The only thing that concerns me
Posted By: Trigger Happy on 2009-05-16
In Reply to: I am all for EMR, just not voice recognition - - Amanda
is having that information hacked into for anyone to have access to. I think that is my biggest concern.
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
Yep. I have my concerns too. But....
he is the master of his own destiny...and we shall see where he attempts to take us.
What concerns me...... sm
is not so much whether or not I can survive the high bills. Of course, I am concerned for my kids, but I am really concerned about the elderly in the cities where they depend on electricity to heat their homes in the winter and cool their homes in the summer. The extreme temperatures are hard on the elderly.
Offshore concerns
To follow is a post on today's MTS Main board under off shore concerns/mg. Maybe some of you could help her out.
I mentioned this a few messages below, but the blog has its first post. I am NOT supporting any Ad things on there and will not be making anything off this.
http://violatingamerica.blogspot.com/
If you have a link that would be useful to others to write their gov't reps, companies, news sources, etc, feel free to post them or e-mail me so i can get them up there. I am also looking for any news stories or any information we can get. One way or the other, we might be able to make a difference.
The OP brought up her concerns....
I brought up mine. I find mine more concerning than hers. And I don't understand why Democrats accept certain behavior in their own and lamblast the other side for the same perceived weaknesses. Why is that?
I do think these are valid concerns...(sm)
and ones that have to be addressed. However, I don't see anything wrong with setting a goal, which is what Obama has done by saying it should be closed in 1 year. I think he purposely left himself some leeway by saying a year, and at the same time let people like me who support him that it will get done.
Personally I think they should be tried in a military court, which would avoid a lot of the bureaucracy that is associated with the regular US court system. They may want to go by the world court rules when trying them? You're right. Noone knows exactly how this is going to be done yet, but we all know that something has to be done.
As far as housing them here, I don't see a problem with that. Right now we house murderers, rapists, and some of the worst criminals immaginable. I don't think that these prisoners from Gitmo would pose anymore of a threat that some that are already there. However, I do think that Gitmo prisoners would have a really hard time in a prison here because of other prisoners.
Obviously, there is a lot to be worked out, especially when it comes to those in Gitmo who are actually guilty, but there has to be something done soon about the ones who aren't.
So you don't believe we have national security concerns?
If you do believe we have national security issues then what is your answer to keeping us safe?
I share your concerns and agree
with everything you have said, but after having been in this business since the early 70s, I've learned never to expect anyone to speak up on behalf of MTs except the MTs themselves. I have never paid membership fees to AAMT and have never had the need to pay for certification, but I would pay MT union due in a heartbeat.
In reply to the concerns you raised.
My first reaction when reading your post was one of curiosity. I was an IC during the latter Clinton years and I do not recall paying 40% of my earnings to tax. What I remember was an aggregate tax payment composed of income tax, social security tax and self-employment tax, which essentially represented a burden I shouldered as an IC that compensated for the lack of employer contribution to SS, Medicare and FICA. To my knowledge, this tax structure has not changed since then for ICs. I also remember paying my taxes quarterly, and being responsible for calculating enough tax not only to cover my required amounts, but also to pay in extra each time if I wanted to generate a return at the end of the year. I made a decision NOT to be an independent contractor because I was a single parent with a mortgage. The self-employment levy felt like double tax to me as compared to what I had been accustomed to as an employee and, most definitely the total percentage of tax burden as an IC was greater than that of a full employee status.
On checking my returns from those years (which I still keep in the house) I find the total tax burden I had for all the components of my tax liability amounted to 27%. I am wondering if you did not get a return back then because you did not contribute more than the minimum rate during the course of the year and that later on, your contributions did allow you to have a return. Also, to account for the lower rate during Bush years, did your family situation change between Clinton years and Bush years, did you get married, have children, add an earned income tax credit deduction, add dependents, start itemizing your taxes. All these changes would account for a lower percentage rate of your tax liability, thus allowing for a return.
I am also wondering why you would look back instead of forward when assessing the issue of whether or not you will be "taxed more." Have you read Obama's tax plan? If not, please go to this link and take a look. http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/#tax-relief
Essentially this is what you will find (please excuse the format challenges of cut and paste).
Provide Middle Class Americans Tax Relief
Obama will cut income taxes by $1,000 for working families to offset the payroll tax they pay.
