Terrorists are not covered under

• Cheney - ()
• Cheney - ()
  • LOL.....(sm) - Just the big bad
    • yes!...................nm - ()
  • So what! - How about keeping your mind on what is happening now - see message
    • I am, not talking about Clinton, I am talking - ()
      • Answers - see message
        • you keep ignoring the fact that 90% of the tortured - ()
          • As for the 90% of - Trigger Happy
          • and you keep ignoring the fact that you are trying to distract - from the current disaster
          • Remember rendition? - see message
      • Terrorists are not covered under - Trigger Happy
        • 99% of the Abu Ghraib detainees were innocent....sm - ()
          • believe what you want........ - nm
          • correction: 90 %...................nm - ()
        • More specifically..... - Trigger Happy
  • Anything to distract us from this current disaster - of an Administration. nm

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

health care plans.  My husband pays a portion just like everyone else.  We hardly use the health coverage, only for minor sinus infections, and I did have a hysterectomy last year. 

There are others walking around that have had multiple surgeries including bypass, and they pay the same amount towards the plan. 

How is that fair?  I feel the contribution should be paid on the usage, per se, and not so much (everyone is equal) because we are not.  I had a friend that had a lap band (fully covered), thyroid surgery, neck surgery, and goes the doctor every other week for something or other.  So, when we worked together, we both paid the same; yet, I did not go to the doctor or have any surgeries. 

Is that fair?  Why not look at something like that for cost effectiveness?  Would this turn people away from receiving the healthcare they need (not likely)?

Rush said that's why they went after him.  Seriously, for those who have never explored talk radio, it's like getting your doctorate in history.  It's so different than what many think.  Of course, I like all of it, but this is a fabulous encyclopedia for sources other than the "drivebys."  Of course, that's why the far-left Dems want that so-called Fairness Doctrine.  The centrists (what few are left flailing with little or now face time, for obvious reasons) know full well that if it happens to the conservatives, it'll come right back around and hit them in the butts, too. 

The Dems are very divided but put on a show for the cameras.  If a centrist or a new Rep. doesn't follow The Pelosi Principle, he/she will never get $ for another run, and certainly won't get to introduce anything of interest to that Rep.  The domino effect on that trickles down to the Rep's state, which in turn essentially gets nothing. 

It's quite refreshing to be able to have a friendly exchange here.  What on earth happened?  Let's hope it lasts!

Tiller like they did was so they could push this horrible accusation about how conservatives are to blame for this psycho gunning down Tiller.  However, this Muslim who attacked those soldiers doesn't benefit them by truly reporting on it.  Just like the Muslim who beheaded his wife because she was going to leave him....you barely heard a snitch about that story. 

I think the news should have covered Tiller's murder.  No one has the right to gun down anyone like that.  However, it would have been nice if they would have given the same respect to an American soldier who was gunned down as well.  It truly does make you wonder what is happening to our country.  Pretty sad when we care more about the death of a man who had no trouble killing babies and yet we have no problem with one of our soldiers being gunned down by a Muslim. 

(I think it happened when he decided to buy BANKS.  I remember the gist of his statement at the time, how he's a "free market" kinda guy, but this is absolutely necessary.  I guess that means capitalism is a toddler that rambles about, but when it's about to run out in front of a speeding car, it can always run back to socialism to save it.  As for me, I think Bush is runnin' around with a few trillion in his pockets, since there is so much secrecy surrounding the Wall Street bailouts, with transparency and accounting flat-out refused by the Bush administration from the get-go!) 

EXCLUSIVE: RNC draft rips Bush's bailouts

Ralph Z. Hallow (Contact)

EXCLUSIVE:

Republican Party officials say they will try next month to pass a resolution accusing President Bush and congressional Republican leaders of embracing "socialism," underscoring deep dissension within the party at the end of Mr. Bush's administration.

Those pushing the resolution, which will come before the Republican National Committee at its January meeting, say elected leaders need to be reminded of core principles. They said the RNC must take the dramatic step of wading into policy debates, which traditionally have been left to lawmakers.

