There are several articles...goggle it....see inside...
Posted By: sam on 2008-09-18
In Reply to: And your source for this is? nm - oldtimer
this is just one.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view/2008_09_13_Obama_s_female_staffers_shortchanged:_He_s_no_great_equalizer/
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
I assume Goggle works as well for the left as for the right but here are a few
http://www.celebatheists.com/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page
There are 49,100 other entries. And most of them are not right-wing.
kyoto, one of many articles
INDEPTH: KYOTO
Kyoto Protocol FAQs
April 13, 2005
Depending on who you talk to, the Kyoto Protocol is either a) an expensive, bureaucratic solution to fix a problem that may not even exist; or b) the last, best chance to save the world from the time bomb of global warming.
Those are the extremes in what has become a polarizing debate that has engaged governments, consumers, environmental groups and industry all over the world for more than 20 years.
The problem the Kyoto Protocol is trying to address is climate change, and more specifically, the speed at which the earth is warming up. Whether Kyoto can accomplish this is very much a matter of debate.
For the record, the Kyoto Protocol went into effect Feb. 16, 2005, with 141 countries signing on, including every major industrialized country – except the United States, Australia and Monaco. The U.S. is responsible for about a quarter of the emissions that have been blamed for global warming.
Two of the world's biggest – and growing – polluters also have not signed on. India and China don't have to – they're considered developing countries and are outside the protocol's framework.
First, the science behind Kyoto.
Is the climate changing?
The United Nations certainly thinks so. And so do most (but not all) scientists who study climate. The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) summarizes the work of 2,000 of the world's top climate experts. Its latest report (2001) makes for some sobering reading.
Yes, the world is getting warmer, the report concludes. The IPCC says the average global surface temperature has risen by about 0.6 degrees Celsius since 1900, with much of that rise coming in the 1990s – likely the warmest decade in 1,000 years.
The IPCC also found that snow cover since the late 1960s has decreased by about 10 per cent and lakes and rivers in the Northern Hemisphere are frozen over about two weeks less each year than they were in the late 1960s. Mountain glaciers in non-polar regions have also been in noticeable retreat in the 20th century, and the average global sea level has risen between 0.1 and 0.2 metres since 1900.
Simply put, the world is getting warmer and the temperature is rising faster than ever.
What are the very long-term climate predictions?
The IPCC predicts more floods, intense storms, heat waves and droughts. Its study forecasts a rise of 1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius in the global mean surface temperature over the next 100 years, with developing countries most vulnerable.
Other studies are even more apocalyptic. A report commissioned by the World Wildlife Fund predicts dangerous warming of the earth's surface in as little as 20 years, with the Arctic warming so much that its polar ice could melt in the summer by the year 2100, pushing polar bears close to extinction.
The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment predicts that caribou, musk ox and reindeer would find their habitats severely reduced. Northern aboriginal peoples around the world would find their way of life changed forever, the study said.
What is causing the world to warm up?
The 6 greenhouse gases Kyoto targets |
Carbon dioxide.
Methane.
Nitrous oxide
Sulphur hexafluoride.
Hydrofluorocarbons.
Perfluorocarbons.
|
Most scientists blame industrialization. Since the 19th century, the richer countries of the Northern Hemisphere have been pumping out ever-increasing volumes of heat-trapping greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. Industrial societies burn fossil fuels in their power plants, homes, factories and cars. They clear forests (trees absorb carbon dioxide) and they build big cities.
Greenhouse gases allow solar radiation to pass through the earth's atmosphere. But after the earth absorbs part of that radiation, it reflects the rest back. That's where the problem lies. Particles of greenhouse gas absorb the radiation, heating up, and warming the atmosphere. The increasing levels of greenhouse gases are causing too much energy to be trapped – the so-called greenhouse effect.
Greenhouse gas emissions targets apply to 38 industrialized countries and economies in transition
|
For a list of these countries and their emissions targets, click here:
UNFCCC
|
Isn't there a lot of debate over the whole issue of climate change?