• Provide a Tax Cut for Working Families: Obama will restore fairness to the tax code and provide 150 million workers the tax relief they need. Obama will create a new "Making Work Pay" tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family. The "Making Work Pay" tax credit will completely eliminate income taxes for 10 million Americans.
• Eliminate Income Taxes for Seniors Making Less than $50,000: Barack Obama will eliminate all income taxation of seniors making less than $50,000 per year. This proposal will eliminate income taxes for 7 million seniors and provide these seniors with an average savings of $1,400 each year. Under the Obama plan, 27 million American seniors will also not need to file an income tax return.
• Simplify Tax Filings for Middle Class Americans: Obama will dramatically simplify tax filings so that millions of Americans will be able to do their taxes in less than five minutes. Obama will ensure that the IRS uses the information it already gets from banks and employers to give taxpayers the option of pre-filled tax forms to verify, sign and return. Experts estimate that the Obama proposal will save Americans up to 200 million total hours of work and aggravation and up to $2 billion in tax preparer fees.
It also might be worthwhile to check out the plan on the economy here
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/
Scroll down to At a Glance and browse the links of interest to you.
Here's the link for healthcare
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/
Again, scroll down to At a Glance and select links of interest.
I have provided Obama website links because you expressed doubts about democratic policy. McCain's website also should have similar information available on these issues as well for your comparison. After reviewing the information (if you were not already familiar with it), ask yourself where the information is coming from that is making you fearful that your taxes will be raised. I would really be interested in any response you may feel inclined to post in this regard. On a personal note, I will not be trusting McCain with the economy or with handling my HARD EARNED tax money. I do NOT want one more single penny to be used to fund the war, bankroll Israel's apartheid and nuclear weapons arsenal, prop up our struggling corporations or trickle up into the pockets of the richest among us in the form of continued Bush tax cuts to the rich, which McCain has openly stated he will continue if elected.
The constituents who brought her their concerns...
does freedom not extend to them also? They don't have a right to at least ask about the books? Which is what they did...and she took their concerns to the city council, which is her job as mayor. Why do you seek to curtail others' freedom in the name of freedom? They did not get what they wanted, but they certainly should have the freedom to ask and be heard. Isn't that exactly what you are saying we must protect??
You are expressing a lof of our concerns and fears
The dems won't even tell us where they are going to get the money from. They should do the math, Obama promises that middle income will not be taxed any more. Right, that's exactly like when Clinton promised during his campaign he would not increas middle income takes and within days after getting into the white house he not only didn't keep his promise but he gave the middle income the largest tax increase since who knows when. So why should I believe Obama? Especially since his voting record shows that he voted to increase taxes.
This is not a hateful post. It is a true fear that a lot of us have. You CANNOT redistribute the wealth and give to the poor who aren't doing anything to deserve it. For all those liberals who are for this type of program please send in your name and address so you can pay my share since you believe its okay. I don't! I work very hard for what I have. I'm already working 14 hours a day and I still hardly have enough money to pay bills, let alone save anything for a retirement. Why should they take more from me.
People need to be held responsible for themselves. If they need charity, that is what the churches are suppose to be for, and other organizations that help the poor. The people need to pick up some skills so they can get out in society and earn a living like the rest of us do.
For all the conservatives out there you need to keep expressing your opinions and fears. People need to be aware of what this Obama is and what his socialist programs will turn America into. This is not the America that our founding fathers fought for. Socialists have infiltrated the system, written laws that protect them and screw us, all the while telling you that you need to feel patriotic about getting screwed. Conservatives need to stand up for what's right and not be bullied by the liberals anymore.
This is not hysteria - it is people expressing their concerns
The moment somebody brings up something that is questionable (and with good reason) about Obama the liberals are quick to say it's hysteria. Watching all the news stations its the same way. It was even brought up on one of the stations tonight about the vicious attacks on Palin. Now their coming out with a porn movie intentionally starring someone that looks like her (I'll be a lot of the liberals and liberal media are happy about that). But once again I heard the liberals say that the poor democrats have been "picked on" for so long that this is okay behavior. The disgusting way they turn it around and will say conservatives are "picking on Obama", but with their dirty campaign tactics and commercials they are only "bringing to light" the truths about McCain. It's all very one sided and I see that on this board too.