"We can't be a party of small government, free markets and low taxes while supporting bailouts and nationalizing industries, which lead to big government, socialism and high taxes at the expense of individual liberty and freedoms," said Solomon Yue, an Oregon member and co-sponsor of a resolution that criticizes the U.S. government bailouts of the financial and auto industries. Republican National Committee Vice Chairman James Bopp Jr. wrote the resolution and asked the rest of the 168 voting members to sign it.

"The resolution also opposes President-elect Obama's proposed public works program and supports conservative alternatives," while encouraging the RNC "to engage in vigorous public policy debates consistent with our party platform," said Mr. Bopp, a leading attorney for pro-life groups who has also challenged the campaign finance legislation that Mr. Bush signed.

See related story: Jeb Bush Senate bid a GOP remedy?

If enacted, the resolution would put the party on record opposing the $700 billion bailout of the financial sector, which passed Congress with Republican support and was signed by Mr. Bush, and opposing the bailout of the auto industry. The auto bailout bill was blocked by Senate Republicans, but Mr. Bush then reversed course and announced that he would use financial bailout money to aid the auto manufacturers.

The RNC usually plays a policy role only every four years when it frames the national party platform, which typically is forgotten quickly.

In 2006, some party members presented a resolution challenging Mr. Bush's plan to legalize illegal immigrants and enact a guest-worker program. Mr. Bush's lieutenants fought back, arguing that the party should not tie the president's hands on a policy issue, and the RNC capitulated, passing an alternate White House-backed resolution instead.

This time, the backers of the new resolution say they will not be deterred by a fight, and say they have the numbers to pull off this rebellion.

"We have enough co-sponsors to take this to the RNC floor" at the party's Jan. 28-31 annual winter meeting in Washington, Mr. Bopp said. "I will take it to the Resolutions Committee, but I intend to press this issue to the floor for decision."

North Dakota Republican Party Chairman Gary Emineth said it's time for the RNC to end the disconnect between what the party platform says and what elected Republicans do.

"It is time the party gets involved in policy issues and forces candidates to respond to the platform," Mr. Emineth said. "Frankly the way we view the platform is a joke. We work hard to drive our principles into the platform, then candidates ignore it."

"If the party doesn't move in this direction, we will continue to be irrelevant. Whoever has the larger star power will continue to win, and what they stand for and believe will become less relevant," Mr. Emineth said.

House Minority Leader John A. Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, both of whom voted for the financial bailout but opposed the auto bailout, declined to comment.

White House spokesman Tony Fratto defended the Bush administration's actions, saying, "We understand the opposition to using tax dollars to support private businesses we also oppose using tax dollars to support private businesses. But this was the necessary and responsible thing to do to prevent a collapse of the American economy."

Several RNC members including some of Mr. Bopp's fellow conservatives are not pleased with the idea of having it make policy instead of simply minding the campaign fundraising store.

Ron Nehring, chairman of the California Republican Party, said the party also can't be seen endorsing a do-nothing approach.

"We have to be careful not to confuse passing resolutions for action, or creating a situation where people interpret the lack of some resolution as an excuse for inaction on an important issue," he said.

The resolution says: "WHEREAS, the Bank Bailout Bill effectively nationalized the Nation's banking system, giving the United States non-voting warrants from participating financial institutions, and moving our free market based economy another dangerous step closer toward socialism; and WHEREAS, what was needed, and is still needed, to fix the banking industry is not a bailout, but rather a commitment to fiscal responsibility."

The financial sector bailout passed the House by a vote of 263-171 with 91 Republicans backing it, and passed the Senate by a 74-25 vote with 34 Republicans in favor. The auto bailout passed the House by a 237-170 vote with 32 Republicans supporting it, but was blocked by a Republican-led filibuster in the Senate, with just 10 Republicans voting to advance the bill.

The RNC's sole job historically has been to raise money for candidates and to pass the party line down the food chain to state and local leaders. Policy has been set by the party's congressional leaders and, when a Republican sits in the White House, by the president.

The same has been true for the Democratic National Committee.

The Bopp-Yue vanguard say they are determined to change that.

"For the past eight years, the RNC has been the political outreach of the White House," said Arizona Republican Party Chairman Randy Pullen, another resolution co-sponsor who led the 2006 immigration fight and who opposed Mr. Bush's "economic policies promoting the 'ownership society' because they would eventually lead to the financial meltdown we are currently experiencing."