While scientists tend to agree that the earth is warming, not all agree that rising greenhouse gas emissions are the culprits. A vocal minority say the earth's climate warms and cools in long cycles that have nothing to do with greenhouse gases.
Some dispute the data concerning rising sea levels and rising temperatures. Others dispute the projections, which are based on computer models. But again, those views are those of a minority. Most climatologists agree that global warming is causing unprecedented climate change…and that things will get worse unless something is done.
What does the Kyoto Protocol require?
The Kyoto Protocol was adopted in late 1997 to address the problem of global warming by reducing the world's greenhouse gas emissions. It is considered a first step and is not expected to solve the world's climate change problems by the time its first commitment period ends in 2012.
Kyoto sets out an agenda for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 5.2 per cent from 1990 levels (although economies in transition, like Russia, can pick different base years). Some reports say the lower target is to be met by 2010. But that's shorthand for the actual target date, which is to achieve those emission cuts over a five-year average (2008 to 2012).
All countries are not treated equally by Kyoto. Canada, for instance, has committed to chopping its greenhouse gas emissions by six per cent. The U.S. target was a seven per cent reduction. But in 2001, one of the first acts of newly-elected President George W. Bush was to formally withdraw the U.S. from Kyoto. Bush said the U.S. would not ratify the treaty because it would damage the U.S. economy and major developing nations like China and India were not covered by its provisions.
Kyoto also allows some industrialized countries to make no cuts, or even to emit more greenhouse gases that they did in 1990. Russia's and New Zealand's emission levels are capped at their 1990 levels. Iceland can emit up to 10 per cent more greenhouse gases, Australia eight per cent more. (Like the U.S., Australia has announced it won't ratify Kyoto). Developing nations are not subject to any emissions reduction caps under Kyoto.
Much of the criticism around the Kyoto Protocol is over political realities and the limitations of the treaty. Critics say a five per cent cut will accomplish little, especially with the United States not on board. Some Canadian critics say our economy will pay a heavy price for meeting our Kyoto commitments because we'll have to compete with an American economy that faces no such restrictions. Many doubt that Canada's target cuts can be reached in Kyoto's first phase that ends in 2012.
Others say the money to implement Kyoto would be much better spent on improving land usage and infrastructure in poor countries.
How are emission targets met?
Emission targets can be met several ways. The most obvious way is to actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions – more fuel-efficient cars, fewer coal-fired power plants. But Kyoto also allows for three other mechanisms.
Countries can buy emissions credits from countries that don't need them to stay below their emissions quotas. A country can also earn emissions credits through something called joint implementation, which allows a country to benefit by carrying out something like a reforestation project in another industrialized country or economy in transition. There's also what's called a clean development mechanism that encourages investment in developing countries by promoting the transfer of environmentally-friendly technologies.
Each developed country must develop its own strategy to meet its Kyoto commitments. Industrial countries that ratify Kyoto are legally bound to see that their emissions do not exceed their 2008/2012 targets.
What happens if a country fails to reach its Kyoto emissions target?
The Kyoto Protocol contains measures to assess performance and progress. It also contains some penalties. Countries that fail to meet their emissions targets by the end of the first commitment period (2012) must make up the difference plus a penalty of 30 per cent in the second commitment period. Their ability to sell credits under emissions trading will also be suspended.
Articles 39 and 42 of the U.N. Charter
permit the Security Council to determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and to authorize the use of force to maintain or restore international peace and security.
I read your articles - all of them - and...
In the first link you provided, the fourth paragraph in the gray box says, "Both Mr. Kahl and a senior Obama campaign adviser reached yesterday said the paper does not represent the campaign’s Iraq position."
Also, in this article it clearly states that Obama still plans to withdraw in the 6th paragraph:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/07/mccain_obama_position_on_iraq.html
Also, Obama's website still states the same information of 16 months -
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/
Many interesting articles on this site...
http://clintondems.com/2008/09/obama-admits-dual-citizenship-with-kenya/
There have been numerous news articles......sm
stating that Obama's mother was a self-proclamed atheist. You can find them if you Google and check out news web sites.
