to some Americans, we will never be "color blind" and the race card will still fly frequently by some people.
Also, it is sad that even though some of us see that Obama is inexperienced and how that has hurt us, etc......there are many that still love the fool. I guess it will take, God forbid, another terrorist attack on US soil or our economy to totally collapse before people get a clue. Although I'm sure they will still give Obama the thumbs up because....hey.....this is ALL Bush's fault....remember? Can someone please pass the kool-aid around?
Sadly, the first thing...
I thought when I heard **foiled terror plot** was Wag the Dog. I do not believe that this is a hoax in any way, but it is certainly distressing when the first entity you suspect in any cover up or any **make up stuff** is your own government. The timing was what made me think that. With W's popularity in the toilet, over half of Americans wanting out of the war and Lamont winning in Connecticut, without something to distract us, the Lamont win and what it means could have taken over the news for some time to come. Can't have that. Now we are not thinking about Iraq, Lebanon, Hezbollah, Israel or changing the face of our House and Senate in November. We are all focused on the terrorists again. Same thing with BP. Very much like Enron, all of a sudden they have to close down the oil pipe and CA gets hit the hardest. BP makes tons of money, we all begin to think drilling anywhere is okay. The administration is happy. The oil companies are happy. I did hear that BP is going to try to keep the pipe open now while they do repairs. There was SOOOOO much criticism about the timing and the fact that they have known for years that the pipe is corroded that they have been forced to do something different. Anyway, I believe that the deal at Heathrow was the real thing, not a ploy in any way. I trust the British and Scotland yard much more than I do this administration and the CIA/FBI. It is just disturbing that it has come to this. I take everything I hear with a grain of salt until it is proven to me to be true. I used to trust my government but I fear them now. I just hope we are all still here in November 2008.
Sadly this is so true
Like I said, this is a high school class president campaign, not a USA presidential campaign. What he promises he cannot deliver.
Are there any adjectives besides sad and sadly? n/m Sweet! Sadly, I think you are right. I need a better job. LOL nm
x
Sadly, some of the senators, if not all,
think we DO want this. Doesn't matter how many calls they get. They think we just love mortgaging ourselves, our children, and our grandchildren.
There are a few that are fighting against the bill as it stands but....and I know a certain person will blast me for this but Schumer, Dodd, and Kerry absolutely screamed today that this package is what HAS to pass. Schumer stated right out that it's what the people want. Kerry stated there was no reason to cut anything from it. Dodd stated that the TARP package has money in it to help with the mortgage debaucle so why they want amendments to the tune of $9B in this one was beyond him.
So, if there is money in TARP for the homeowners, why aren't the homeowners being helped? No rocket science in that. The banks and Wall Street are keeping it.
They just don't get it.
Sadly, most don't have a clue and
don't really care what got us in this mess. Banks and mortgage companies were forced to give subprime loans because the democrats wanted EVERYBODY to have house, whether they could afford it or not, giving everyone the belief they were somehow entitled to a home, money or no money. The law was pushed by the democratic party (for those who bother to read it) and it became law that the banks HAD to make these loans AND the law put in place these institutions making money on these worthless pieces of paper. They were forced to do the business with those who had no business in there in the first place getting a loan. And for those who knew they were living beyond their means and even lying about the income, they should have to bear the burden of their stupidity. I do not feel the least bit responsible for keeping them in their home. We live well below what a bank told us we could afford and we have......better safe than sorry!
For all those that think free handouts somehow will make a better country for us and hitting companies that employ with MORE taxes and treating those who are fortunate enough to be rich as if rich is a bad word and going after their income, do those same people EVER stop to ask themselves who the heck pays their assistance!!! It's those who have more money.....duh!! If you didn't have them, you wouldn't have your free money in the first place but lets certainly not discuss that, Heaven forbid!
I'm glad you see the writing on the wall but I'm afraid for those who voted for Obama who are now changing their tune are realizing all too late they have been screwed.
Laws vary state-to-state
Many people were confined against their will just because someone wanted them "out of the way." These were normal people with no mental illness - that is why it is so difficult - don't blame the liberals. Blame your state.
CONFINING THE MENTALLY ILL
In the legal space between what a society should and should not do, taking action to restrict the liberty of people who are mentally ill sits in the grayest of gray areas.
