siphon dollars off as they do by the $billions with Medicare/Medicaid, and because government dollars always have very burdensome strings attached.
A good question to ask yourself is: Name 5 things that government does well (meaning, effectively and efficiently). You'll have a tough time filling out your list, if you're honest with yourself. Think about education, government-funded healthcare like Medicare/Medicaid, etc. and try to convince yourself that government is doing them well.
Time and again, it has been proven that private enterprise does a much better job of delivering desirable goods (an economic term for both "things" and "services") than government does. Rather than expanding an inept institution (government) to provide these goods, we should be encouraging the private sector to do so. The private sector is required to pay attention to costs, whereas the government is not (anyone can easily find millions of examples of that!).
Then, there is the second item of disagreement - "at what cost". This is related to the third item - "how rapidly". As desirable as many of the items on Obama's agenda might be, I have a lot of items on my personal agenda that are pretty desirable but that I simply cannot afford, or cannot afford RIGHT NOW. We, the people, are in exactly the same position. We have a deep recession that must be our first priority and perhaps, at this moment, our ONLY priority. In fact, so much money is being spent on this agenda item that it may well be the only thing we will be able to afford for quite some time to come, because the bill for all this stimulus spending has yet to come due. Make no mistake, though - we will pay, and pay, and pay, and pay.
When you look at the stimulus package, for instance, there is an incredible number of items that are "compartmentalized" - meaning that the states will get the dollars ONLY if they use them to do certain things that are on Obama's social agenda. And, a large number of these things will generate few if any jobs. The CBO's own numbers confirm that job creation is likely to be only half of what you're hearing from the White House, and unlike the White House, the CBO can explain where they get their numbers.
If we press forward with Obama's programs, the forward deficit (not one that Obama inherited from Bush!) will be nearly $10 trillion. This number is so staggering that governments around the world are beginning to wonder if Washington has lost its mind, and to worry that Washington will be the fountainhead of global superinflation.
It's time to set aside any questions of whether you like Obama or not...or whether you like his agenda or not. IT DOESN'T MATTER whether you like him or his agenda or not. The simple fact is, WE CANNOT AFFORD IT. We seem to think that the government doesn't need to recognize its limits and live within its means, just like families must do. The prospect of a $10 trillion deficit should strike more fear into your heart than terrorists or Russian missiles. It will literally enslave the American taxpayer, while at the same time increasing the price of everything you buy. Some goods will no longer be available at all to the "middle class" because they will become luxury items. Don't just whistle past the graveyard - think!
No society is ever perfect. A hundred years from now, we will still be looking around and seeing things that need to be done, or things that could be improved, or things that need to be eliminated, or things that need to be done differently. And, in that year of 2109, we will still have to say "There are some things on this list that we can afford, and some things we can't afford." We will still have to say "There are some things on this list that government should do, and some things that the private sector should do". It's the ability to make those distinctions that marks the difference between people who are driven by "party politics" and agendas, and those who realize that there are very real constraints that trump any agenda. They are the constraints of the limitations of government, the budget and the longer-term unintended consequences of rushing headlong to achieve any agenda, no matter how desirable it might be.
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
analysis is exactly what you need
nm
Very well put Tired MT. Your analysis is spot on. sm
I have been reading the posts for quite a while and I have to agree with you. If you don't agree with political viewpoints on this board, you are jumped on with both feet. I have been on the receiving end of it alos. I figure it this way, I must have really struck a nerve to get people so incensed that they go ballistic. I do have to say that Sam can more than hold her own and I love reading what she has to say. Kudos to Sam for having the courage of her convictions and kudos to you for putting a finger on the problem.
Wow! Thanks! According to your analysis there is no need to hold an election!
X
I totally agree with your analysis.
The release would do more harm than good.
The only purpose to release these pictures can be to persecute the former administration. We all and they all know that they are guilty.
Also, right, NOW is not the time to go after them.
I respect your analysis about how the people in the
Middle East are going to react to the exposure of the torture pictures. But it is a risky thing. The Muslim people's, the everyday people that is, reaction was also standing in awe to the 9/11 catastrophy and condemning it, as they knew it will backfire on them, the people.
But, I guess, their reaction seeing the torture picture, would not be favorable to us, in no way. The pictures will be met with horror, not respect by the Muslim people and the people all over the world. It is cruel torture, and who wants to see humans suffer in such way?
They will ask, 'What is the logic and reason to post those pictures?' They most probably will misunderstand it and maybe judge it as provocation. No good can come out of this. And I do not even dare to think of the reaction of the extremists. Why should a country expose its humiliating mistakes so openly to the world?
