The only thing I can suggest
Posted By: OP on 2008-09-12
In Reply to: I know exactly what you mean.... - sm
Is take some time to read the Bible. Give yourself just half an hour a day to read. A lot of answers can be found in there. And find a nice small church where you can meet with supportive Christians if you feel comfortable. The first three churches I ever went to I hated, but I finally have one I can call home. We don't have anymore than 50 people, but we all get along and care for each other and help each other out. To me it is what church should be. No frills, just good old fashioned fellowship!
Good luck! Feel free to keep in touch if you ever need encouragement!
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
May I suggest
you do some research either online or through your pubic library? There is a wealth of information available. In that way you can make an informed opinion rather than accept the word of strangers. From my readings, I find her to be an extraordinary woman with a life-long interest in public issues and desire to make the world a better place. That she met and married Bill was simply serendipity.
I suggest
considering people's actions during disasters, not what their speech writers tell them to say. GW cared enough to fly over the disaster for a photo op and to attend a birthday party for McCain while people were drowning.
I suggest....
...you do some more research on these subjects. I would wager you may find that democrats are just as responsible for these topics you have outlined.
I can't believe you would suggest
that I DROP the flag pin. That is the symbol of this country. That is more important than fact, keeping the symbol. You are suggesting the same as stepping on a flag. People here will want to imprisoned for that.
May I suggest
if you're looking for info on John McCain, research JOHN MCCAIN not Obama. You know, posts like this probably does your Republican candidate more harm than good.
Well then, I would suggest you get
yourself elected President and change it!!
So, exactly what would you suggest...(sm)
we do in order to get the economy back on its feet? Nothing? W has shown us what nothing will do. We could let the pubs handle it, but Paulson has shown us what they would do with it (give handouts to the wealthy). We could sit back and wait for that ever famous trickle down effect, but I have yet to see a trickle.
So, please enlighten us as to what exactly you think should be done. I assume you have a better idea since you are so opposed to the one at hand.
I suggest
you and I think on different levels. The Nazi drivel, I won't stoop to comment on. I am saying that there are standards of society to be met in accepting a visitor into one's home or one's television program. We could say that a drunken bum has the "right" to be on any television program, however they are not usually invited as they really have nothing to say that deserves national exposure and they are offensive verbally and physically. Too esoteric, I know. Do you also feel this strongly about the "right" of Andrew Dice Clay to be on network programming?
What do you suggest then?
You guys can certainly bash every idea that the new administration comes up with.
If the Republicans had such good ideas we would not be in the mess we are today.
I suggest..........
you ingest a handful of pills or succumb to a bullet so you don't have to endure such dire predictions. The neocons were a cancer on this country and hopefully this stimulus has enough chemo to beat back the damage of the last 8 years.
So what do you suggest? That he do nothing?
Give me a break. You can't wait to feed on his bones, can you? It must be KILLING you that he is succeeding!!
Then I would suggest that we refrain
from reading/responding to each other's posts. Adding you to my growing list of those who are simply not worth the click of the mouse.
Have a lovely day.
You're not the first to suggest it
Sam should know better by now. Frankly, I don't know why she wastes her time on the, Red Diaper Doper Babies, anyway.
That is also interesting...I would also suggest getting rid of...
the RNC and the DNC. Let the candidates raise their own money and give us THEIR message, not the message of the "committee." Why let a few of the extreme left and extreme right make our choices for us?
I would like to suggest a book.....
"People of the Lie" by M. Scott Peck, MD - excellent book and he makes reference to several other books that are good reads. This book is about the true meaning of evil - from a scientific perspective. It is not about "possession" but he participated in a few exorcisms performed by many people of different faiths, he said (and don't quote me) that the basic requirement was just that the participants love the afflicted enough to want to help them. He states that "possession" is extremely rare, but he witnessed it up close and personal when the patient was thought to be mentally ill. I have owned this book for years and every time I lend out my copy and don't get it back, another one presents itself at a yard sale, library book sale, whatever.
It did not suggest to you that she felt...