The beliefs of the Catholic church are very different in some respects than those of most Christian denominations. Catholics, as I understand, believe that without baptism (infant christening) that even a baby is not saved. Most mainstream Christian denominations believe that a person makes a choice to believe in Christ and accept him as Savior once they reach the age where they have the capability of making that decision. I am not saying all this to get into a long theological discussion with you but simply to point out the differences between the two. If you want to discuss religion, we have been asked to use the Faith board to do that.
Oh please. We just post articles of Obama
x
There are all sorts of articles; just google
x
I won't read these articles - the last time I did so,
No thanks!
I read articles on this fellow......... sm
during the campaigns before the election. His predictions are not very promising and I believe we are in for a long, rocky ride. The government bailouts are just the beginning of government owning America, lock, stock and barrel.
I live in a rural, rather economically depressed area now and wonder how quickly my area will start seeing these changes. I wonder if it will be one of the first and hardest hit or if the more affluent areas of the country that enjoy a wider variety of jobs and better paying jobs will be more adversely affected first.
My 18-year-old son and I were discussing his future last night. Although he is a junior in high school, I told him that it is time that he started looking at the job markets in our area and deciding on a job that would pay well and would be in demand for a few years, at least. He won't be going to college, partly because of financial issues, but mainly because he is just not "college material" but I do want him to investigate trades-type schools and trades jobs in which he will be able to provide for himself as an adult in an economy where blue-collar workers struggle at best. 
Personally, I am not spending any more than is absolutely necessary to survive at this point. I guess I'm being "unAmerican" by not stimulating the economy, but right now I'm more concerned about what my future holds and whether I will be able to keep my home than whether I have a big-screen TV or an iphone. Times are indeed getting scary.
Articles of impeachment filed on Cheney sm
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), the former mayor of Cleveland who is seeking the 2008 Democratic nomination for president for the second time, introduced articles to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney Tuesday, basing his decision on Cheney's initial push to send the United States into war with Iraq.
The vice president is beating the same drums of war against Iran that he beat against Iraq under false pretenses, and he's doing it all over again, against Iran, Kucinich said. And I say that it's time to stand up to that. Our country couldn't afford this last war. We can't afford to go into another one. And somebody has to challenge the conduct of this Vice President.
See: http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/04/kucinich-takes-steps-to-impeach-cheney.html
Excuse me. Did you bother to read the articles and
In every single reference I provided for you, the phrase "OFFICE of the President Elect" appears....in 1969, 1989, 2000 as well as in the language of the Act. Don't care what your fringe sites say....especially Malkin. Wouldn't be the first time they invented phoney outrage over fairy tales they spin, and it won't be the last. Read the language of the ACT that created the OFFICE of the President Elect, then the articles I provided, and you might see what I mean....or NOT. You seem to have an affinity for make-believe.
BTW, I know my history, but I believe you were trying to ask me specifically about civics. The electoral college makes the election official. However, it has always been customary to refer to the successful candidate on the Nov 4 election as the President Elect. The media is not the driving force behind this...tradition is.
She posted articles about the big 3 in Europe, not European car cos.....(nm)
Lots of articles on Churchill and Henry Ford and sm
Jews and communism. It doesn't matter if the pillars were made of salt (of course, history tells us that they were eventually). It matters that historically this was what Hitler built his Reich on. This is indisuptable and absolute. Henry Ford's hatred for Jews was legendary, BECAUSE of communism.
Excuse me, but you will not dictate whether or not I include articles in my post.
I post articles here in order to encourage a debate about the articles. In your limited Israel-is-always-right-and-anyone-who-questions-that-is-worthy-of-a-rabid-attack attitude, you can't see that and once again wish to control everything, even how people communicate with each other.