Let's not exaggerate trying to repair America's image to the world and the Arab world, I think O is on the right path.
this is not hateful, it is just an analysis and the truth...nm
I cannot believe the B* that is posted by the Rep on the Politics Board, especially the last 2 days, this has gone INSANE !
I agree with your analysis. It's gonna be ugly, especially if
Hezbullah wins in Lebanon.
Another classy response. I won't say liberal response,
because I don't think you and these pile-on posters are indicative of liberals as a whole. Don't know why they let you speak for them...but that is up to them. Obviously you don't think compassion is a personality trait...obviously you feel that it can be turned on and off to suit your agenda. So be it.
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
Do you agree with this analysis of Jewish abortion stance? sm
Jewish beliefs and practice not neatly match either the "pro-life" nor the "pro-choice" points of view. The general principles of modern-day Judaism are that:
The fetus has great value because it is potentially a human life. It gains "full human status at birth only." 2
Abortions are not permitted on the grounds of genetic imperfections of the fetus.
Abortions are permitted to save the mother's life or health.
With the exception of some Orthodox authorities, Judaism supports abortion access for women.
"...each case must be decided individually by a rabbi well-versed in Jewish law." 5
Historical Christianity has considered "ensoulment," the point at which the soul enters the body) as the time when abortions should normally be prohibited. Belief about the timing of this event has varied from the instant of fertilization of the ovum, to 90 days after conception, or later. There has been no consensus among historical Jewish sources about when ensoulment happens. It is regarded as "one of the 'secrets of God' that will be revealed only when the Messiah comes."
Wow, and you can ascertain all that from 4 weeks in office? Amazingly rapid political analysis!.....
nm
Great post, great insight, great analysis, thanks!..nm
nm
no response ....
No response
We are not supposed to cross post, so I am respecting the administrator's request.
My response
There is no sound byte answer about Rev. Wright. I'll give you a hint. It has to do with the fact that men of his generation experienced life in America differently than the whites did. Historically, many black churches have been and are political forums, stemming from the days of slavery, when the churches provided a refuge where freedom of speech was possible. I don't know what Obama did or did not hear, and neither do you. What I do know is that he has written extensively about the confusion he had over the "black" part of his identity and part of his search for meaning, purpose and belonging in his younger days was played out in South Chicago. If you have read anything about the church at all, you will know that they have been engaged in many extensive and successful outeach programs in their community and I suspect his "association" with Trinity was focused and centered around that. Too bad a person cannot be judged but his deeds, rather than wild speculation, innuendo and smear campaigns about the company he keeps.
A response from.....sm
To the first 4 paragraphs decrying the decay of black leadership while attempting to lay the blame at the feet of the democratic party, encouraging blacks to bail and proclaiming the dawn of a new day for black conservatism, all that needs to be said is yeah, right. The proof is in the pudding. Black voters are backing Obama 94-1, according to this random poll citation: http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1192 …6% stampede, and we have not even made it through the convention. Great big whoop.
The abortion graphics let us know that the minister is pro-life. OK. Fine. Next, we have this twisted accusation that Obama supports partial birth abortion. That is not his position on abortion, and it is laid out in no uncertain terms on his website and countless times in his speeches and townhall meetings. What he said is that he supports the notion that things should stay as they have been and that those issues should be determined on a state-by-state basis at the local level. Same thing with regard to same-sex marriage and the federal government not being in the business of defining the meaning of marriage, which he clearly believes is a union between a man and a woman (not exactly the most popular position in the gay community).
Yet despite this, the pastor insists he is champion of the gay agenda and the abortion "industry." Never mind that the democratic party platform includes many pro-active initiatives that conservatives will continue to obstruct regarding abortion prevention through sex education, birth control, encouraging and enabling single parents to keep their children with parenting education, job skills training and making adoption laws more user friendly. Most democrats perceive the conservative views on abortion as caring about unborn right from conception to the moment of birth. Beyond that, the babies kind of fall off the radar screen.
For this radical stance (i.e., preserving status quo), the pastor evokes the Barack HUSSEIN Obama slur and is all indignant that Obama puts himself out there as a Christian. Champion of the dead horse drumbeat. This guy is not looking real credible at this point. Performer, he calls him, doubting Obama's sincerity. The "God's on our side" mantra rings hollow as well, considering the conservative pathologic disdain for poverty and conflicts over notions such as the measure of a nation's moral character is only as strong as it's care for the least among us.