"separation to avoid assimilation" was a good thing? That is segregation, and when practiced by whites against blacks, was viewed as racist. And it does not support what her husband said he is about: "There is no black america, there is no white america, there is only america." That thesis is the polar opposite of that line of thought...and brings to mind her comment about "we have a hole in our soul" talking about America.
Sorry...I believe she has an agenda shared by her husband and they want the white house as a bully pulpit to further their personal agenda. Still, that is only a secondary concern. My first concern is he is a far left radical socialist and wants this country to go the way of Cuba (only he thinks it will work here. Didn't in Cuba, didn't in Venezuela...hasn't anywhere it has been tried). I strongly disagree and will not vote for someone who believes that and fully intends to put it into practice.
Then may I suggest you educate yourself and
xx
How arrogant to suggest she should go elsewhere.
His/her opinions are just as good as your's.
I would suggest Phoenix. n/m
x
Oh, so clever. And I suggest
Obama's designation for the next four years be 'hopenchangeit.'
Wha do you suggest Obama should have done?
Declare WAR ON IRAN ?
As much as the US disagrees with the outcome of this election fraud, it has no right to undertake any actions against Iran, at this point.
You suffer from delusions.
May I suggest that you follow your own *instruction...*
and read a book before YOU spout off.
The National Socialist German Workers Party (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (help·info), or NSDAP, commonly known as the Nazi Party), was a political party in Germany between 1919 and 1945. It was known as the German Workers Party (DAP) before the name was changed in 1920.
The party's leader, Adolf Hitler, was appointed Chancellor of Germany by president Hindenburg in 1933. Hitler rapidly established a totalitarian regime known as the Third Reich, under which the party gained almost unlimited power.
THAT is what happens when an entire nation is tied to the government for every need...a check, health care, education, and on and on and on. Then they have you, my friend, and that is when socialism turns into totalitarian dictatorship. It happened in Cuba. It happened in Venezuela. It happened in Germany. It happened in Italy under Mussolini. So, I would suggest, my friend, that YOU do your research before attacking someone else.
Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that visualize a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community[1] for the purposes of increasing social and economic equality and cooperation. This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by socialized (state or community) ownership of the means of production.
The modern socialist movement had its origin largely in the working class movement of the late-19th century. In this period, the term "socialism" was first used in connection with European social critics who criticized capitalism and private property. For Karl Marx, who helped establish and define the modern socialist movement, socialism would be the socioeconomic system that arises after the proletarian revolution where the means of production are owned collectively. This society would then progress into communism.
A diverse array of doctrines and movements have been referred to as "socialist." Since the 19th century, socialists have not agreed on a common doctrine or program. The various adherents of socialist movements are split into differing and sometimes opposing branches, particularly between reformist socialists and communists.
Since the 19th century, socialists have differed in their vision of socialism as a system of economic organization. Some socialists have championed the complete nationalization of the means of production, while social democrats have proposed selective nationalization of key industries within the framework of mixed economies. Stalinists, including those inspired by the Soviet model of economic development, have advocated the creation of centrally planned economies directed by a state that owns all the means of production. Others, including self-titled Communists in Yugoslavia and Hungary in the 1970s and 1980s, Chinese Communists since the reform era, and some Western economists, have proposed various forms of market socialism, attempting to reconcile the presumed advantages of cooperative or state ownership of the means of production with letting market forces, rather than central planners, guide production and exchange.[2] Anarcho-syndicalists, Luxemburgists (such as those in the Socialist Party USA) and some elements of the U.S. New Left favor decentralized collective ownership in the form of cooperatives or workers' councils. Others may advocate different arrangements.
NO THANKS.
First of all, only someone who is totally ignorant would suggest...sm
that a 17-year-old would have a Down Syndrome baby, very rare, most prevalent in women of advanced maternal age. That being said, her pregnancy would have to be announced at some point and I think that it is better now than later. Bristol is not a brave young lady, she is a young girl who made a mistake and is lucky to have such a supportive family. Hopefully, with the love and support of her family, she will be able to hold her head up high, but I imagine it is going to be very hard for her.
Ignorant or not...many did suggest that the child was hers...
and the reason I say that is that she chose to have the child. The child's father is in their lives; they plan to marry. I believe she is brave to be willing to take this public and still stand beside her mother, and I believe she will hold her head high. She has a wonderful support system and while I am sure it will not be easy, it will be easier than having that other nonsense hanging over her head. I feel sure this was discussed prior to her mother accepting the slot, because, as you say, it was going to come out eventually.
