Then fairness should go on the other hand
Posted By: Just me on 2008-11-03
In Reply to: Oh MY, please forgive me - gourdpainter
Just skip over the posts you don't like.
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
And my politics and faith are hand in hand. Plus I'm just answering her question.
x
The 2 issues you describe usually go hand-in-hand.
keep women out of power. The old 'barefoot-and-pregnant' story. As a feminist, I wouldn't vote for a candidate who was against EITHER issue. Being pro-choice has nothing to do with hating babies, etc. Pro-choice has to do with keeping a very personal, private choice just that: Personal & Private, between a woman and her doctor, and no-one else. If a woman hasn't any power over her OWN reproductive system, and whether or not the time is right (if ever) to bear a child, she certainly isn't going to be given much else to be in charge of, either.
The only reason this issue EVER became a hotbed political issue is that the religious fanatics in this country, who have been trying to control the reins of government, picked an issue that was certain to divide people. They took this choice out of the doctor's office and put it in the public eye so that the country could be divided, and in that way 'conquered'. Have to hand it to 'em, some of the campaign tactics, as repugnant as they are, have been pretty slick. Shows they've got some pretty fancy lawyers. The terrorist tactics (threatening, and even sometimes killing) docs who perform TABs; harrassing women entering family-planning clinics; and chasing some family planning clinics out of some towns.
There used to be a clinic a few blocks from my home, and every Friday this looney-tune and his whacked-out buddies would block park a truck with pictures of fetuses on it, and would block an entire sidewalk with their signs, fake babies (dolls), themselves, etc. I guess they think they're scaring people with their pictures & signs, but it only serves to infuriate them. In large part, the attempts to overthrow Roe vs Wade by the religious lunatics of the world is one of the main reasons I stopped voting Republican after Ronald Reagan, and voted Democratic instead.
And then of course there is the issue of our jobs. When that all started going down the toilet (or shall I say - to the Third World) I realized the 'trickle-down effect' I'd been led to believe when I was a Republican in the past was a lie. It doesn't trickle DOWN, the money only gushes UP -- to the ones who already have the most of it.
politics and religion go hand in hand...
Whether or not we like it, many of our laws are governed by religion. Without some sort of religion, who is to say that murder is "wrong," thus making it a religious argument, not a political one (by your methodology) and, yet, we still have a law against it.
I have seen some bullying get out of hand first hand
during the same grocery strikes that I referred to in the very small town where I grew up. Scabs were beat up and such. I am not saying it's the norm, but there can be tremendous pressure to vote one way or another--as can be seen right here.
In all fairness. sm
This isn't your list. It's copied and pasted from BuzzFlash. Link below. I only mention it because there was a time some time back when you guys went ballistic on some on the conservative board for doing this.
In all fairness
One thing I agree with you on, if Obama is elected, I fully believe there will be an assassination or at least an attempt. God forbid that should happen. I would far prefer Biden in the Oval office instead of Gov. Airhead. "Experience" in Washington means nothing to me, in fact I would prefer NO Washington experience, provided the Gov. had anything between her ears besides air.
In all fairness. s/m
Someone mentioned Obama's voting record. Has anyone actually looked at his voting record...or McCain's? Obama didn't vote 46.3% of the time. McCain didn't vote 64.1% of the time!!! I find where Obama missed 1 important vote, McCain missed many. In fact, McCain looks like he hardly voted at all in the last couple of years except to speed to Washington to make sure his Wall Street buds got their bail-out. In all fairness, many of the votes both failed to vote on were nothing than motions for cloture (or however you spell that word).
In all fairness
People overseas can vote via e-mail. While I understand that not all of them do and all votes should be counted, there is an alternative to whatever mail problems exist. They only need to go to the FVAP web site. That being said, not everyone in Iraq is lucky enough to have internet access and, from what my husband says, the e-mail voting is quite a pain in the behind because things have to be faxed and all kinds of stuff.
In all fairness...
I am sure that nobody has the time to read every e-mail that he will get. I am sure that they filter them for threats and such, but I doubt he will ever read it unless it is a real standout! Nothing against you, just can't imagine how many e-mails he must get.
And in all fairness
They had to have them disinfected from the Clinton administration. I had heard that it just oozed with cooties.
In all fairness, gourdpainter,
I don't really think Obama is going to come right out and admit that he is friends with Ayers - that would spell disaster for his campaign and plans. I have learned I cannot trust what is fed to me, so I watch all of the stations, including Fox, and I read through tons of information on the internet and make up my own mind instead of letting the media make it up for me.