Our notions about civil and constitutional rights flow from an assumption of "normalcy." Step beyond the boundaries and arrest and prison may legally follow. Short of that, government's ability to hold people against their will is severely and properly limited. Unusual behavior on the part of someone who is mentally ill is not illegal behavior. Freedom can't be snatched away on a whim, or on the thought that a person is hard to look at, hard to hear, hard to smell.
It was only a few decades ago that the promise of new medications and a change in attitude opened the doors of the mental hospitals and sent many patients into society. There, they would somehow "normalize" and join everyone else, supported by networks of out-patient facilities, job training, special living arrangements and regular, appropriate medication. But the transition has been imperfect, long and difficult.
In some parts of urban America there is little professional support for those with mental health problems. A new generation of drug and alcohol-fueled mental illness has come on the scene. People frequently end up on the street, un-medicated and exhibiting a full range of behaviors that are discomforting at the very least and threatening at their worst.
get to hear the most instead of actual plans and solutions to this that won't end up screwing us in the end.
I've learned more about the economy than I ever have in the past couple of days. Makes me wish I'd have listened in economics in high school. Hind sight is 20/20. LOL!
Have a great day!
Sadly enough there are those that live in the same make
@@
I sadly enough agree with you Gourdpainter
I think the ugliness has barely begun. Truth will out in the end, it always does.
Exactly! Sadly, Americans cant seem to wake up.
nm
You're right. Sadly enough you've wasted your
--
It is disgusting, huh? Sadly, I have lost faith
nm
Sadly, there are plenty of wimpy miserable little
--
I think sadly you are right, I always thought that if I would vote Republican, it would be for McCai
and believe he really wants to do good for this country; my own thought was that he was advised, after seeing all the disillusioned Hillary supporters who were not completely sold on Barack yet, that he should pick a female running mate, scoop up all the disappointed Hillary supporters who would want a female in the White House, and it all blew up, Ms. Palin was just not an intelligent choice as running mate, she brought him down, and I think it all snowballed so quickly that all Mr. McCain could do was watch as the snowball hit bottom and disintegrated. But I believe he is a very good Senator.
Sadly, common sense and good behavior...........sm
are seldom rewarded but highly expected and those who practice sound financial habits are often not given the breaks that those who do not are given. It just seems harsh to say "screw them" when one may not know the circumstances and when there may be children involved who would be homeless through no fault of their own. Guess I'm just a little tender-hearted about that.
Sadly, the haters started to hate him way before he even took office....sm
I have mixed views here, but I found it amazing, as I read this board around election time, and then shortly thereafter, that all the Bushwackers and Right Wingers were already condemning and DOOMING the Obama administration....way before the man even took the oath of office! Now George had 8+ years to do good for this country, to help the economy, the reach out to the poor, to upgrade the educational system, and what did his administration do? Let's see, instead of getting Bin Ladin, we spend billions and billions, and thousands of precious lives, on a war with Iraq for those infamous invisible WMDs which no one could find, and which was reported to the President ahead of time. We have made most of the world hate us for our arrogance and stupidity. He let Wall Street run amok and watched the country go down in ashes....stop bashing Obama, no he is not God, he is not perfect, he has faults, he will make mistakes inevitably (and I am not fond of several things in the stimulus bill), but by God give him a chance, he has barely been in office a MONTH versus 8 excruciating, embarrassing years with the Bush gang, support him as our American President, and stop DOOMING his administration before he even gets a chance. Sorry, off my worn-out soap box now!
Red state, blue state?
Written last Thanksgiving: "Some would argue that two different nations actually celebrated: upright, moral, traditional red America and the dissolute, liberal blue states clustered on the periphery of the heartland. The truth, however, is much more complicated and interesting than that.
Take two iconic states: Texas and Massachusetts. In some ways, they were the two states competing in the last election. In the world's imagination, you couldn't have two starker opposites. One is the homeplace of Harvard, gay marriage, high taxes, and social permissiveness. The other is Bush country, solidly Republican, traditional, and gun-toting. Massachusetts voted for Kerry over Bush 62 to 37 percent; Texas voted for Bush over Kerry 61 to 38 percent.