All you want to do is tear down, not build anything. I gave my reasons for posting this article. In those reasons I expressed some skepticism about Hezbollah's sincerity. Instead of offering an intelligent response to those reasons, you once again slammed the door of dialogue and showed that your abilities to communicate are so limited that all you can do is berate and insult. To call me anti-American only highlights your ignorance. I am absolutely pro-American, and I'm very fearful where President Bush is leading us. It's the duty of every American to question what he or she sees as failures or inadequacies in the administration that is in power regardless of party affiliation. I felt the same way during the Clinton administration, and I feel the same way now.
If I were to come on here and say that Hezbollah is rebuilding Lebanon and now the Bush administration wants to compete with them, I would get responses that demand I provide my source, and rightly so. That is the reason I post the entire article itself. I want to gauge if it brings the same questions to the minds of other (repeat once again) LIBERALS as it does to me.
You're free to have your opinion of me, but you come off as pompous and controlling, demanding that everyone bow down and kiss Israel's feet. The mere suggestion that Israel may be even slightly wrong elicits anger and rage from you, and you have shown that repeatedly.
No, you are not obligated to engage in debate with anyone here, but don't whine and complain that you're unable to when someone offers you the opportunity. Your failure to do so when invited only proves how angry and full of rage you are.
For the record, I have never said you were sent to shut down the board. It's laughable to even imagine you have the power to do that. You are no more important or influential than I am or than any other poster on this board is. Get over yourself already.
And, no, I have no idea which sentence of the original article you find disturbing. I personally found several of them disturbing, but I refuse to engage in any guessing games with you.
Am I paranoid? I sure am these days. I'm pro-peace and I'm living in a country run by a President who is trigger happy and who has done nothing but incite the world.
If looking at Israel objectively is anti-Israel according to your definition, then so be it. You said previously on this board that just because Israel didn't bother to send any troops to Iraq didn't mean they're an ally. Please enlighten me. With the BILLIONS of dollars we give Israel every year, along with weapons, we are definitely an ally to Israel. Please explain how Israel is an ally to us. Is it because they grace us with their agreement to take our money and then spy on us? (I could post a number of articles regarding the spying, but since you don't like it when I do that, feel free to Google it on your own.) What have they done for us in return?
I have always believed Israel was the underdog in the Middle East and have always favored them. This is the first time I have ever questioned their actions. We here in America still have freedom of thought and speech, whether you like it or not. You know nothing of me, including how I believe. Your assessment of me is not only wrong, it's absurd and only proves how you interact with people who disagree. I am very relieved that you are not representative of all Israelis, as it gives me a small sense of hope.
I doubt your sincerity in stating that I'm not worth the time to answer, considering all the time you spent doing just that. Another example of your hypocrisy. No doubt you will waste your time once again responding to this with more hatred and insults, only this time I will let you have the last word, since you are now no longer worth the time it takes to respond.
It means you're good at paraphrasing articles others
nm
Lies? What we show are facts, links, articles.
What about poor Palin? She is a human being and look at the ATTACKS on her. By the way, she is a republican and I would say Dem's are bashing. We are not bashing Obama, we try to show you articles, links from CNN who by the way supported Obama, and you state we are bashing Obama.
A very intelligent and honorable man, but the articles leans severely to the right.....sm
I tipped over twice reading it. I am not trying to be mean or facetious, I think sometimes people feel so strongly in their beliefs,and I agree with many of his beliefs, that they comes get "tunnel vision", they lose their peripheral vision for that part of humanity that has been good and honest, but has been dealt some very bad, unfair blows and needs help. In my own heart and opinion, there is a difference between radical, fundamentalist Muslims, and mainstream, peaceful, truly religions Muslims, and have have met and worked with many with lovely families. Basically, the author seems to want to cling onto an idealistic life where everything is fair, the good guys always win, and there is only black and white. Well, there are lots of shades of gray in between, and like it or not (and I grew up in the Beaver Cleaver generation), the earth has moved on, time has moved on, and we have to deal effectively with WHAT IS. Yup, I am tired too, especially since my husband and I both have health issues, we certainly aren't kids anymore, and retirement is looking more and more like a pipe dream, even though we invested, sacrificed, and saved. But whining or wishing will not solve anything, as Americans we are famous for pulling ourselves up by the bootstraps and getting the job done, and our job now is to work together, search out viable answers, care for each other, and pull through this depression INTACT AND WHOLE. Off my ratty soapbox now!