I will tell you, when this campaign first started, I was so excited to hear what he had to say about the issues and to think he has young kids, etc., etc., but the more I have researched (just facts with proof), I have decided that I cannot vote for this man. He is not who I believe will take America forward. His policies most definitely I don't agree with but I cannot accept a man whose character is questionable.
If you are really concerned about fairness -
I don't understand you folks. I am very concerned about the military having their say in the voting process - I have a son in the military and I want his vote counted (even though he voted for McCain), I have an exhusband in Iraq (who I am sure would not waste his time voting for anybody), but I want their votes counted; however, if you want to be fair then even the homeless people "who do not contribute anything" have the right to vote. Being homeless does not take away their basic rights in this country. You are all talking about how Obama is going to take away this, or take away that, or do this, or do that to the people, but now you are advocating not letting a homeless person vote becaues they don't have a permanent address.
You know what, I have come close to being homeless several times in my life due to unfortunate situations - one of those time when my husband was a SOLDIER and the Army did not pay us for a whole month - and I don't think that homeless people are the scum of the earth and should just be discounted. Any one of us could find ourselves right there on that park bench beside them at any time. If the United States were a better place, then we would not have homeless people sitting on those benches anyway!
I cannot believe the lack of compassion that people in the United States are now showing toward their fellow countrymen!
It doesn't. Now in all fairness....
the campaign says they "had nothing directly" to do with that. Like they had nothing directly to do with Acorn and then had to return 800G. And like they did not provide a list of maxed out donors so Acorn could hit them for get out the vote contributions and registration efforts. Like Acorn is not in the tank for Obama.
Sounds more like the old USSR than the USA.
In all fairness, it won't matter if they
do want to attend to anything with a dem majority. Think Pelosi will get that private plane now? LOL. The party needs to reboot, that's for sure. This is exactly why I don't like a one party majority. We need those checks and balances from both sides, brilliantly set up by our forefathers.
Fairness Doctrine
oh no its not. Geez. Please watch the actual news programs.
Thank you for your fairness and tolerance......nm
nm
The Fairness Doctrine
No one in the Democratic party ever seriously considered restoring the Fairness Doctrine. Someone occasionally will bring it up, but it never goes beyond committee and it dies there. It's not on the Democratic agenda nor will it be. It's yet another canard invented by the right-wing noise machine.
More Fairness Doctrine
The Senate voted to approve a bill granting representation to Washington DC in congress. However, Senate Republican Steering Committee Chairman Jim DeMint (S.C.) and Senate Republican Conference Vice Chairman John Thune (S.D.) added a totally unrelated amendment to the bill prohibiting reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine. The Senate passed the measure 87-11.
In response, Senate Majority Whip D*ck Durbin (D-Ill) proposed an amendment that called for the FCC to encourage diversity in media ownership. This proposal simply re-stated current existing law. It passed 57-41 despite the fact that every single Republican in the Senate voted against it.
So to summarize, the Senate passed an amendment to allow congressional voting privileges for Washington DC, but Senate Republicans added a totally unrelated amendment that prohibits reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, which the FCC wasn't considering and the Obama administration never supported. Nevertheless, the Democratic-controlled Senate overwhelmingly passed it anyway 87-11. Then, when a Democrat introduced a measure to "encourage diversity in media ownership," every single Senate Republican voted against it.
DeMint told reporters that Democratic efforts to legally encourage diversity in media ownership would open a "back door to censorship."
Uh, okay Jim. Whatever you say. Could this be because the vast majority of the mass media in this country are owned by Republicans? Liberal bias in the media? Gimme a break.
Once again, gt, you are not thinking from a base of fairness.
But I didn't expect you to. And when another poster actually did, you responded with HOW COULD YOU. I expected that, as well. So much for philosophical conversation, exploring intent, and misspeaking. I notice you never mentioned Maher, which, again, is typical. I drew a cogent correlation and you dismissed it completely. Again, expected. Thank you, Gadfly, for the conversation.
Okay, in all fairness, the link does not work for me either. nm
x
I like equality and fairness.....like most grown-ups...nm
nm
Well by all means, in the usual fairness...
of the as-far-from-democratic-Democratic Party...guilty until proven innocent, bash, belittle, and then turn right around in the SAME post and accuse someone else of the same. You need to get a new schtick. YOur number one does not have as much experience as the Repub #2. Yet you keep bringing experience into the conversation.