So ask yourself a simple question: which state has the highest divorce rate? Marriage was a key issue in the last election, with Massachusetts' gay marriages becoming a symbol of alleged blue state decadence and moral decay. But in actual fact, Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the country at 2.4 divorces per 1,000 inhabitants. Texas - which until recently made private gay sex a criminal offence - has a divorce rate of 4.1. A fluke? Not at all. The states with the highest divorce rates in the U.S. are Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas. And the states with the lowest divorce rates are: Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Every single one of the high divorce rate states went for Bush. Every single one of the low divorce rate states went for Kerry. The Bible Belt divorce rate, in fact, is roughly 50 percent higher than the national average.
Some of this discrepancy can be accounted for by the fact that couples tend to marry younger in the Bible Belt - and many clearly don't have the maturity to know what they're getting into. There's some correlation too between rates of college education and stable marriages, with the Bible Belt lagging a highly educated state like Massachusetts. But the irony still holds. Those parts of America that most fiercely uphold what they believe are traditional values are not those parts where traditional values are healthiest. Hypocrisy? Perhaps. A more insightful explanation is that these socially troubled communities cling onto absolutes in the abstract because they cannot live up to them in practice.
But doesn't being born again help bring down divorce rates? Jesus, after all, was mum on the subject of homosexuality, but was very clear about divorce, declaring it a sin unless adultery was involved. A recent study, however, found no measurable difference in divorce rates between those who are "born again" and those who are not. 29 percent of Baptists have been divorced, compared to 21 percent of Catholics. Moreover, a staggering 23 percent of married born-agains have been divorced twice or more. Teen births? Again, the contrast is striking. In a state like Texas, where the religious right is extremely strong and the rhetoric against teenage sex is gale-force strong, the teen births as a percentage of all births is 16.1 percent. In liberal, secular, gay-friendly Massachusetts, it's 7.4, almost half. Marriage itself is less popular in Texas than in Massachusetts. In Texas, the percent of people unmarried is 32.4 percent; in Massachusetts, it's 26.8 percent. So even with a higher marriage rate, Massachusetts manages a divorce rate almost half of its "conservative" rival.
Or take abortion. America is one of the few Western countries where the legality of abortion is still ferociously disputed. It's a country where the religious right is arguably the strongest single voting bloc, and in which abortion is a constant feature of cultural politics. Compare it to a country like Holland, perhaps the epitome of socially liberal, relativist liberalism. So which country has the highest rate of abortion? It's not even close. America has an abortion rate of 21 abortions per 1,000 women aged between 15 and 44. Holland has a rate of 6.8. Americans, in other words, have three times as many abortions as the Dutch. Remind me again: which country is the most socially conservative?
Even a cursory look at the leading members of the forces of social conservatism in America reveals the same pattern. The top conservative talk-radio host, Rush Limbaugh, has had three divorces and an addiction to pain-killers. The most popular conservative television personality, Bill O'Reilly, just settled a sex harassment suit that indicated a highly active adulterous sex life. Bill Bennett, the guru of the social right, was for many years a gambling addict. Karl Rove's chief outreach manager to conservative Catholics for the last four years, Deal Hudson, also turned out to be a man with a history of sexual harassment. Bob Barr, the conservative Georgian congressman who wrote the "Defense of Marriage Act," has had three wives so far. The states which register the highest ratings for the hot new television show, "Desperate Housewives," are all Bush-states.
The complicated truth is that America truly is a divided and conflicted country. But it's a grotesque exaggeration to say that the split is geographical, or correlated with blue and red states. Many of America's biggest "sinners" are those most intent on upholding virtue. In fact, it may be partly because they know sin so close-up that they want to prevent its occurrence among others. And some of those states which have the most liberal legal climate - the Northeast and parts of the upper MidWest - are also, in practice, among the most socially conservative. To ascribe all this to "hypocrisy" seems to me too crude an explanation. America is simply a far more complicated and diverse place than crude red and blue divisions can explain.
they are adding police and only in the big cities do they have paid firemen. The rest are volunteers.
I look at it this way: If a state can't stay in the black, then they have to cut spending some place that wouldn't jeopardize the safety of the citizens. Threats of cutting essential services like Barney Fife stated today are unjustified. Cut the non-essential services first.