Conservatives have a very real and very valid concern about Obama and his shady past (to include where he was born and if he is actually legitimate to become president). The people who are his mentors, spiritual advisors, who gave him his start in politics, and the people who are advising him, along with the dirty bashing from liberal media, makes it very hard for one to have any "faith" in this person. He is so busy covering up his past, his voting record, the people he associates with, etc, etc. Sure he's a stellar speaker. After all - he is a lawyer. He knows how to capture his audience with stories. But lynch mob....I'm hearing it on Obama's side too.
The subject did not change. I will address you concerns
You remember the one about the fact that our tax system has always been progressive and the table posted above shows you just how moderate in comparison Obama's proposed tax rate is. What I want to know is were those 7 republican presidents between 1932 and 1981 all MORE socialist than Obama or what?
Then you haven't been listening to a lot of people's concerns
It is clear half the country feels safer with McCain. The other half doesn't care.
Feel free to direct your concerns to the Administrator. sm
You can reach the adminstrator at Admin@MTStars.com. As far as deleting, since the incident of several weeks ago, I have made a concerted effort on BOTH boards to keep the bashing to a minimum.
The Nobel Peace prize is given for environmental concerns. sm
The Nobel Peace prize was given in 2004 to Wangari Maathai of Kenya, an environmental activist, for forming the Greenbelt Movement, so the Peace prize being given for environmental concerns is not new......
But valuing over the price of a dollar is a right thing wing thing, so you are on the wrong board. n
x
But, the war on terror concerns all countries. Other countries
acknowledge the war on terror as concerning the world, so it is essentially a World War.
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
The thing that got me was this...sm
This totally counts out everyday Joes. And those with a couple million to run. A half a billion dollars is a lot of money.
One last thing.....
Your argument might hold more water if I thought for one minute liberals understood that it was Michael Moore's OPINION and not the truth (but why should they, because he frames as the truth). I think, if you truly understand that, you are in the minority.
One more thing...
I asked the last poster to bring me one example of a Democrat who, when caught in wrongdoing, has resigned. Just one. She has not come back with one, even though I named several who should have. As I stated, the only Democrat I know of who resigned from anything resigned because he was coming out of the closet, and I find that ludicrous. The man should not have resigned because he was gay. For felony perjury, yes. For obstruction of justice, yes. Remember please the congressman who actually had a homosexual affair with an underage page (male). No Democratic outrage. He stood right up and said he was an adult and it was consensual and that had nothing to do with his job as a Congressman. No Democratic outrage. In fact, he was re-elected. Yes, that was several years ago, but all that proves is that the Democratic moral compass went wonky several years ago. It is not a recent thing, it is just getting worse and worse and worse. Stop please dancing around the subject, and please to bring forth one or two Democrats who have actually resigned and admitted wrongdoing? And while you are at it, Republicans who were caught and still hold office? I would be very willing to read and re-assess. Try for one minute to take off the liberal hat and look at it objectively. It is case after case after case...Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Alcee Hastings, William Jefferson, and on and on the list goes....in fact, Alcee Hastings was removed as a Federal Judge for bribery and perjury..see below.
In 1988, the Democratic-controlled U.S. House of Representatives took up the case, and Hastings was impeached for bribery and perjury by a vote of 413-3. Voters to impeach included Reps. Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, John Conyers and Charles Rangel. He was then convicted in 1989 by the United States Senate, becoming only the sixth federal judge in the history of the United States to be removed from office by the Senate. The Senate had the option to forbid Hastings from ever seeking federal office again, but did not do so. Alleged co-conspirator William Borders went to jail again for refusing to testify in the impeachment proceedings, but was later given a full pardon by Bill Clinton on his last day in office.
Ain't that special?? And just proves the point.
How did I get into this thing..
I have not said anything about regime change for months, years. I said Iraq was on the table before 9/11 solely to illuminate the fact that 9/11 set the stage for what some had been wanting to do for a long time. My intent was to emphasize that this administration used 9/11 as a way to garner support from Congress and the American people for the switch from Afghanistan to Iraq. If 9/11 had not happened, there would never have been support for a preemptive war in Iraq nor do I believe we would have supported going after bin Laden. It took something monumental for the American people to be willing to go to war.
How do you know Clinton is my favorite president?? I think he was a good president and I was doing a lot better when he was in office but you assume much here. In my lifetime I think maybe JFK was my favorite president (I was about 10 years old and I remember him as bigger than life) and one of the reasons for that was that he inspired us. I don't think anyone has really done that since, made us think and feel like we could do anything. It really has been downhill since Watergate.
I will cease and desist from regime change rhetoric if I never have to hear the words spew or ooze again.
How did I get in this thing....