As to self destruct, not seeing it. Got a little bounce and sucked ALL the air out of the britney spears stage speech.
I am not at all underestimating the clintons....your #1 is, and the DNC is.
Yes, by all means, toe that party line. lol.
As far as your last line...THANK GOD for that!! And may i remind you, on the issue of experience...when Hillary Clinton ran for her NY state senate seat, she had NO experience in government whatsoever, unless you consider running around behind Bill cleaning up his messes experience. She had held absolutely NO legislative positions but I am sure you would agree she has been an effective senator...right?
Puhlezzzzz. Double standard is SHOWING. And all Bill had done before he became Prez was be a governor. Double standard is SHOWING.
geeeez. lol.
It is called the Fairness Doctrine Act
s
There needs to be equality and fairness in congress
Don't shoot me - these are only my observations. Granted I have been very busy with work only catching the news in between, but what I have seen over the past few days or a week is that the republicans are not being treated fairly by the democrats. I voted for Obama because I believed that he would be the best choice and like he said he would be able to get the republicans and democrats to be able to work together. I didn't see that with McCain. I didn't vote for Obama because of his plans because I knew it was just campaigning and all a bunch of garbage. No president yet to this date has ever fulfilled their campaign promises. But I voted for Obama because I believed he would unite the two parties together and maybe something could get done in Washington to help the people. What I have seen so far is just too sad beyond words. More failed promises. I was truly hoping for some "class", but I don't see it happening and I'm not sure if it's worse than it was before. Granted it's only been a couple weeks and I keep hoping things will turn around, but seems like all the people Obama is picking for his cabinet members are democrats (and crooked ones at that) with maybe one or two republicans to give the illusion that he is giving fairness to both sides. As for the congress, all I see on the news is they are acting like a bunch of spoiled children. They are blatantly ignoring republicans as thought they are children saying "we won and you didn't nana nana na na. We don't have to listen to you now nana nana na na" (remember that little song you used to do as kids). There many great republicans and many great democrats. My husband keeps telling me we have to have check and balance. He said these republicans represent part of the country too. Not every person in this country is a democrat and if we give full reign to them that is when you have a dictatorship (tyranny or whatever you want to call it) and they will pass anything they want to paying back all the people who bought them and they promised favors to.
The last administration was certainly not one of the best, but neither was the Clinton or Carter either. DH and I were talking about it last night and he said during Carter administration it was so bad that the only thing out there was the military to join, and that it what I am seeing starting to happen here.
I don't think anything should be "given" to either one side or the other, but the republicans deserve to be treated with the same respect that people are demanding they treat the democrats with. There are good ideas on both sides and if congress is filled with people lining their own pockets then maybe they need to be fired now so we can start again with people who care about the American people and what is happening to the country.
I believe that congress should be filled with people from outside of washington. There are so many good politicians in each state (ones we have never heard of yet), who do good things. Maybe it's time to get rid of people like Pelosi, Reid, Kerry, and all the "stable" washington crowd and replace with people who have a proven record of doing good for our country.
Fairness Doctrine, cont.
Did Pelosi write or sponsor or introduce a bill regarding the Fairness Doctrine? Is it on the Democratic Party platform? Is there pending legislation in the House or the Senate?
The Fairness Doctrine was started in 1949 when media outlets were very limited. It was stopped in 1987 and is unenforceable. Again, the right-wing noise machine takes a remark out of context and tries to build an issue where none exists.
It's ridiculous that the president actually had to announce the fact that Democrats have no intention of trying to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=68d07041-7dbc-451d-a18a-752567145610
Fairness Doctrine is Alive and Well
DH told me it's in our paper today, that Schumer is promoting it, but I couldn't find anything on line.
I did find a few articles and the one posted below is the most recent (by Sen. Inhofe) that I could find:
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/93765
In all fairness, your posts were attacking and unkind. sm
And may have even been unfounded. I believe both of you were off base with the posts. I have once again posted a reminder at the top of the board.
You lefties are so fair....the fairness is staggering...
attack him for not paying attention to hurricane and then attack him for paying attention to hurricane. Just proves that all you want to do is attack, attack, attack.
In all fairness, the O rarely voted at all since his campain started
Go check his record on the government site, but in all fairness, McCain didn't vote much either since this campaign. Still I think he voted more than the O. Correct me if I'm wrong.