Our governor talks about cutting back on services, laying off government workers, which I think is a good idea because government is too big anyway, but then he turns around and spends more money on non-essential items. Doesn't make sense.
that liberals get a HUGE PASS when it comes to verbal spillage. I've heard some of the most hateful things come out of Howard Dean and all we hear about is what Karl Rove said, and a lot of it was taken out of context. He didn't say ALL Democrats, he said SOME liberals, i.e. Move On.Org and George Soros. There WERE groups demonstrating against the war in Afghanistan. That was a fact. And how does the Democratic party get by with a former KKK member (Byrd)? That wouldn't be allowed for 2 seconds on the Republican side.
You should try to relax. Music always helps me. Try this. LOL.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjXyqcx-mYY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBk32JsV9l8
Reality
You obviously saw Senator John Ensign (R-NV) on Meet The Press this morning along with Congressman Barney Frank (not Barney Fife). Ensign says that Frank is "fearmongering" and says that state budgets are "bloated" and that we should be "cutting back."
Well, how's your state doing, Senator Ensign? The state of Nevada has to cut 38% from its state budget. The Nevada schools are facing a 15% cut. Outpatient oncology services at University Medical Center in Las Vegas have CLOSED because of state Medicaid cuts. If you're lucky, maybe your gynecologic oncologist will open a chemotherapy center in his clinic's storage room like Dr. Nick Spirtos did.
That's only one example. Do yourself a favor and read the article. There are plenty more examples in plenty of other states. The idea that states need to "cut back" in the midst of a recession is absolutely idiotic and so is Senator Ensign.
Reality?
The majority of voters in the United States have dismissed your idea of reality and voted against it. Maybe it is you who needs to get a cup of coffee and join the majority.
This is reality Reality
Reality and Glenn Beck have nothing to do with each other.
You are the one not dealing in reality
there's so many wrong statements in your post I wouldn't know where to begin in rebutting them... I pity you and your pessimistic outlook on our country. You are one very bitter and jaded person. Just like Cindy Sheehan who has to blame someone else for her life's problems. I'm sorry her mother had a stroke, and I hope that everything is okay, but I think Cindy Sheehan needs to take this as a sign to take care of her family that is living...which I'm glad she is doing right now for the sake of her mother.
Reality check
You just cannot stay off this board can you? Don't you get it? We don't want to debate with you. We are just as set in our beliefs as you are in yours. No one here is interested in anything you have to say, so please, get a life or at least stay on your own board.
For Reality Check. sm
I think my post did sound a little hateful. I am sure you are a very nice person. You see, this is a country divided, and I am certain I am not the only one on this board, to feel that GWB has had a lot to do with that. Like I said, I am sure you are a nice person. However, this is a country divided, nothing will make me change my mind about this administration. I fear for either party that gets in next time, if it is a democrat, they cannot hardly get ahead because of the blunders made by the current administration. In a nutshell, I sincerely feel like this country has never been more divided, and perhaps that is why the moderators decided to split the two boards to begin with. Post all you want, you will get no more nasty responses for me. I however will feel at liberty to post jokes when I feel like it. I lurk on the conservative board, but do not post. There are many right-winged jokes and cartoons over there and I do not post my opinion - because that is their board.
Reality check.
October 2001 to February 2003. That’s how long it took to sell the war to Congress, democrats and republicans alike, and to the American public, according to Colonel Sam Gardiner (USAF, Ret.). Not some left-wing wacko. Just a high-rank retired Air Force colonel who conducted a study.
A Strategy of Lies: How the White House Fed the Public a Steady Diet of Falsehoods
http://www.rense.com/general44/50.htm.
The power of propaganda. They bought it, hook, line and sinker. That was then and this is now, and what we know NOW is that Bush lied. No WMDs. No Iraq-sponsored terrorism. It's still about the oil.
BTW, there is a Bechtel-commissioned BTC pipeline in Georgia, "secured" by US troops, who also provide advisors and training to Georgia military. Russia doesn't like US-trained troops in its backyard either. You won't hear it on Fox, but Russia has not confined it's invasion to Ossetia. They targeted that pipeline 18 hours ago. Sometimes you follow the money. Other times, you follow the oil.
Fox News, YouTube, nohussein.org? Consider the source. Abortion is legal. The issue is choice. Some choose not to do it, others choose to exercise their right to choose. Those who do appreciate any politician who is willing to go to the mat to uphold Roe vs Wade. Unlikely to be reversed anytime soon and, in this election, far down on the list of priorities. Reality check #2.
No need to wonder what the colonel would have to say about that uranium since the issue was extensively scrutinized in his study.