He then proceeds to twist the words of THE greatest black leader of modern times…MLK. The infanticide he referred to was the practice of killing female infants/gender selection in biblical patriarchal societies.…a practice emphatically condemned by the Islamic Prophet Mohammed in the Quran back in the day. Twist, turn, spin.
Lets see. Obama is evil incarnate because homophobic interpretations of the Bible do not impress him as much as the Sermon on the Mount? That would be the moral teachings of Jesus, to include the Lord's Prayer, the injunctions to "resist not evil" and "turn the other cheek", as well as Jesus' version of the Golden Rule. Other lines often quoted are the references to "salt of the Earth," "light of the world," and "JUDGE NOT, LEST YE BE JUDGED." These are the core beliefs of the Christian doctrine. Drag out the tar and feathers and hang him high for that sacrilege.
Then another call to arms for those 6% black conservatives, a 2nd reference to Barack HUSSEIN Obama. As for the upcoming black conservative youth, it is the youth vote from the remaining 94% blacks and whites alike that just might boost Obama over the top, last I heard.
Then of course, there are a few paragraphs of closing prayers. If this is what it means to be "right," this guy ends up making the Obama nation look better and better.
response
So you are saying all other media outlets except Fox are liberal and therefore cannot be trusted to provide accurate information. Therefore, you can only get true information from their network, because they tell you that is so. I see where you are coming from.
response
All the examples you use about being make to hate, if the individuals mentioned being indoctrinated resisted by using their minds to seek broader or alternative information could simply resist the information being forced on them and resist hating. Poor sentence structure, I admit.
response
McCain did the same thing when he was defeated in N. Caroline because Rove used dirty tactics like push polls calling people and asking if they would vote for McCain if they knew he had a biracial baby. McCain had to suck it up and stand next to Bush and announce that he would support him. I thought he was ethical enough to resist using such tactics when he the chance to campaign. but I was wrong.
response
Of course I believe they can. Luckily you tacked on white supremacists right there at the end or I would have been appalled at the assumption that non-caucasian, non-christian people are incapable of thinking for themselves.
response...
Both Bush and McCain supported privatizing social security IF a person wanted to...neither have advocated making it mandatory. Perhaps if that had been done in the first place, it would not have been a fund that a Democratic congress could have raided to fund other programs. I personally would like to have control of my own funds (except congress has already spent them) and put in a CD..not the stock market. So that govt grubby paws could not get at it anymore. But that is just me.
I think the operative word is McCain said he did not disagree. He did not say he himself would re-start the draft. In the world the way it is, if enlistment really dropped off, it might be necessary just so we would have the size Armed Forces we would need, should the need arise. That just makes good sense. A peace time draft might be a good thing...two years in the service might change the direction some kids might choose to go. Would also provide some skills training and the ability to go to college after their service...instead of gangs...instead of being on the street...learn a trade, get a job...I don't necessarily think it would be a bad thing. The Armed Forces have been good careers for a lot of men and women...the Armed Forces are not just for war. But again...that is just me.
See my response above. And you are right - sm
I think both sides need to leave the experience thing alone.
The rep response is
lie, lie, lie and CYA. This whole SP story is going to blow up in their faces. At least, that's what I'm expecting, but sure will be amusing to watch over the next couple of weeks. Joe Scarborough, a former republican representative, said he would have never chosen her with just 1 1/2 years of governership and a mayor of a small town as experience. The media is not expected to ask questions or interview Ms. SP at least for two weeks yet. What are they hiding? Why can't the media ask her questions? This is quite as someone said before "a sideshow." Very entertaining.
response (sm)
Let the oil companies bail them out since they directly benefited from some of the bad management decisions.
This would never happen. I doubt the oil companies care if the US auto industry goes down. If it does go down, then we will have imports, for which we will also have to buy gas (which would actually be a better alternative for the oil companies as opposed to us building vehicles that would not be dependent on oil).
Don't bail out the companies. Give the money to the workers for re-education, etc., while the auto companies restructure.
Re-education takes time. If these workers are already or soon to be out of work, they need jobs yesterday. They have families to feed, and that can't wait for a new career.
I think the best approach is to go ahead and bail them out (as much as that stinks), but set criteria they have to meet that would show re-tooling and progression to non-gas vehicles. I like the Pickens plan myself.
You know, that was my first response too.
but would like to see him cut loose a little and put it against a contrasting charcoal gray shirt. I think he's a knockout....nothing sexier than a confident, intelligent man with a heart of gold.
and your response to GP was so much
Your original post to wasn't an attack on the pubs? Hypocrit.