Yes, let's post articles to mother's of military. So helpful. Geez. nm
I found several opposition articles and will post the high points....
and actually I was surprised to see that there were some common concerns and actually very little concerning *a move toward socialized medicine.* This is what I found:
Proposals to expand coverage to children from families earning three or four times the federal poverty limit ($61,940 and $82,600, respectively, for a family of four) also highlights the question of just how many should be subsidized, necessarily at others' expense. The $61,940 eligibility limit would cover median-income families in 14 states, and the $82,600 limit would do so in 42 states. Parents earning such incomes do not need additional subsidies for their children to get health care.
************************
Baucus, Grassley Comment
Senate Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and the committee's ranking Republican Chuck Grassley (Iowa) jointly requested the CBO study but "had divergent views of its findings," according to CQ Today.
Baucus, who supports spending $50 billion over five years to expand SCHIP, said the report validates the program. CQ Today reports that Baucus "expressed little concern" that people would leave private insurance plans to enroll in SCHIP, saying that every public health insurance program provides coverage to some people who might be able to obtain private health insurance (CQ Today, 5/10). Baucus said, "The fact that uninsurance for children in higher-income families has stayed about the same means that SCHIP is helping the lower-income families it's meant to serve."
Grassley said the report supports his argument that SCHIP eligibility should not be expanded beyond 200% of the poverty level. He said, "This report tells us that Congress needs to make sure that whatever it does, it should actually result in more kids having health insurance, rather than simply shifting children from private to public health insurance" (CongressDaily, 5/10).
****************************
SCHIP is a joint state-federal program that provides health coverage to 6.6 million children from families that live above the poverty line but have difficulty paying for private insurance. Already, the program is generous. A family of four with an income of more than $72,000 (350% of the federal poverty level) is eligible for SCHIP's subsidized insurance. Now, Congress wants to expand coverage even further, to families making up to 400% of the federal poverty level ($82,600 for a family of four). But, according to the Congressional Budget Office, 89% of families earning between 300% and 400% of the federal poverty level already have coverage. The CBO estimates that some 2 million kids already covered under private insurance would be switched over to government insurance. The only purpose of all of this seems to be to turn children's health insurance into an outright entitlement — part of the Democrat's broader push to move all of America's health-care industry under government control.
Along with expanding SCHIP coverage to include people higher and higher up in the middle class, the Democrats' bill would also give states incentives to sign up aggressively new "clients," by loosening requirements to join the program and encouraging states to market the program (anyone who rides the New York City subway knows how active the Empire State is already being on this front). How is all of this to be funded? Well, the bill would impose a 61-cent increase in the 39-cent a pack federal cigarette tax, bringing it up to an even dollar. We've written before on how corrupt is the government's interest in the cigarette business. It turns out that the government needs to keep people smoking; the Heritage Foundation estimates the government would need to sign up some 22 million more Americans to take up smoking by 2017 to fund this increase in SCHIP. To add to the irony, most smokers are low-income Americans, meaning that the poor essentially will be funding the health insurance of the middle class. Mr. Bush would be right to veto it while working to increase access to private insurance through tax breaks and deregulation.
****************************
So, it would appear to me that the major problems some have against it are: it will shift children who are now covered by private insurance onto a program unncessarily; it will allow for more adults on the program, something that was never intended; that paying for it with a tobacco tax targets the very people who need the assistance, the lower income families as statistically that is where the most smokers are...essentially shifting the burden for adding middle class families to the lower income families...and I think we can all agree that is not a good thing.
In my research I also found something VERY interesting...