It has been known for decades that Iraq had a reactor at Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Center and a nuclear materials testing facility at Osiraq, damaged in a bombing by the Iranians in 1980 and disabled by Israeli air attacks in 1981 in an operation that was condemned by the US at the time since we were backing Saddam against Iran. Ten years later, these same facilities were completely destroyed by Americans in the 1991 Gulf War, 12 years before Bush sold his version of Gulf War II to the American public.
This would be the same 500 metric tons of reactor grade uranium (the kind used as fuel in producing clean electricity). It was NOT weapons grade uranium. Being well documented by the UN and the IAEA, this stash of uranium was legal and had been controlled and monitored in accordance with international law since the Gulf War. The uranium was removed from Iraq and transported to Canada to be used in their nuclear energy facilities. The inspections team found NO EVIDENCE of any yellowcake in Iraq dating from after 1991. So if the terrorists had managed to get their hands on it, the US would be held accountable since they destroyed the reactor, knew about the stock piles, returned to occupy Iraq in 2003, but were too busy killing Iraqis to bother with disposing of the uranium for 5 full years. No wonder they were keeping it a secret.
Speaking of yellowcake uranium and propaganda, back in January 2003, Bush accused Saddam of trying to buy it from Niger, based on Italian, British and French intelligence sources. Notice this occurred between October 2001 and February 2003, as stated in the previous post, when Bush was busy doing anything and everything he could to dupe the Congress and public into supporting his war. The polite word for this intelligence is “faulty.” A more accurate description would be forgery. The colonel talks about this too, but his study is a bit obscure and hard to locate. Google Niger uranium and Iraq and this link pops up in case anybody wants to read more about that one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger_uranium_forgeries
As for the chemical and biological weapons used against his own people, that would be the Kurdish town of Halabja in March 1988, when 7000 civilians died and in 14 other Kurd villages. The reason we knew about those chemical and biological weapons is because the US sold them to Saddam to use against the Iranians (as did the UK, Germany, France and others). Check out the Senate committee's reports on US Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual-Use Exports to Iraq from a 1992 report. Reagan and Bush Sr. sold Iraq anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs, botulism, germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia, Salmonella, E. coli, brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene, to name a few.
From 1991 to 1998 UNSCOM inspected and scoured Iraq, accounting for some 95+% of the known agents before they left. Despite all the suspicions put forth by the Bush propaganda machine in 2003 and the best search efforts of the US since the occupation, no evidence of the remaining inventory has been uncovered.
Like it or not, abortion has been legal in the US for 35 years. The answer to your questions about choice is simple. It’s the mother’s body, not yours, not the government’s. Her choice. Nobody’s else’s. That is the law. The law does not force abortion for those who do not believe in it, nor does it prevent it for those who do. Morality can be legislated after the American theocracy has been established. Until then, it is about choice.
Bush’s contempt for the courts is no secret. They do not simply uphold law. They also interpret it and have discretionary authority to issue decisions and opinions. The constitution provides us with 3 executive branches for a reason. It’s called checks and balances. No candidate or president should be opposed to seeing that part of the constitution upheld. Running From Reality
If there was one pre-eminent characteristic of the Republican convention this week, it was the quality of deception. Words completely lost their meaning. Reality was turned upside down.
From the faux populist gibberish mouthed by speaker after speaker, you would never have known that the Republicans have been in power over the past several years and used that titanic power to lead the country to its present sorry state.
Summary On the defensive over the extent of multiple McCain homes, the GOP candidate strikes back. But his TV spot gives an oversimplified and misleading account of how Obama bought his own $1.6 million house in Chicago.
The ad says Chicago power broker Tony Rezko got "political favors" including "$14 million from taxpayers." But there's no evidence of any connection to the Obama home purchase. The $14 million was to build apartments for low-income seniors. Obama wrote a letter supporting the "worthy" project, but both men say Rezko didn't ask for the letter.
It says Rezko "purchased part of the property [Obama] couldn't afford." Rezko's wife did buy an adjoining tract but later sold the land at a profit. Obama paid market price for his home.