Response
Yes, we do only have one president at a time.
However, both the incoming and outgoing Presidents have a responsibility -- they are handling the nation's business.
As Obama comes into power, it is very transparent of him to keep the nation apprised of what he is doing, thinking, planning.
Good for him! I hope we hear from him every single day!
It doesn't matter whether it is Obama or it would have been McCain -- we need to hear what the incoming President is planning and doing.
response (sm)
Move to Russia----that's the problem. If you guys are confronted with any sort of ideas that are not part of your belief your first instict seems to be to just remove it. That's not tolerance -- that's segregation.
As far as kids go, I would challenge you to show me 1 child 4th grade and up (probably lower than that) that does not know what *gay* means, and homosexuality is not being taught in schools now. As far as the TV, mine came with a remote with little buttons for changing the channel and a handy dandy on/off switch. Toy dispensers in gas station bathrooms: Yes, there are some of those out there. However, they are no where near as common as you would make them out to be.
Marriage -- what is it to you if they call it marriage? You do realize there are christian gays and lesbians? The problem is that on this issue christians seem to think that everyone should live by their rules when everyone else has a different set of rules. What about Muslims who are married? Is thier marriage worth anything in your eyes? They didn't get married with God as a witness as you would discribe Him. I'm married and yet I'm and athiest. Is my marriage worthless?
Christianity is an all or nothing proposition. When it comes to laying down legislation for a nation as diverse as ours, that all or nothing mentality does nothing but divide the nation.
Response...(sm)
Whether you aggree with Al Jazeera or not, they are a valid news organization. They show the viewpoint of others in the region. In order to understand a situation I feel it is important to understand both sides of it, and then make an informed opinion. Your unwillingness to even consider what they say as a different viewpoint is pretty typical of Americans, which in my opinion is to only concern themselves with the viewpoint that best suits thier agenda.
Why is it that your only response....(sm)
to any discussion is just one-line BS? Do you have any evidence to show that the people being held at Gitmo are what you say they are? Can you show where this defense attorney is incorrect? Do you perhaps have inside info on exactly what will happen to the prisoners? Or better yet, do you even have any kind of rationale for your opinion other than your obvious paranoia concerning bringing the prisoners here? There is the concept of us having to pay for their upkeep, but hey, guess what? We're already paying for that. In addition to that, how much do you think it costs just to keep Gitmo open, not only financially but in political capital as well?
Helpful hint: If when responding to a post if you click inside the big white box underneath the subject line, it will allow you to type in a more detailed note, thereby, possibly (and I use that term loosely), giving more credibility to your posts.
Well, at least YOU got a response.
I wrote to them, as well, and didn't receive a reply at all (not that I was expecting one of any substance).
I'm glad to see I wasn't the only one who wrote to them.
Response...
1. You'll find it useful to look at the upcoming budgets and then re-discover the notion of percentages.
2. If unions infested the transcription industry, you might very well not have a job. Don't believe me? Tour Detroit.
3. Trash talk that typifies political discourse today, says nothing, doesn't advance your cause, and doesn't merit response.
4. More of #3.
Response...
You have a very narrow view of taxes, my friend, and obviously have no idea what's coming down the tracks.
We are already seeing increases in taxes (on everyone) at the state and local level, for one thing, and many more are in the works. Look for higher sales tax rates, higher car license fees...oh, who knows where your piddly little "increase" will wind up going?
You can't possibly - even if you're no economist - believe that the government can print $trillions and obligate the nation to $trillions more in debt and none of the cost is going to come home to roost on your doorstep. You're just going to float along while someone else ("the rich") pay for all of this, eh? You're a politician's dream come true.
Politicians count on people who will look no further down the road than this week's pay stub and scream for joy at the $23.48 increase. "Lord, let them never realize that we're going to take it all back away from them at some other level of government - and so much more besides", pray the politicians.
My response is --
President Obama's sequel came out during his presidency. His first book was actually released in 2005 before he even entered politics. The income was listed on his taxes that were released as a presidential candidate.
His charitable contributions were also listed, but the information I just quickly googled said his 2006 contributions amounted to a little over 6% of his income.
He was of interest to folks before he became involved in politics.
what is this in response to?
The original post was not about George Tiller or William Long?
in response --
I have been duly chastised and I accept that. However, i saw no need for him to be "protecting" himself. Noone was bothering him. They stool calmly by and watched him do what he did. Secondly, there was no need to cut the flag down, he could have just removed it. Then, as he removed it, he could have folded it in some way other than just wadding it into a ball.