I have not said anything about regime change for months, years. I said Iraq was on the table before 9/11 solely to illuminate the fact that 9/11 set the stage for what some had been wanting to do for a long time.
My point was that it is not only *this* administration. Clinton felt strongly enough about Iraq and regime change, as did the Congress at that time, to enact a LAW calling for regime change. So Iraq was on the table then. The articles posted would lead you to believe that liberals/Democrats never called for regime change. They are the instigating part of the *some* you speak of. And if you will read Clinton's speech at the time, if you did not know he gave it, you would think Bush might have, because the content is eerily similar. It is just odd to me that liberals were on board for WMD, on board for regime change, on board for force, on board for ALL of it when Clinton was calling for it. How do liberals manage that massive flip flop? I remember Clinton's speech well. It was one of the few times that I agreed with what he was doing and saying.
My intent was to emphasize that this administration used 9/11 as a way to garner support from Congress and the American people for the switch from Afghanistan to Iraq. If 9/11 had not happened, there would never have been support for a preemptive war in Iraq nor do I believe we would have supported going after bin Laden. It took something monumental for the American people to be willing to go to war. Okay. I get it. 3000 people dying here was not enough to make liberals willing to go to war. What, in the name of the Almighty, is, I am wondering.
How do you know Clinton is my favorite president?? I think he was a good president and I was doing a lot better when he was in office but you assume much here. I was being facetious...he seems to be the posterboy for liberals. I apologize. I will not refer to him as YOUR favorite President anymore. Glad though that you validated what I have said on numerous occasions, that liberals are about what is good for them individually...I am glad you personally were doing better when he was President.
In my lifetime I think maybe JFK was my favorite president (I was about 10 years old and I remember him as bigger than life) and one of the reasons for that was that he inspired us. I don't think anyone has really done that since, made us think and feel like we could do anything. It really has been downhill since Watergate. Maybe it has gone downhill for you since watergate. Personally I think it started downhill then, and made a huge massive slide with Monicagate and a sitting President committing felony perjury. However, I do not hold the country responsible for that as you seem to. I hold the individuals...Nixon and Clinton...responsible. At least Nixon had a modicum of grace to say he was wrong and resign when caught. Clinton has done neither and his party has not expected him to and has in fact defended him. You will never hear me defend either of them.
I will cease and desist from regime change rhetoric if I never have to hear the words spew or ooze again. I believe it was one on the liberal board who started the *spew* and *ooze* and the only time I have used those words was again, being facetious, in reply to the ones who used them. I personally did not start the use of those. In fact, I think her words were *spew venom* (ick). As to cease and desist, go ahead with the regime change rhetoric if you like. We know it did not originate with Bush, not opinion, matter of law. No spin, hard fact.
Have a good day.
The right thing to do is...
allow everyone to vote. No one needs to step down. And I do not support either of them. I supported Ron Paul when he was in the race.
One more thing
He keeps flashing a pic of himself when he was a young guy in the military. Almost every commercial of him shows him when he was younger, and in fact one of his ads on this website shows him a young guy in the military. He's now old and he should have a current picture. What's next, Barack putting up adds with his high school senior pic? How about Hillary running with a picture of her in grade school. The guy is old and if he's so confident in himself he should have a current pic of him. He's no longer younger and he doesn't have the mind of someone younger.
You did no such thing since he never said that.
I did do my research and so did the author of "comparative drug use." above. FYI: Crack/free-base cocaine and cocaine hydrochloride are not the same. One is pure, the other a compound. The addition of hydrochloride gives the intranasal compound a completely different chemical make-up that does not have the same effect. It is slower on the uptake and clears the system much faster than the cocaine base (giving it less of an addictive potential) . The pure free base/crack cocaine DOES NOT WORK when it is snorted, since the absorption is obstructed when it is attacked by enzymes via the nasal route. Method of delivery does matter, in terms of drug effect, absorption, drug life and addiction potential. If you are an MT, you know where to go to verify this information.
I am aware of what he said and did not say in his book. I have nothing to add to the "comparative drug use" post in that regard. Furthermore, there is nothing inaccurate in my original post. There is a pervert on a right-wing fringe blog who made these unsubstantiated claims about his witnessed account of "sharing" cocaine with Obama and having homosexual sex with him. He has also been discredited and has a wrap sheet a mile long. Does not seem like a credible observation from a credible source. That's all I said. I did not deny, nor did I acknowledge whether or not Obama used cocaine. My comments referred to how information is extracted from legitimate sources (in this case, straight from the horse's mouth), twisted and manipulated by perverts and right-wing blogsters in desperate efforts to smear somebody's character when they are unable to engage themselves directly in legitimate policy issues. The "character" card, whether played by one party or the other, is really a lame strategy that prevents productive, progressive approaches to issues and solutions to problems of dire importance to us AS A NATION, not as party affiliates.