"It is now time for the RNC to assert itself in terms of ideas and political philosophy," Mr. Pullen added. "If we don't do it now, when will we?"

Mr. Bopp, a social conservative who has served as counsel to pro-life groups, said, "We must stand for and publicly advocate our conservative principles as a party 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days of the year."

The RNC revolutionaries leave no doubt they mean to turn the committee into policy-producing and enforcing machine.

"In the long run, we want to see this committee play an active philosophical-policy leadership role for the national GOP," Mr. Yue said.

But it remains unclear whether the rules or the machinery exist for enforcing such a resolution on Republican elected officials.

Jon Ward contributed to this report.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/30/rnc-pushes-unprecedented-criticism-of-bailouts/

(I think it happened when he decided to buy BANKS.  I remember the gist of his statement at the time, how he's a "free market" kinda guy, but this is absolutely necessary.  I guess that means capitalism is a toddler that toddles about, but when it's about to run out in front of a speeding car, it's up to socialism to save it.  As for me, I think Bush is runnin' around with a few trillion in his pockets, since there is so much secrecy surrounding the Wall Street bailouts, with transparency and accounting flat-out refused by the Bush administration from the get-go!) 

EXCLUSIVE: RNC draft rips Bush's bailouts

Ralph Z. Hallow (Contact)

EXCLUSIVE:

Republican Party officials say they will try next month to pass a resolution accusing President Bush and congressional Republican leaders of embracing "socialism," underscoring deep dissension within the party at the end of Mr. Bush's administration.

Those pushing the resolution, which will come before the Republican National Committee at its January meeting, say elected leaders need to be reminded of core principles. They said the RNC must take the dramatic step of wading into policy debates, which traditionally have been left to lawmakers.

"We can't be a party of small government, free markets and low taxes while supporting bailouts and nationalizing industries, which lead to big government, socialism and high taxes at the expense of individual liberty and freedoms," said Solomon Yue, an Oregon member and co-sponsor of a resolution that criticizes the U.S. government bailouts of the financial and auto industries. Republican National Committee Vice Chairman James Bopp Jr. wrote the resolution and asked the rest of the 168 voting members to sign it.

"The resolution also opposes President-elect Obama's proposed public works program and supports conservative alternatives," while encouraging the RNC "to engage in vigorous public policy debates consistent with our party platform," said Mr. Bopp, a leading attorney for pro-life groups who has also challenged the campaign finance legislation that Mr. Bush signed.

See related story: Jeb Bush Senate bid a GOP remedy?

If enacted, the resolution would put the party on record opposing the $700 billion bailout of the financial sector, which passed Congress with Republican support and was signed by Mr. Bush, and opposing the bailout of the auto industry. The auto bailout bill was blocked by Senate Republicans, but Mr. Bush then reversed course and announced that he would use financial bailout money to aid the auto manufacturers.

The RNC usually plays a policy role only every four years when it frames the national party platform, which typically is forgotten quickly.

In 2006, some party members presented a resolution challenging Mr. Bush's plan to legalize illegal immigrants and enact a guest-worker program. Mr. Bush's lieutenants fought back, arguing that the party should not tie the president's hands on a policy issue, and the RNC capitulated, passing an alternate White House-backed resolution instead.

This time, the backers of the new resolution say they will not be deterred by a fight, and say they have the numbers to pull off this rebellion.

"We have enough co-sponsors to take this to the RNC floor" at the party's Jan. 28-31 annual winter meeting in Washington, Mr. Bopp said. "I will take it to the Resolutions Committee, but I intend to press this issue to the floor for decision."

North Dakota Republican Party Chairman Gary Emineth said it's time for the RNC to end the disconnect between what the party platform says and what elected Republicans do.

"It is time the party gets involved in policy issues and forces candidates to respond to the platform," Mr. Emineth said. "Frankly the way we view the platform is a joke. We work hard to drive our principles into the platform, then candidates ignore it."

"If the party doesn't move in this direction, we will continue to be irrelevant. Whoever has the larger star power will continue to win, and what they stand for and believe will become less relevant," Mr. Emineth said.

House Minority Leader John A. Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, both of whom voted for the financial bailout but opposed the auto bailout, declined to comment.