There was never any confrontation wher he had to be scared or feel threatened - so that is not an adequate defense. I understand that he was upset, I agree that he very well should have been, and I myself am upset about the way things are going in this country and the things that are being allowed to happen.
Yes, I very well do get it!!!
Thanks for an intelligent response
and for the information you supplied. 
Sorry. This was supposed to be in response to LOL
Someone should actually read an article before saying untrue things about it. But that doesn't surprise me. It's in line with the way this administration lies about everything.
Nasty response, I see.
You became nasty. Too bad. Guess you couldn't help yourself and couldn't stay reasonable and even-handed for more than a post or two. I was starting to think I'd been too hard with my thinking that some of the conservative posters were...well...kind of mean-spirited. Apparently I was wrong.
shameful response
But..you see, we liberals arent supposed to point fingers or ask questions, at least that is what the radical right wing is spouting..however, there is no doubt if there was a democrat in the White House, the radical right wing would be asking for his head on a silver platter.
vs, I don't think this response was directed at you...nm
The obvious response would be
if it bothers you so much, why do you watch it? I assume you possess free will. No big bad mean Republican has super-glued your dial to Fox News, I am assuming?
My response is to Hmmmmm.
who hates cats, blah blah blah and the woman accuser/suer who insists that the cat be euthanized. I don't think the owner was the one who brought this to the public forum. There are many things that can be done other than killing the cat as the first and only measure. I read that the cat was being kept confined to home but this was not okay with the accuser. She wants the cat euthanized, nothing less. So.......the extremes I see are a woman who will not agree to consider compromise and another person who hates cats because they behave as they have been designed by the Almighty to behave. I do agree that those who drop off animals somewhere rather than take them to the pound fit into the dangerous category (no pun intended) as well. It makes me wonder how they treat their kids or neighbors. These are the cats who become a nuisance. It takes one generation for a cat to become feral and in order to survive they hunt for prey....also not a rocket scientist level deduction. These cats carry disease because of the prey they kill and the fact that no one is taking care of them so they obviously are not vetted. Usually these cats would rather walk on broken glass than even approach a human and that is 1 good thing. But again, it is the people, not the animals, who are the culprits. Lewis, the cat in question, however, can be kept housebound. The cat can be declawed and defanged (cruel and unusual punishment but it is done and I suppose it is better than being dead). The cat can be medicated...also just a better-than-dead solution. People who feel extremely negative towards animals and would just as soon kill them as look at them as a viable and even desirable solution are those Francis, Kant, Gandhi and I are referring to. I could go into the serial killer thing but I'm sure you know that.
About the response I suspected
You infer that you know how and where I get my information. If you're so freaking clairvoyant then what are you doing here?
The elitism just oozes from you.
Thanks for a great response.
I happen to agree with you, but does this also mean:
That all liberals aren't as bad as they are routinely portrayed on the conservative board?
That all Muslims aren't death-seeking people?
That extremist fringes in any group are bad?
Muslims are routinely portrayed on this board and by the media and by Bush as lumped together in one violent clump. This is unfair, untrue and does nothing to promote peace and understanding.
All religions need to be respected and tolerated in America. Isn't that what America is supposed to stand for?
I should not be surprised by your response. sm
But I have to admit it sickens me more than a little. People like Ward Chamberlain, who has not been found to be a plagiarist, a liar (he is NOT Native American) and he made up his service record, among other things, don't deserve to be defended. Unless you are a socialist and have no problem with liars and thieves. I guess that says it all.
Wow! Loooong response there....
Honestly, I am not even going to take the time to read it. It would take too much effort for something I care little about.
Weird response...to say the least.
Response to Justme sm
Don't believe everything that you read in the news. I am certain that both Hillary and Bill are upset and dispirited after losing such a close primary election. But, the truth of the matter is that Hillary, in spite of losing so close a race picked herself up, dusted herself off and is now actively helping Obama in just a very short couple of weeks. Bill will too. The goal here is to get Obama elected. The Clinton's are Democratic party members first and foremost and know full well what the stakes are in this election.
Give the Clinton's credit. They are not out to "get" Obama and will be a huge help to him in uniting the party behind him.
It's quite an emotionally tough thing to go out campaigning for 15+ months, get that close and within a very short period of time start actively endorsing another candidate, yet they are doing just that.
I don't think you could ask more of either of one of them. They are doing the right thing here, and doing it very quickly.
Thanks for your response. That is probably what would happen....
just did not know for sure.
Taking this response
x
|