McCain launched the attack after Obama ran one capitalizing on McCain's inability to recall for an interviewer how many homes the McCains own. Obama's ad says it's seven. The best tally we've seen puts the figure at eight, counting all the apartments and homes owned by McCain's wife, Cindy, and various family trusts, for themselves and their children.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/154782
REALITY? Do you know who deregulated
xx
Not a break from reality,
but more a trance. Freaks me out. Thanks for the statements you posted. This is not a normal election, but more of a movement. Hope it will not be like it was in the 60's with riots going on. Getting more and more like the Book of Revelations. A person who will deceive the nations with persuasive language and have massive christ-like appeal and people will flock to him as he will promise false hope and world peace, but destroys everything. FREAKS ME OUT. He keeps changing his mind and now he and his campaign want to try to kill the expectations of what he has been stating for months. Beyond creepy. This is not your normal every four year election.
You need a dose of reality.
nm
EU reality check....
1. Member states in the EU all maintain their separate set of laws. Members of the EU Parliament are elected every 5 years by all citizens of the EU. It operates in much the same way as the US federal system.
2. Member states are responsible for their own defense. Many, but not all, are members of NATO (by choice). Nascent EU military forces (as opposed to separate national forces) have engaged in peacekeeping missions and humanitarian aid missions in Africa, the former Yugoslavia and in the Middle East.
3. Each member state maintains it's own legal system. EU laws are analogous to our US federal laws. No threat here. As a matter of fact, national sovereignty is stronger under this system than states' rights are in the US. EU law mainly relates to enforcement of treaties, the environment and fundamental rights of member states.
4. 15 of the 27 EU countries have adopted the euro....again, by choice: Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain. I hate to break this to you, but the Euro already is worth more than the US dollar (1 Euro = 1.2652 US dollars)....they must be doing something right.
5. The EU has PROGRESSIVE policy oversight on it's own agriculture, energy and infrastructure (as it should be) and is competitive in world markets based on the value of their currency...again, higher in value than the US dollar.
No need to "research" the NAU. I know what it is and I know what it is not. The NAU is a THEORETICAL region. It does not exist. There are no current government plans in Canada, the US or Mexico to form such an entity. NAFTA is the closest manifestation of the CONCEPT of an NAU.
Your version of the NAU is nothing more to me than a conspiracy theory...paranoia on a grand scale. I have a few questions for you. Ever heard of evolution. How about survival of the fittest? Do you believe in these concepts? Here's the deal. The world we live in now is not the same world your parents and grandparents grew up in...especially in terms of population and technology. The survival of the human race and of the nations depends upon their ability to adapt and CHANGE. IF (and I emphasize the word IF) there is a better economic or governing system around the evolutionary corner, then no amount of belly-aching and conspiracy theory spin is going to keep it at bay. PROGRESS HAPPENS. Reality check.........sm
So you don't need to research the NAU? I hope the sand will protect your little brain when all heck breaks loose.
The concept of the NAU has been actively pursued by our government (Bush) and the government of Canada and Mexico since 2005. Check it out.
The blueprint President Bush is following was laid out in a 2005 report entitled "Building a North American Community" published by the left-of-center Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). The CFR report connects the dots between the Bush administration's actual policy on illegal immigration and the drive to create the North American Union:
At their meeting in Waco, Texas, at the end of March 2005, U.S. President George W. Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin committed their governments to a path of cooperation and joint action. We welcome this important development and offer this report to add urgency and specific recommendations to strengthen their efforts.
What is the plan? Simple, erase the borders. The plan is contained in a "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" little noticed when President Bush and President Fox created it in March 2005:
In March 2005, the leaders of Canada, Mexico, and the United States adopted a Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), establishing ministerial-level working groups to address key security and economic issues facing North America and setting a short deadline for reporting progress back to their governments. President Bush described the significance of the SPP as putting forward a common commitment "to markets and democracy, freedom and trade, and mutual prosperity and security." The policy framework articulated by the three leaders is a significant commitment that will benefit from broad discussion and advice. The Task Force is pleased to provide specific advice on how the partnership can be pursued and realized.
To that end, the Task Force proposes the creation by 2010 of a North American community to enhance security, prosperity, and opportunity. We propose a community based on the principle affirmed in the March 2005 Joint Statement of the three leaders that "our security and prosperity are mutually dependent and complementary." Its boundaries will be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter within which the movement of people, products, and capital will be legal, orderly and safe. Its goal will be to guarantee a free, secure, just, and prosperous North America.
I cannot believe there are people living today who actually believe that there are not hidden agendas in our government and that "we the people" actually know what is going on.