White House spokesman Tony Fratto defended the Bush administration's actions, saying, "We understand the opposition to using tax dollars to support private businesses we also oppose using tax dollars to support private businesses. But this was the necessary and responsible thing to do to prevent a collapse of the American economy."

Several RNC members including some of Mr. Bopp's fellow conservatives are not pleased with the idea of having it make policy instead of simply minding the campaign fundraising store.

Ron Nehring, chairman of the California Republican Party, said the party also can't be seen endorsing a do-nothing approach.

"We have to be careful not to confuse passing resolutions for action, or creating a situation where people interpret the lack of some resolution as an excuse for inaction on an important issue," he said.

The resolution says: "WHEREAS, the Bank Bailout Bill effectively nationalized the Nation's banking system, giving the United States non-voting warrants from participating financial institutions, and moving our free market based economy another dangerous step closer toward socialism; and WHEREAS, what was needed, and is still needed, to fix the banking industry is not a bailout, but rather a commitment to fiscal responsibility."

The financial sector bailout passed the House by a vote of 263-171 with 91 Republicans backing it, and passed the Senate by a 74-25 vote with 34 Republicans in favor. The auto bailout passed the House by a 237-170 vote with 32 Republicans supporting it, but was blocked by a Republican-led filibuster in the Senate, with just 10 Republicans voting to advance the bill.

The RNC's sole job historically has been to raise money for candidates and to pass the party line down the food chain to state and local leaders. Policy has been set by the party's congressional leaders and, when a Republican sits in the White House, by the president.

The same has been true for the Democratic National Committee.

The Bopp-Yue vanguard say they are determined to change that.

"For the past eight years, the RNC has been the political outreach of the White House," said Arizona Republican Party Chairman Randy Pullen, another resolution co-sponsor who led the 2006 immigration fight and who opposed Mr. Bush's "economic policies promoting the 'ownership society' because they would eventually lead to the financial meltdown we are currently experiencing."

"It is now time for the RNC to assert itself in terms of ideas and political philosophy," Mr. Pullen added. "If we don't do it now, when will we?"

Mr. Bopp, a social conservative who has served as counsel to pro-life groups, said, "We must stand for and publicly advocate our conservative principles as a party 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days of the year."

The RNC revolutionaries leave no doubt they mean to turn the committee into policy-producing and enforcing machine.

"In the long run, we want to see this committee play an active philosophical-policy leadership role for the national GOP," Mr. Yue said.

But it remains unclear whether the rules or the machinery exist for enforcing such a resolution on Republican elected officials.

Jon Ward contributed to this report.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/30/rnc-pushes-unprecedented-criticism-of-bailouts/

Why in hell would I want to convey anything to terrorists but stay hell out of our country or they will die?  You, on the other hand want them to like us....I couldn't give a rat's behind what terrorists think about us except that they know we will kick their asses all the way to the meeting with virgins they want so desperately to get their hands on.

If you want to stick flowers in their guns go ahead.  I would like to stand back and watch that.

under control per se, but at least we can give power back to the Muslims who don't want us dead.  The more control the terrorists have and the bigger area they have to work in....the more of a threat they are to us.  That is what this war means to me. 

As for Obama....he himself has ridiculed this war and yet states that he will find Osama Bin Laden.  Is he not raging war here?  Obama himself has said that he will not take military force off of the table.  Who is to say that Obama won't pull us out of Iraq and sent us to Pakistan to rage war there.  We can't fight terrorists in Iraq because that is wasteful and wrong, but Obama wants to go to Pakistan and hunt down terrorists....same thing isn't it.  Talk about double standards.

He is going to be spending all this money with no funding and says he will save money ending this war but it sounds to me like he could be starting a war elsewhere and then what money will he use to fund his programs.....TAXES....TAXES.....TAXES.........ON EVERYONE!!!  Including the middle class that he now supposedly is looking after even though he voted before to raise taxes on us middle folks.  Nothing but rhetoric to get in the office. 

and yes I dared to use the word TERRORISTS....strike us again on US soil....what will happen to us then?  Will Obama go after them and strike back or will the US turn the other cheek to be struck again?  If Obama goes after them and no other country backs us.....what will you say then? 