I am sorry to say I did not know the particulars of the President's proposal regarding insuring children...only his proposal extends to everyone, not just children...sure have not seen the media report it....
Opposing view: President's plan is better
Extend SCHIP program without spending billions to expand it.
By Mike Leavitt
We all want to see every American insured, and President Bush has proposed a plan to see that everyone is. Congress, instead, is pushing a massive expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) that grows government without helping nearly as many children.
The president's plan, announced last January, would fix our discriminatory tax policy so that every American family received a $15,000 tax break for purchasing health insurance. If Congress acted on the president's plan, nearly 20 million more Americans would have health insurance, according to the independent Lewin Group.
In contrast, Democrats in Congress would more than double government spending on SCHIP and extend the program to families earning as much as $83,000 a year. But their plan would add fewer than 3 million children to SCHIP, and many of the newly eligible children already have private insurance. So instead of insuring nearly 20 million more Americans privately, Congress would spend billions of dollars to move middle-income Americans off private insurance and onto public assistance.
The Democrats' plan has other problems. It would fund SCHIP's expansion with a gimmick that hides its true cost. It would allocate billions of dollars more than is needed to cover eligible kids. And it would allow states to continue diverting SCHIP money from children to adults. This is a boon for the states but costs the federal government more.
Ideology is really behind the Democrats' plan. They trust government more than the free choices of American consumers. Some in Congress want the federal government to pay for everyone's health care, and expanding SCHIP is a step in that direction.
SCHIP is part of the fix for low-income children, and Congress should put politics aside and send the president a clean, temporary extension of the current program. Expanding SCHIP is not the only way or the best way to insure the uninsured. The president's plan is better. It would benefit many more Americans. It would focus SCHIP on the children who need help most. And it would move us more sensibly toward our common goal of every American insured.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I think a $15,000 tax break would help more American families afford health insurance, thereby covering more kids AND adults, which is the goal, right? And no raising of taxes or targeting the lower income families with a tobacco tax...sounds like a win-win. I don't care if it is Bush's idea or the Democratic Congress' idea...it is a good idea. This time it happened to be Bush's.
Just my take on it.
If you want to find the articles, just put *expanding SCHIP* in a Google search. I read several articles in support of both sides. I did not see much about the income leveling, except in one article, which did mention that New York had a "sliding scale." It did not define it, but I am thinking it is at the purview of the states, and if New York did it others probably could too?
inside
I don't think there's anything wrong with laughing at something that is not only very funny but also happens to be true. Unfortunately, this Administration hasn't given us very much to smile about.
When I read this, nothing led me to believe that Google has a liberal's brain. By the way how much DID that "poor schlump" part with, since you seem to have all the answers?
See inside
From your posting:
"So if you and Chomsky are comfortable with putting every man, woman and child in this country at risk to satisfy whatever beef you have against freedom and democracy, fine. Your freedom of speech had a most terrible and high price tag. Something tells me that many of these fine men and women, if they could speak now, would not thank you for your thoughts."
I do not recall stating anything related to your above quote. As I said, you may have me confused with another poster.
(Inside)
In the first place, I'd like to say thanks for posting here, and you're welcome here any time.
As far as supplying topics to discuss, YOU seem to be the one who is actually supplying the topics. Today the Conservative board is a pleasant place to be, and even I felt safe responding to a post in your thread. The topic was excellent, and nowhere have I seen you attack a poster for his or her opinion.
You haven't come across as confrontational and hateful. Unfortunately, to a lot of people, these three have done so.
People can debate without personally attacking a poster that doesn't agree with them. You seem to have done that. I hope the Conservative board is able to get more posters like you. You've made it a comfortable place to be. 
(inside)
Chill! LOL. Gee, you sure are defensive. I wonder where that came from! 
You are NOT on the conservative board any more, and you don't have to walk on eggshells here (although I seem to have acquired a "fan" who has been following me around on this board, taking swipes at everything I say and just generally being unpleasant and contributing nothing of value to any conversation). If you read the posts here, it's obvious to see whose agenda it is to discuss and debat and whose agenda is restricted to creating discomfort and attacking.