AND NO BASHING. Serious question here. I don't have time to count every vote and I did try to do that a month ago and posted my results.
Obama opposes Reinstating Fairness Doctrine
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/18/white-house-opposes-fairness-doctrine/
Why is fairness in taxation considered a handout? This isn't welfare... it's paying the right
o
Pelosi Erases Gingrich's Long-Standing Fairness Rules....sm
Pelosi Erases Gingrich's Long-Standing Fairness Rules
by Connie Hair
01/05/2009
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi plans to re-write House rules today to ensure that the Republican minority is unable to have any influence on legislation. Pelosi’s proposals are so draconian, and will so polarize the Capitol, that any thought President-elect Obama has of bipartisan cooperation will be rendered impossible before he even takes office.
Pelosi’s rule changes -- which may be voted on today -- will reverse the fairness rules that were written around Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America.”
In reaction, the House Republican leadership is sending a letter today to Pelosi to object to changes to House Rules this week that would bar Republicans from offering alternative bills, amendments to Democrat bills or even the guarantee of open debate accessible by motions to recommit for any piece of legislation during the entire 111th Congress. These procedural abuses, as outlined in the below letter obtained by HUMAN EVENTS, would also include the repeal of six-year limit for committee chairmen and other House Rules reform measures enacted in 1995 as part of the Contract with America.
After decades of Democrat control of the House of Representatives, gross abuses to the legislative process and several high-profile scandals contributed to an overwhelming Republican House Congressional landslide victory in 1994. Reforms to the House Rules as part of the Contract with America were designed to open up to public scrutiny what had become under this decades-long Democrat majority a dangerously secretive House legislative process. The Republican reform of the way the House did business included opening committee meetings to the public and media, making Congress actually subject to federal law, term limits for committee chairmen ending decades-long committee fiefdoms, truth in budgeting, elimination of the committee proxy vote, authorization of a House audit, specific requirements for blanket rules waivers, and guarantees to the then-Democrat minority party to offer amendments to pieces of legislation.
Pelosi’s proposed repeal of decades-long House accountability reforms exposes a tyrannical Democrat leadership poised to assemble legislation in secret, then goose-step it through Congress by the elimination of debate and amendment procedures as part of America’s governing legislative process.
Below is the text of the letter on which the House Republican leadership has signed off.
January 5, 2009
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker of the House
H-232, U.S. Capitol
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Madame Speaker,
We hope you and your family had a joyful holiday season, and as we begin a new year and a new Congress, we look forward to working with you, our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and President-elect Obama in tackling the many challenges facing our nation.
President Obama has pledged to lead a government that is open and transparent. With that in mind, we are deeply troubled by media reports indicating that the Democratic leadership is poised to repeal reforms put in place in 1995 that were intended to help restore Americans’ trust and confidence in the People’s House. Specifically, these reports note that the Majority, as part of its rules package governing the new Congress, will end six-year term limits for Committee chairs and further restrict the opportunity for all members to offer alternative legislation. This does not represent change; it is reverting back to the undemocratic one-party rule and backroom deals that the American people rejected more than a decade ago. And it has grave implications for the American people and their freedom, coming at a time when an unprecedented expansion of federal power and spending is being hastily planned by a single party behind closed doors. Republicans will vigorously oppose repealing these reforms if they are brought to a vote on the House floor.
As you know, after Republicans gained the majority in the House in 1995, our chamber adopted rules to limit the terms of all committee chairs to three terms in order to reward new ideas, innovation, and merit rather than the strict longevity that determined chairmanships in the past. This reform was intended to help restore the faith and trust of the American people in their government – a theme central to President-elect Obama’s campaign last year. He promoted a message of “change,” but Madame Speaker, abolishing term limit reform is the opposite of “change.” Instead, it will entrench a handful of Members of the House in positions of permanent power, with little regard for its impact on the American people.
The American people also stand to pay a price if the Majority further shuts down free and open debate on the House floor by refusing to allow all members the opportunity to offer substantive alternatives to important legislation -- the same opportunities that Republicans guaranteed to Democrats as motions to recommit during their 12 years in the Minority. The Majority’s record in the last Congress was the worst in history when it came to having a free and open debate on the issues.
This proposed change also would prevent Members from exposing and offering proposals to eliminate tax increases hidden by the Democratic Majority in larger pieces of legislation. This is not the kind of openness and transparency that President-elect Obama promised. This change would deprive tens of millions of Americans the opportunity to have a voice in the most important policy decisions facing our country.