The reason these leaders like Obama is because they see weakness.  They see an opportunity for the US to fall and they are all chomping at the bit.

North Korea is still talking of launching their missile but hey....I guess since it can hit Alaska that is okay because maybe they will get Palin....huh?  One less pub to worry about.

China says they hate us and blame us for the global economy issues and they are using all the money they get from our country to build up their defense.

The Taliban have already said they are planning a strike on Washington.  Right there is a warning.  So if the Taliban succeed....are ya'll gonna give Obama crap too for not stopping it like you did W. for 9/11 since they had "warnings."

Once again, the die hard party liners here refuse to see the mistakes in their own political party and all they can do is point the finger at the other political party.....which is why I'm an independent. 

You all can go on and on about Bushy's war in Iraq but the botton line is this....would you prefer that terrorists still have control of that area?  Would you prefer that the woman in that region be beaten by the taliban for talking to a man or not wearing the appropriate attire.  Regardless of why we went there or not....we helped the Iraqi's.  Yes we tortured to get information that would save people's lives while they captured our people and beheaded them.....yet we are the bad guys.   Their whole purpose of existence is to wipe us out.  They want us DEAD and now we can't even call them terrorists....are you kidding me?

Seriously.....what is your solution to this problem?  Talking to terrorists who want us dead and have no problem blowing themselves up at the same time isn't going to work.  The brutal beating of woman just because they exist and are inferior to men......and yet you never hear women's rights group protesting THAT. 

But hey.....we have our warning from the Taliban and Obama is cutting money from defense.......makes sense.....doesn't it?  I guess the only ones it makes sense too are the MSNBC watching, kool-aid drinking, far-left liberals who swoon everytime Obamanation reads from the teleprompter.

have died being waterboarded?  How many terrorists have we brutally tortured to where they have begged for death?  How many terrorists have had their head cut off at Gitmo?

It isn't like these acts are done merely for entertainment purposes.  They were used to get information out of known terrorists.  It was done in an attempt to save lives.  It wasn't done in an attempt to destroy lives.  All terrorists want to do is destroy us.

As for the treatment at Gitmo, they have it better than prisoners here in the US have it.  They get reading material, food, clean clothes, etc.  Of all the terrorists at Gitmo....how many were waterboarded?  2-3?  Oh my.  It isn't like we have waterboarded each and every terrorist and the ones we did waterboard were done because they were high up in the ranks that they would more than likely know more information/plans, etc. 

As for my religious beliefs....I would much rather do what has to be done in order to keep our country, families, children, parents, etc. safe than to cuddle people who hate us and wish nothing upon us but death.

maime (sp), and kill innocent men, women, children, news people, and our servicemen? I don't think so.

Give it up. Ain't worth it. Concentrate on more pressing issues as the above poster said.

..and announce themselves as terrorists so we can shoot them.  Iraq, London and 9/11 would teach us that they are much smarter and more covert than that.  Besides, when the London bobbies waved their guns around they ended up killing a Brazilian electrician (I think it was Brazil).

I don't spend my days worrying about what if a terrorist shows up at my house.  There really are too many other things in my life that are genuine to wonder about implausible situations such as the one you describe.

Well, he should know. 

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Bush_says_terrorists_are_coming_again_0915.html

came from Sarah Palin.  She got the ball rolling on attacking Obama's credibility.  Actually she said Obama "palls around with terrorists." Then the McCain/Palin camp started in with the Ayer's subject, trying to dig up dirt on Obama.  That is pretty much all they have done throughout the campaign is sling mudd.  Obviously the American people are intelligent and not gullible because the majority are casting their votes for Obama.

May the better man win and that man is Obama. 

...to attack on 9/11.  Likewise, it will be the TERRORISTS who will decide when and how to attack again.

I don't believe this has anything to do with WHO the President is, so while Bush shouldn't take the blame, he also shouldn't claim the credit for what the TERRORISTS HAVEN'T done.  It's the timetable of the TERRORISTS that controls what does or doesn't happen.

The Republicans felt that another terror attack would be helpful to McCain's campaign (they came out and said so).  I don't recall any Democrat uttering anything so UGLY in regards to Obama.

I don't think the terrorists were too worried about the human rights of the 9-11 victims.