That is the best thing you
can come up with? Let us forget Obama's association with Ayers or his 20-year membership to a church that preached hate messages......let's just focus on McCain calling his wife a C unt shall we. Sheesh......If he thought so little of women, he would never have chose one to run as his VP.
In all seriousness though, why is c unt such an offensive word? Who dictates words and which ones are bad? Who decided that the F bomb was bad? Who determined what words were considered swear words? If I called someone a poop head and then called someone a c unt, they are both supposed to insult...are they not.....so why is one worse than the other and who determined that?
At least she is doing the right thing
She is going to have the baby and not kill it
well, the one thing that the VP has is...
the deciding vote if there is a tie in Congress, and with a majority dem congress that is not a bad thing.. :)
Yep, I agree with the "gimme" attitude. I call it being all about me, me, me. Don't get me wrong, I believe some social programs are necessary because there are people who, through no fault of their own whether mental disability or physical disability, cannot work. And I think we should take care of our fellow man to that extent. However, those who are fully capable of working and choose not to, and we have to subsidize their housing, their groceries, and give them a check every month...that needs to stop.
Have a wonderful day!
yes, SP did the right thing!!
x
One more thing....sm
McCain isn't "my hero" per se.... -- my first choice was Romney, and we all know where that went....lol....
But John McCain is this country's hero, whether you agree or admit it. He simply is, and was. Period. You can't take that away from him.
And I'll tell you who "sat around and watch a city drown." I think that pretty much covers what the entire nation did, as the nonstop coverage of that event was depicted...actually, I think the whole world watched, not just us. One of our tragedies, but you can't lay that completely at McCain or Bush's feet. It's been covered before her ad nauseum, and I think most agree, if the dem gov and dem mayor would have acted preemptively, as happened this weekend in both LA and TX, a lot of that would have been averted. No need to cover this ground again, really. I get your point of view though, so no need to expound.
Bummer....now I betcha won't answer my other question on SNL....rats, I really wanted to know too....lol....I used to love SNL with the first crew was on there with Chevy, Belushi, Gilda Radner, and all those first not ready for prime time players.
LOL! I can add one more thing to that -
To paraphrase the Beach Boys:
'and she had fun, fun, fun,
'til her mommy took her condom a-wayyyyyy!!!'
Is that a bad thing?
Should he have just attacked, attacked, attacked? Doesn't matter what he does, it is wrong, I guess. I would rather have somebody who can say Yeah, we disagree on some things, but here is where we agree. Isn't that what bipartisanship is about?
Whatever they do there is one thing for sure
It will not benefit "we the people." This bail-out is absurd. Our local bank president is a personal friend. Talking to her the other day she said there are no problems there and it's business as usual, loans being made just the same. Now that doesn't add up to the scare tactics we hear from the jerk-off politicians. JMO but I think this is G.W.'s last great assist to his Wall Street buddies. One party is as bad as the other and they all benefit from what goes on on Wall Street. They'll pass some kind of bail-out and this country will be bankrupted. No money, no jobs. Their bail-out is not going to help the situation any more than the rebates did. Just borrow more money and throw it away. I hope eventually enough people will get totally disgusted and then maybe we can take back our government. Everyone wants "help." Well, those who bit off mortgages they couldn't afford, tough toenails, suffer the consequences. We may as well start learning to spell GREATER DEPRESSION, worse than the 30s because, folks, that is what is coming. The Republicans will keep on blaming the Democrats and the Democrats will keep on blaming the Republicans. ALL of our elected politicians ought to be tried and hung for treason!! The best I know to do is vote against EVERY incumbent. I am far from excited about Obama but I will vote for him because he is not a Republican. Any Democrat running for anything I will vote for the Republican. That's the best I can think of at the moment to try to change. We all need to quit bickering about "Republican" and "Democrat" and start thinking as AMERICANS! If someone can build a better mousetrap than what I plan to do I'll be first in line to buy it. Something HAS to be done and we don't need to start in arguing about who should get a free handout. The truth is NO ONE should get a free handout, other than the aged and infirm!