Madame Speaker, we urge you to reconsider the decision to repeal these reforms, which could come up for a vote as early as tomorrow. Just as a new year brings fresh feelings of optimism and renewal for the American people, so too should a new Congress. Changing the House rules in the manner highlighted by recent media reports would have the opposite effect: further breaching the trust between our nation’s elected representatives and the men and women who send them to Washington to serve their interests and protect their freedom.
Sincerely,
Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio), Republican Leader
Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), Republican Whip
Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), Conference Chairman
Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.), Policy Committee Chairman
Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wyo.), Conference Vice-Chair
Rep. John Carter (R-Texas), Conference Secretary
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas), NRCC Chairman
Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), Chief Deputy Whip
Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.), Rules Committee Ranking Republican
(Click here for a pdf copy of the letter with signatures.)
hand ups?
On a prior post, I dont know which conservative one of them posted to me that democrats only give hand outs, republicans give hand ups. I asked her to post what hand ups republicans ever have given to the poor and disadvantaged and all I got was a tirade about democrats promoting welfare, etc..the usual baloney from republicans..I still would like the poster to give me a few examples of what ever have republicans done to help the poor of America.
On the other hand....
Since all you guys couldn't see any big deal with Clinton's lying, you should'nt be losing too much sleep over this.
on the other hand
if a teacher was teaching a geography class and was teaching say on Israel. If he/she brought up say the name, Jesus Christ, and gave his opinion about Christ (let's assume the teacher is pro Jesus Christ) then I think his head would have rolled. He wouldn't be on leave. He would be fired immediately.
I heard the excerpts of this tape and the guy was off the deep end and basically giving a political diatribe. If a teacher cannot talk about religion and reiterate their beliefs I think the same should go for politics. Heck, I took three different POLITICAL science classes between the time I went to high school and graduated college, and all those teachers managed not to go off on a diatribe about a particular politician or a political group. As a class we did discuss the differences, but the teachers remained professionally neutral. I think a geography teacher should be professional and objective enough to teach geography without calling someone Hitler.
The darned thing about free speech is that it needs to be applied to everyone not just the viewpoints that one particular group agrees with. I have no problem with free speech as long as the opposite viewpoint is welcomed too. This does not seem to be happening in public schools. It seems one particular political viewpoint wants to hold a monopoly on free speech, and monopolozing free speech is basically nullifying it.
On the other hand.......
There are people who consider themselves homosexuals but because THEY believe it is wrong to act upon those feelings, they and only they choose not to participate in homosexual acts. Why is that?
then she should sue for $1, another lib with hand out....nm
//
That's not God's hand,....(sm)
that's US money.
On the Other Hand
The Republicans specifically slashed $40 billion in direct aid to states from this bill, states that are already reeling from budget shortfalls. This means huge cutbacks in essential state services like police, firefighters, teachers, and state hospitals and massive state layoffs in all areas. This will result in the loss of about 500,000 jobs as a consequence of slashing direct aid to states.
There was absolutely no reason to deny this aid to states except for Senate Republicans deciding they had to cut something, so this was it. They have no coherent approach to the stimulus package except that they don't like spending of any kind, and they've built up the least effective parts of the bill at the expense of the most effective parts.
Our house is on fire!!! And one factor of the fire department thinks the best way to put out the fire is with fewer firefighters and tax cuts, and they want to study the fire some more.
on the other hand...
We have gotten weekly checks regularly for 3 years (not enough to do anything with, but some grocery money) and all his medical expenses have been paid. However, we are now looking at not having any more medical care for the next 15 years because they refuse to do the knee replacement he needs until he is 45 years old. Also, the WC weekly checks are only there for 7 years total. After that, they owe you nothing. Plus, once you go back to work, the WC is hard to get to pay because they try to claim that you "reinjured" yourself on your new job.
We have a very good doctor that we use, he is just limited to the treatments he can offer.
Now, we will just have to let our private health insurance start picking up the payments for anything done.
On the other hand
Does this mean the affected couples can use this as a tax deduction since requiring a permit for the scheduled gatherings would put them into the 'business' category?
It would be well worth checking into.
Fight fire with fire...
You might be right, on the other hand. (see inside)
hand ups?? Where?? When?? In your dreams.