Don't you dare suggest we don't pray to the same God
you are bad
HC's campaign debt would suggest that
dontchathink?
I respectfully suggest to you that McCain
Your mistrust is based on the "Who is the REAL Obama" smear campaign. My mistrust of McCain is based on the very fact that I DO know McCain...his record and his campaign have clearly demonstrated he cannot be trust with MY country.
Regarding Alaska...I would suggest you read up on....sm
The Alaska Permanent Fund
http://www.apfc.org/home/Content/permFund/aboutPermFund.cfm
For key cabinet position, just where would you suggest
One key element of bringing change to Washington in my estimation would be to take US leadership one step beyond the "old guard" of the Boomer generation. I can say this with impunity since I am referring to my own generation. In any case, this is a bit of a tricky proposition since that means Obama would need to focus on younger individuals born in the early to mid 1960s and beyond, with ages approximately 46-48 or younger. These individuals would have reached their adult years and started building their professional careers AFTER the Carter administration. How many democratic presidents have we had since the Carter administration?
With the selection of KEY positions, it is imperative that Obama appoint people with senior-level experience. Stop to ponder for a moment, the appointments that have been made thus far.
1. Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, by all measures a "Clinton person."
2. Atty General Eric Holder served in the US Justice Dept during Ford, Carter and Reagan, who appointed him DC Superior court Judge in 1988, a post he held until 1993 before Clinton appointed him US atty in DC, later becoming Clinton's Deputy Atty General. In other words, 17 years of his experience was gained in service to the 3 former presidents prior to the Clinton appointments.
3. Director of the Office of Management and Budget - Peter Orszag, Director of Congressional Budget Office under W and served on Council of Economic Advisors under Clinton.
4. Senior Advisor Pete Rouse - Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr. Clinton and W.
Holder served under 3 different presidents prior to Clinton, Orszag's onlyh appointed position was under W and Rouse servced under 5 other presidents before Clinton. My question then is why is it that all of these people are suddenly "Clinton people?" Even if they all were, where would you expect Obama to look for his cabinet appointees...retired officials from the Carter administation perhaps? Would Reganites deliver Change? How about those Bush people (I am so sure).
I have no doubt that there will be appointees with roots in the republican camp, but please note that we are talking about only 4 choices at this point in time, 3 of which DO have ties to administrations other than Clinton's. Besides that, the most key factor is that all of these appointees will be serving under a DIFFERENT leader with a strong mandate for change, equipped with favorable legislative bodies. Perhaps it would be wise to reserve judgment on ALL of this until AFTER they take office and actually start doing their jobs, ya think?
I suggest you look to Bobby Jindal...that's the way
in Louisiana. Republican government, that is.
Namecalling? I suggest you read it again.......
Most posts are related to the posturing in Congress - not the posturing in this side show on the board.
Doesn't matter what I would suggest,
no one in the upper echelon would listen anyway. Look how many people HAVE complained to the government and they went and did what they wanted to anyway.
First, home mortages/foreclosures should have been taken care of by way of being able to re-finance through banks (which probably will not happen), but in reality, should have been taken care of in the bank bailout. There should have been a lot of stipulations in the bank bailout that were not put in place but both dems and pubs voted for it. There should not have been government jobs/waste in the new stimulus plan; i.e., parks, high speed rail between Disneyland and Las Vegas, STD/sex stuff, and whoopdedo a $13 a week in our paycheck, but you know all that.
BTW, heard O state today that the $13 a week equals $65 a month. Do the math. He's going by a 5-week month, not 4. There are a couple months that have 5 weeks, but not many, so he's slightly wrong there.
There is so much wrong with this stimulus package. FYI, I'm not whining. I'm complaining but it seems to fall on deaf ears.
Doesn't matter what I would suggest,
no one in the upper echelon would listen anyway. Look how many people HAVE complained to the government and they went and did what they wanted to anyway.