I thought your post was great, and there wasn't one word or phrase in your post above that would imply any lack of respect for a soldier.
Some people just can't understand that others support the troops by wanting to keep them alive, honor their lives by only placing those lives in jeopardy when absolutely critical and necessary to protect America. It's obvious you're not "against" our troops, but instead you're trying to fight FOR THEM while they are fighting for HIM and what I believe in the core of my soul to be his personal grudge war. I believe more and more people are coming to this realization every day and share your thoughts (and mine), as well.
I come here because I like to see what a few certain posters write. I've been reading these posters' thoughts for a few weeks now, and I find them to be genuine, original and heartfelt. (If you have any doubt as to who these people are, just follow the long trail of the hateful responses to their posts.) It's a source of relaxation to me after I finish working. I've actually made a list of whose posts aren't worth reading any more because they totally lack value and are designed to do nothing but attack and harass. I'm no longer willing to feed their addiction to hate, and I simply won't respond to them any more. Again, if you read the board, I'm sure you will see who I'm referring to and why. Wouldn't surprise me at all if you are their next target. They can be very upsetting and cause normal, intelligent people to become very defensive. They bait posters, and it seems to me if they're ignored, their posts will just stand alone, making their motives very, very clear. (Just my personal opinion, and I only mention it because I don't want anyone to get to you or chase you away from here because they simply aren't worth it.)
I'm really glad to see you here. Now I have one more reason to continue visiting this board. I hope you have a great day!
P.S. I noted in your first post you mentioned you're a "military brat." I'd just like to personally thank you and your family for the sacrifices you made for your country and for me as one of its citizens!
Inside.
I'm posting the entire post, since I'm not sure if I copied the link correctly. It was posted by vs, followed by additional attacks on gt and Brunson complaining of the *bog of eternal stench* that she claims *tends to drift on over here* on the Conservative Board, after nobody from the Liberal Board has bothered them. Not once.
This is the post on the Conservative Board from vs, but it's not the only objectionable one.
Sorry to see you go
[Post a Reply] [View Follow Ups] [Politics] --> [Conservatives]
Posted By: vs on 2005-11-28,
In Reply to: I agree with you, MT. SM - Brunson
I understand why though. It's a darn shame that one or two people make this an intolerable place for everyone. Well, if the post count goes down on the boards then maybe they will revisit their policies. At least on these boards the two-initialed Nazi is allowed get away with her genocide of anything conservative, but that's not helping the post count on the board at all.
BTW, I went to the Extremely Politics board, and only a person with a self-esteem death wish would dare post there. I can see why the two-initialed Nazi likes it there. She's free to practice her hate. It's not a place I would want to touch with a 10-foot pole.
http://www.forumatrix.com/ads/frame.cgi?action=main&target=www.forumatrix.com/Channels
See inside. SM
Yes, forgiveness does mean that we have to realize our sins and confess them. But, unless you are either George Bush himself, his pastor, or his God, how do you know he hasn't? That is conjecture on your part. None of us knows what has transpired between this man and his God. I realize what I am saying will not be popular here, but I don't see a whole lot of Christianity in what I am seeing. Quoting from written sources is not addressing the fact that you are sitting in judgement of someone who is not you. We aren't supposed to do that. I hope you all have a blessed Sunday. I am off to church and will certainly pray that God releases from your hearts the hatred you carry.
See inside. sm
Here is some more from the conference. So shines a light in a sometimes dim world.