Thank you for the dose of reality.
It seems people like to think in exponentials lately. 'Bush was the worst president in the history of time.' Obama will face 'the most daunting challenge in the history of the country.'
Goodness sakes. Are these posters just so bubble-wrapped in their protective cocoons that they don't know anything about US History?
Our country was forged with blood and steal. This ain't a country for whimps. But I guess we'll find out now what happens when we elect a man who feels it is necessary to apologize for America instead of defend it.
Yup. The one's that's based in reality.
As in the real deal.
Reality check...(sm)
While I do think that Blago needs to go down, I think it should be recognized that this happens in politics ALL THE TIME. That pay to play mentality among politicians is nothing new. I don't think Blago did anything worse than most do. His big mistake was getting caught.
Reality check............ sm
Did you even read the article? It says in part...
"The Obama administration moved on Friday to undo a last-minute Bush administration rule granting broad protections to health workers who refuse to take part in abortions or provide other health care that goes against their consciences."
It goes on to say: "The rule prohibits recipients of federal money from discriminating against doctors, nurses and other health care workers who refuse to perform or assist in abortions or sterilization procedures because of their “religious beliefs or moral convictions.” "
This sounds to me like providers who refuse to do abortions or provide other health care that goes against their religious/moral/personal convictions will lose protection from "discrimination" (read prosecution) by "recipients of federal money" (read welfare recipients). In other words, if this protection is lifted and a woman goes to a physician who refuses to perfrom an abortion because of moral beliefs, then that woman would be free to sue the doctor for withholding medical care....and who would be more prone to sue a physician than one who is on welfare and always looking for free money?
It has nothing to do with asking a health care professional to perform a procedure or deliver health care outside of his/her realm of education or specialization.
Maybe you should consider jumping into reality
You don't give someone like the Queen of England an IPOD for pete's sake. I'll bet his kids pick it out themselves??? This is the Queen of England. He should have consulted with his staff or someone who is more knowledgeable as to what to give a foreign diplomat, especially someone like the Queen of England. And evidently she already has one. You would have thought he would have checked with someone in his office that is knowledgeable about what a proper gift to give would be. Ya think????? But that goes to show there is no one in his cabinet qualified on such issues. The gift should be a symbol of the US. Sorry but I and evidently many others don't think of IPODs when they think of the US. How juvenile to assume everyone would want an IPOD. Somehow I don't see the Queen bee-boppin to tunes stored on an IPOD. But what's worse...he downloaded all of his speeches. Can we say ewwww! Maybe he should have downloaded some episodes of South Park for her too.
If he could have shown how little he cared about a gift to her he just did. American is filled with many wonderful and talented artists. A very nice piece of art would have been much more appropriate than a friggin IPOD.
I keep seeing posts telling us to "drop ridiculous charges", etc about Obama's b/c. You may not realize this yet, but we are just MTs here voicing our opinion that we do not believe the b/c issue has been resolved (because it hasn't) and that we are glad there are others (judges, lawyers, politicians, etc) who are suing and taking this to the supreme court. However to tell us to "drop the charges" is just too silly. We're not the ones who are going to courts, only voicing our opinions. And last I knew that is what this site is for.
I see many posts with interesting articles written by jounalists and people who have been involved in the case since it all began (and even people outside the country), and those posts are met with such replies all screaming how any article that is posted is not a "credible source". I saw someone give news headlines and was told "show us a credible source". Yet time and time again those same people will come back and cite pro-Obama sites like Factcheck.org, PolitiFact, Huffington Post, etc as credible sources (I even saw someone state Obama's own website as a credible source - had to laugh at that one).
People from all over the country (and the world) are writing articles about this. That means there is something to it. People who are journalists, lawyers, etc, are not going to write articles based on nothing. If it was all based on nothing we'd be seeing more lawsuits filed against the people writing the articles.
On this board I see that the people who want the issue resolved and are looking forward to hearing what the supreme courts have to say, and the outcome of all the other numerous lawsuits are doing just that and voicing their opinions. No need to treat them with disrespect. You can post your own post on why you believe what you do. We are all entitled to our opinions, and I enjoy reading the articles.
So let me just say once more....people on this board - we are just MT'sn not the actual people going to the courts suing Obama, hence we have no "charges to drop". We leave that to more capable hands. We are voicing our opinions here and will continue to do so until the issue has been resolved. Don't tell us it has been resolved otherwise there would be no court cases out there.