First, home mortages/foreclosures should have been taken care of by way of being able to re-finance through banks (which probably will not happen), but in reality, should have been taken care of in the bank bailout. There should have been a lot of stipulations in the bank bailout that were not put in place but both dems and pubs voted for it. There should not have been government jobs/waste in the new stimulus plan; i.e., parks, high speed rail between Disneyland and Las Vegas, STD/sex stuff, and whoopdedo a $13 a week in our paycheck, but you know all that.
BTW, heard O state today that the $13 a week equals $65 a month. Do the math. He's going by a 5-week month, not 4. There are a couple months that have 5 weeks, but not many, so he's slightly wrong there.
There is so much wrong with this stimulus package. FYI, I'm not whining. I'm complaining but it seems to fall on deaf ears.
I'm waiting for any alternatives....what do you suggest?...
x
I understand your confusion. I would suggest that you look at both candidates....
and their stand on all the issues that are important to you, and please, exercise your right to vote, no matter which candidate you choose. And try not to get bound down in the gotcha politics, concentrate on the issues, and vote for the one that most closely follows what you want for your country.
I suggest YOU study up on Obama's plan...sm
and see if his plan remotely resembles national healthcare in other countries. All plans are not created equal.
I suggest you ask your congressman...should your precious Obama...sm
take office, along with the superliberals, this is exactly what you'll get.
I am amazed and astounded at the left's lack of care and internal warning systems. This should scare the bejesus out of every man, woman, and child in this country.
Don't say you haven't been warned. They've been conducting secret congressional sessions on how to best take away your life savings away, i.e., 401k.
Not only that, but should you die before you are eligible for your alleged "benefits" you are to receive, along with your social security check.....if you should die.....
They will take 50% of it away from your heirs.
And you think it's just propaganda.......that's exactly what your democratic majority wants you to think......they think most of us are all too stupid to know what's coming before it hits us.
Well, in some cases, that appears to be true, unfortunately.
But I'm scared enough for you, too.
How dare you suggest that people are voting
for Obama based on emotion? The statistics are 25 million people that are voting don't even watch or read the news and don't have a clue what is really going on with this campaign, and guess what, those (I will say politely) UNINFORMED people are the ones that McPalin are targeting heavily. Boy, talk about desperation, when you have to resort to praying on the gullible ignorant to get a vote!
Suggest independent researching of the issues raised here...
they are valid and should be looked at. Thanks for posting.
I suggest you take a civics class. This country has checks and balances. SM
nm
But valuing over the price of a dollar is a right thing wing thing, so you are on the wrong board. n
x
I never said it's a bad thing, it is a good thing....nm
nm
one other thing though....
Agree with everything you stated, but I am profoundly disgusted also with Rove being able to expose a CIA agent, and nothing is going to be done about it in that I feel he committed treason, as Reagan did with Iran-Contra... Treasonous acts that are let to slide...no big deal huh? Who knows if someone is getting hurt because of his mouth, and yet, nothing... The silence is very annoying...as our country drops into a stinking sea of muck.
One more thing, gt. sm
Of all the people on these boards, YOUR opinion of me is the one I value the least.
Oh, and one more thing, gt. sm
Clnton signed Kyoto in 1997, only because he knew that the Senate would not ratify it. He was right. They voted 95-0 AGAINST Kyoto. Why? Because it would have required signatory nations to significantly cut greenhouse gases resulting from the burning of fosil fuels. Because ratifying the treaty would have required a large reduction in the use of fossil fuels that we use to our our economy. Until there is an alternative fuel source that is better than gold old fashioned coal and oil, restricting our economy's ability to burn these fuels would CRIPPLE US AS A NATION. You are not seeing the total picture here, you simply cannot be seeing it. I know the left's hatred for capitalism has blinded them to the fact that without our economy, we collapse. It really is that simple. We would be reduced to a third world nation in a very short period of time and you and I would not be sitting here writing on our computers because our world as we know it would change. Yes, it really is all about oil. But not the way you think.
and another thing
we aren't controlling anybody. There are several countries in this world where you are controlled, but this ain't one of them.
One more thing:
I apologize for the length of my post, but so far, I still have freedom of speech.