One other thing to think about . . .
Also need to think about the what if . . .? What happens if Obama is elected and all these crazy radicals/extremists/racists in this country take him out, or GOD FORBID, if McCain is elected, (and I don't think an 80-year-old man is going to make it through 4 years), then that thing he picked as runny mate would step in as president? Let's see, Palin or Biden? There's a no brainer!!! Mark my words, Palin beliefs would regress his country 30-50 years. We don't need a self-righteous religious fanatic in the White House. What ever happened to separation of church and state??
they run the whole thing
It's the old line "you get what you pay for" here. Imagine it changes to SM tomorrow. You wouldn't have the option to stay with the physicians you now have (unless a pure accident or coincidence). Gone would be the choices you now have, which are pitiful as the system is now. I still long for the days when we purchased our ins. the same as we do our car ins., cable co., etc. In the ྌs and beyond I had BCBS. I selected the doctors I wanted, and didn't worry about looking for who was on my (my list? ha!) list closest to my home, etc.
A friend of mine lived in Canada for awhile and while there her daughter got DXd with cancer and ended up with an amputated leg. She said it was a horrible system, and would never again do it...and she didn't. She had no control over her choices up there. No doubt you've heard of the many people who come here for surgery, etc. for the same reasons. Again, everyone's trying to get IN to the US, not out...
Does that help? Please don't be swayed by the spin. Anytime the gov't controls something, whether it be your healthcare to your home, you're no longer in control of it.
My thing is
that God gives life, not us. We are merely the vessels. Therefore what he gives we cannot take away. Well, excuse me, should not.
I think that if someone doesn't believe in God they are still very much bound by his laws, they just break them left and right.
I have quite a few reasons for not voting for Obama, but on the instance of abortion, I don't believe it is our right to put away what God has brought into being.
What really bothers me though is that Obama supports the "just born abortions" (I can't remember what they are called). To me, if your going to carry the child for 9 months, why kill it at the end? If you've gone through all that, at least give it up for adoption and give it a chance!
I completely agree, Mccain is not much better. I'm sure for the most part it will end up being politics as usual. I think he would like to make changes, but to me the President has become nothing more than a mouthpiece. He will fall in line with the majority. Obama, on the other hand, bothers me because for one, he rose to the top way to quickly. Two, he is not very patriotic and neither is his wife. Three, I think in his pursuit of getting "the people" to cheer him on he is going to do some very stupid things (like sitting down with terrorists. So what, then they can kidnap him and hold him ransom?) Four, there is no way he got to the top that quickly on his own. Therefore, he owes people. It bothers me to think of which ones he owes.
There are others but I'll stop there since a lot of them have already been beaten to death on this board.
To bad we as Americans couldn't all band together and put "one of our own" in there. Write in a middle aged lower-middle class construction worker from Tennessee, or an old cowboy from Texas (not related to Bush of course!) Someone without money, or a background in politics, or a personal agenda. Then we would really see change!
And another thing
What is he going to do about exporting jobs out of our country? Have you checked the job seekers board lately? Over 2000 hits on some of the ads. Read the company board? Seems no one has any work. And McCain promises to be the biggest free trader of all times. Yup, that's very good for the economy.
The thing is....sm
she is trying to show everyone that Obama has terrorist links. Bottom line is no matter what he SAYS he is going to do, if he is a terrorist, you should not believe him. Of course a terrorist would say what you want to hear. Of course they would send someone with the appropriate appearance and eloquence of speech. At this point it does not even matter if McCaine does anything he says at all...because ANYTHING beats having a terrorist as our president.
The sad thing is...
It's so true no matter who gets in!
here's another thing
i have voted, i don't remember them ever checking my ID... they may tighten things up a bit this year but who is to say that someone won't try it twice? In the bigger cities, I've heard it's pretty easy to get a fake ID. ?
One thing I can say s/m
Die hard Republicans will buy anything as long as it's from a Republican. I have to ask, when's the last time you heard dubya own up to a mistake? WMD? "faulty intelligence." Mistakes in Iraq? "those Dems don't want to support our military." Economy? There's those doggone Dems again. Turn it around and you have the Democrats.
Wake up people!! Both political parties are corrupt, dishonest, maybe even evil. As long as they can keep us arguing over whether we're "Democrats or Republicans" they succeed in keeping us from seeing the REAL issues.
|