Lets all wait and see. And as my grandma used to say to me when I was little "Stop being so silly, you silly goose you".
Well...here is a harsh dose of reality....
yes, he said that...however...he was also endorsed by terrorists (Hamas) and Iran...that in and of itself should be concerning. Why do you think they said that? Perhaps because he also said that if the winds turn ugly, he would stand with the Muslims, and they took him literally? Or perhaps he meant it literally? Who knows what he really means? He lived his way one life up until he ran for President, and then turned away from all that as each issue was brought up, because he knew it would hurt his candidacy. So who IS the real Barack Obama? Do YOU know? That is not dark and foreboding. It is being vigilant, it is asking for trust and respect to be earned...adoration is fine, but please be vigilant as well. For YOUR own good.
Pointing to reality is "fearmongering"
February 8, 2009
IT AIN'T FEARMONGERING IF IT'S TRUE.... Just today, the LA Times has a good report on the unprecedented pressure on state budgets right now -- pressure that will not be alleviated by the federal recovery plan because Sens. Collins & Co. believe state aid isn't stimulative enough. While state shortfalls will lead to painful cuts in practically every state, Nevada is poised to get hit much harder than most.
The Times report noted, for example, that Nevada is "facing the most serious shortfall," and lawmakers will have to cut a striking 38% from its state budget. The impact across the state will be both drastic and unavoidable, most notably in the state's public schools, which will soon face a 15% cut.
It wasn't surprising, then, that Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) criticized Senate "centrists" for cutting $40 billion in state aid from the stimulus package, noting that the aid, which appeared in the House version, was intended to stop states from "laying off cops and firefighters, money to help keep teachers going." Republican Sen. John Ensign of Nevada rejected Frank's comments, labeling the remarks "fearmongering." Indeed, Ensign seemed encouraged by the fact that state budgets, including his own, would have to be slashed, calling the budgets "bloated." He said, "What we should be doing is cutting back."
Got that? As the recession worsens, and government spending is needed to prevent more Americans from losing their jobs, a leading Republican senator whose own state is about to get pummeled, believes it's a good idea to "cut back." I can think of a variety of ways to respond to this nonsense, but I think Matt Yglesias summed things up nicely:
The idea that it would be good for states to cut back in the midst of the recession is stupid. The idea that the recession won't, absent federal aid, lead to layoffs of state employees such as teachers and firefighters is also stupid. But the idea that it's simultaneously true that the reason we should eschew aid is that states need to cut back and also true that it's fearmongering to warn of layoffs is doubleplus stupid. What does Ensign think cutbacks consist of? States will be reducing vital services. The cutbacks will have the immediate impact of reducing the incomes of laid-off families and beneficiaries of state programs. That will have an additional impact on businesses where the newly laid-off teachers and cops used to work.
And the reduced level of service will have its own bad economic impacts. Cutting back public safety budgets will mean fewer cops on the beat. That means more crime which will further reduce economic activity. State cutbacks to child care subsidies will make it harder for people who lose jobs to find and accept new ones. The cutbacks to mass transit services that are happening across the country will introduce additional rigidity into the labor market and reduce patronage of businesses that people are accustomed to reaching via transit. And in the most severe cases, cutbacks in assistant to the severely impoverished will have a decades-long impact on the well-being of their children.
Sen. John Ensign is entirely comfortable with all of these developments -- those dreaded state budgets are "bloated," after all -- but doesn't want anyone to acknowledge this publicly. Pointing to reality is "fearmongering." It's not enough for congressional Republicans to stand in the way of sound economic policy during a crisis; they also want to discourage everyone from talking about it
Let's jump over to reality for a minute....(sm)
What Obama is doing is rescinding the Bush bill. He's not putting out a new law that MAKES people do procedures they consider unethical. So basically if you work in the medical field and you didn't do abortions before this bill, chances are that noone is going to MAKE you do them in the future. I think Bush's bill was more targeted towards support services -- for example people who work at a pharmacy who don't believe in the morning after pill. The point I get from all this is that if you don't want to do abortions, don't work in an abortion clinic. The way you guys are describing it, I could make an orthodontist do brain surgery. Let's try reality for a while.
marks the location of current message within thread