Guess I just feel the need to get it all out before that freedom suddenly disappears, as well. The majority of Americans don't agree with Bush, and we all know how he/his thugs handle people who dare to disagree with him. If you don't believe me, just ask John McCain and/or Valerie Plame.
I'd like to add one more thing.
If these alleged WMDs are so widespread and so easily accessible in Iraq, why aren't any of them being used on our soldiers?
Honestly, that's one of the very first fears I had when I heard we were going to war with Iraq (when I still believed the reasons given by the president and supported the invasion based on those reasons). I had visions of massive troop deaths at the hands of Iraqis and these WMDs.
Did that happen? 
OK. Here's the thing...sm
Because we've been through this before and I feel a repeat coming on. I'm respectful and nice to everyone on these boards 99% of the time. People come over to the liberal board and pretend they are moderates or just want to *debate.* When all the time they are anti-everything liberal and have no intention of seeing the liberal point of view. In the end, they end up *insulted* off of the board and run to the other board and have a sling fest. Yawn. They have revelations over there contrary to the beliefs they portrayed on this board. So really I'm skeptical about debating with the like. You may be 100% different worldfan, but from your posts on the Conservative and News boards it would appear you would be more at home on the conservative board giving them a high five about what's going on over here. Just my observation.
I used to post on the conservative board but I left because they were getting too extreme for my liking. It's that simple. There are some topics over there that I would reply too, but I don't b/c of past comments made over there, which have made me stick to the liberal page. However, on quite a few issues I am far from liberal like abortion and fiscal spending.
I hope you get my points. If not, we don't have anything more to discuss.
Sorry. Here's the whole thing.
I was trying to avoid this but the link is not working for some reason.
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Tuesday, July 04, 2006 |
|
|
Headlines |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Britons Tire of Cruel, Vulgar US: Poll |
|
|
People in Britain view the United States as a vulgar, crime-ridden society obsessed with money and led by an incompetent president whose Iraq policy is failing, according to a newspaper poll.
The United States is no longer a symbol of hope to Britain and the British no longer have confidence in their transatlantic cousins to lead global affairs, according to the poll published in The Daily Telegraph.
...a majority of the Britons described Americans as uncaring, divided by class, awash in violent crime, vulgar, preoccupied with money, ignorant of the outside world, racially divided, uncultured and in the most overwhelming result (90 percent of respondents) dominated by big business. ![src=http://www.commondreams.org/images/endquote.gif]()
|
|
The YouGov poll found that 77 percent of respondents disagreed with the statement that the US is a beacon of hope for the world.
As Americans prepared to celebrate the 230th anniversary of their independence on Tuesday, the poll found that only 12 percent of Britons trust them to act wisely on the global stage. This is half the number who had faith in the Vietnam-scarred White House of 1975.
A massive 83 percent of those questioned said that the United States doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks.
With much of the worst criticism aimed at the US adminstration, the poll showed that 70 percent of Britons like Americans a lot or a little.
US President George W. Bush fared significantly worse, with just one percent rating him a great leader against 77 percent who deemed him a pretty poor or terrible leader.
More than two-thirds who offered an opinion said America is essentially an imperial power seeking world domination. And 81 per cent of those who took a view said President George W Bush hypocritically championed democracy as a cover for the pursuit of American self-interests.
US policy in Iraq was similarly derided, with only 24 percent saying they felt that the US military action there was helping to bring democracy to the country.
A spokesman for the American embassy said that the poll's findings were contradicted by its own surveys.
We question the judgment of anyone who asserts the world would be a better place with Saddam still terrorizing his own nation and threatening people well beyond Iraq's borders, the paper quoted the unnamed spokesman as saying.
With respect to the poll's assertions about American society, we bear some of the blame for not successfully communicating America's extraordinary dynamism.
But frankly, so do you (the British press).
In answer to other questions, a majority of the Britons questions described Americans as uncaring, divided by class, awash in violent crime, vulgar, preoccupied with money, ignorant of the outside world, racially divided, uncultured and in the most overwhelming result (90 percent of respondents) dominated by big business.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse
### |
 Printer Friendly Version  E-Mail This Article |
|
|
|
FAIR USE NOTICE |
|
|
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would like to know the same thing.nm
12
|