You mean like hand ups into the noose of a rope? Hand ups into the rope tied behind a car to drag a poor unfortunate Black man? Hand ups with a full five fingers and then put the other ones down and only leave the middle one standing? Where, where have republicans given a hand up to the poor and unfortunate in America? It has always been the democrats who have devised programs to help unfortunates..and yet when republicans fall on hard times they will use the democratic programs. I have a friend who is solid republican and we decided years ago not to talk politics, to save our friendship. Yet, when she got pregnant and had no one to turn to, as she was unmarried and her family was not nearby..what did she do? Applied for Welfare, Medicare, you name it..The government paid for her pregnancy and surgery and has continued to pay for health care for her daughter..Yet, she is one who always would nag me and rag me about being democrat/liberal..Republicans are a bunch of hypocrites.
The upper hand? TI
17 plus Arab nations and Israel. Yes. That makes sense.
2 first hand experiences
1) In London, many many years ago when my then husband was a chemical engineer working in the Middle East (we were on vacation in London) I became sick and a friend took me to a clinic. I saw a doctor, had tests, 1 xray, got medications and walked out. I kept asking "where do I pay, who do I pay?" and they said, it is free and I was not even a British citizen.
2) As far as insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies go...there is the crux of the problem. When we moved here to Tennessee, I went all over the place trying to get some assistance with my medication bills which had cost me close to $500 per month in Florida. I was not poor enough to qualify for any supplementals, and could not afford $500 a month (I had cut down to the 3 meds I really needed in Florida and just did without the other 2). Anyway, eventually, due to East Tennessee being a poor part of the state and people going without here a lot, certain pharmacies have cut almost all their overhead and have the least expensive of all medications. These are small "mom and pop" places, completely legal and above board, in fact, most are across the street from hospitals for convenience. What once cost me $500 for all 5 RXs now costs me $68. What does that tell you about pharmaceutical companies. I have a hard time believing the insurance companies are any better. Quite a profit margin I would say.
I have seen the stories about people going to India. They say the cost of flying, medical attention and aftercare is still less than it is here and that they can see a doctor of their choosing at a hospital of their choosing. It was on 20/20 or 60 minutes.
Thanks for the hand across the aisle GT...
and please keep your moniker if you wish...it does fit your life experience. I will remain sam. And yes, I believe we are big enough to put this behind us and start new. Neither of us are wrong...we are just very different...that doesn't mean we can't discuss and try to understand one another. I do look forward to lively discussions...I wish you the best in your job search, hope you find a really great one.
Looking forward to your return!
Thanks for that hand across the aisle...
and you hit the nail on the head. We are different, but we can find common ground and be civil. I look forward to visiting with you in the future about all the issues. Good evening to ya!
Thx - the attacks are really getting out of hand
Reminds me of that line in the movie where the guy says "I'm mad as he!! and I'm not going to take it anymore". Really though, I've read back through all the posts and not one post about something positive about Obama's plans. Just attacks to the other side and other posters. I feel if I'm going to get this I might as well just turn on MSNBC, and now I get my MIL who has such hatred for Bush is coming out saying that today market failure (whatever you call it- that 300 or so point drop) she's saying that is McCain and Palin' fault. I don't even get into political arguments with her anymore. It's just mind numbing how closed their minds are. Glad you liked my post.
Sure and the pubs had no hand in it at all.
Maybe if the pubs weren't so against regulating it may have been averted too.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/us/politics/22mccain.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&ref=politics&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1222092873-DDzUm2VKJMYWutTohJrNDQ
You want to know about |AIG first hand? I live in...sm
Stowe Vermont. The Stowe ski resort was built as a pet project many years ago by AIG. It was very low key for many, many years for many reasons, zoning etc. So lovely and pristine, no high rise condos, a quaint small town Vermont experience. A few years ago, after years of wrangling, permits were obtained for a huge VERY luxury hotel, ski base lodge, million plus dollar condos, high end shopping in a ski village etc. Fast forward a few years, the hotel is completed and the base lodge almost done, condos halfway complete, no village yet. I guess that technically we Americans now own 80% of this resort. Maybe I can get a subsidized ski pass? I haven't heard of any slow down with the development, but I could be wrong. I wonder if we will be sold off but I doubt it. Very interesting. No one has any idea of the excesses of corporate America over the last 50 years.
You sure do hand her credit for ...
having a lot of power. I like Palin, but I don't believe that she has the power to "almost single handedly divide the country." Perhaps she is a better leader than I thought...
|