The sanctity and infinite worth of every human being is a quintessential Jewish value, grounded in the biblical notion that man is made in the image and likeness of God. Against this background, it is ironic and vexatious for many pro–life activists that American Jews tend to line up on the pro–choice side in the struggle over abortion. Affirming the Sanctity of Human Life, a conference held November 12 in Washington, D.C., brought together a hundred or so Jews who are troubled by the Jewish community’s stance toward the unborn, particularly concerning the gruesome late–term procedure known as partial–birth abortion. The morning session consisted of panel presentations by three Orthodox Jews and a maverick Reform rabbi. Marshall Breger, a law professor and political writer, lamented the fact that Jews support abortion rights more than any religious or ethnic group: they are consistently 15 to 20 percent above the norm, he said, even when controlling for various factors such as religious belief or unbelief, political ideology, social class, etc. He attributed this support, in part, to fears that governmental restrictions on abortion would abridge personal autonomy and impose Christian religious standards on Jewish life. He said that gray areas in Jewish law—its combination of silence and ambiguity regarding the fetus’ status, its handful of exceptional situations allowing abortion—have confused Jews about the permissibility of abortion in general.
Barry Freundel, an Orthodox rabbi from Georgetown, seconded Breger’s sociological account of Jewish fears about abortion as being symbolic of the wider Jewish culture clash with conservative Christian movements. It’s hard to have a conversation about abortion, he said, that doesn’t become a conversation about something else. Even among his own Orthodox congregants, Freundel said, his pro–life preaching is treated as the rabbi getting up on his soapbox again. Nevertheless, he said, he feels obliged to inform them that the absolute license to abort, as practiced in the United States today, is simply impossible to reconcile with traditional Jewish teaching. Judaism, he said, permits abortion in a few limited circumstances, such as to save the life of the mother. He indicated that there is some difference of rabbinic opinion about these circumstances, but stressed that there is no warrant for the overwhelming number of abortions now performed in the U.S. He said that classic Jewish sources really don’t say much about the general moral or metaphysical status of the fetus; but, he added, we have an intuitive response that the fetus is not like an appendix or an in–grown toe nail that can simply be removed at will.
Thanks, A.G....(msg inside)
Yes, I figured it out, but I kept thinking surely to goodness he/she would be able to come back with something other condescending mush, but alas, no. The original post could have meant 3 things: (1) he/she was a card-carrying member of the liberal Hate America first club; (2) he/she was championing minorities and their mistreatment 200 years ago, which I find strange when they tell us we can't go back 20 years to support a position; or (3) he/she was comparing what happened with Native Americans and blacks in our past to what happened to the Jews during the Holocaust, which is absolutely ridiculous, they are nowhere near the same. Since he/she came back in a post with how he/she *I generally avoid using the racial/ethnic I'm being picked on because of my race/country of origin/gender/you name it cliche also but I'll make an exception in your case.* so I don't much think she champions minorities very much...that rules out #2. I am leaning real hard toward #1, but after some of her later posts, it could well be #3. Or a combination of #1 and #3. I am still waiting for her to give me the name of one of those several countries she said she knew about who did not have any kind of mistreatment of their own citizens at some point in their history. I didn't ask for several, I just asked for one. Have a good day, AG!
9-11 Inside job
You posted a laundry list. Can you support any of that? Where did this come from? What is your source?
Uh oh...LLD :-) see inside
good post. I agree.   with just one exception...I think there ought to be something included in the program that makes allowances for the cost of living where the recepient lives. At least some kind of adjustment to level the playing field. I know someone can get decent housing where I used to live in Oklahoma much more reasonably than they can were I now live in the Northeast...so a bigger chunk out of the $80 grand where I live now than where I used to live. What do you feel about that? (not baiting you, really interested) That is basically why I did not think expanding the program higher up the income ladder was a good idea...that coupled with it needing to be fixed to get illegals out of it and from more illegals getting on it.
see inside...
1. Yes.
2. Most of them, yes, they have been needed, whether you or I think so or not.
3. Yes, although McCain will not be exactly that same kind of leadership.
Why?
At this point in time, this country is still in need of the Republicans (or what is posing as Republican this election year, as McCain is more of a centrist than true Republican, much to my chagrin). However, he has what we need, at this point in time.
If he's smart, McCain will chose Romney as his VP, as economy is sorely in need of someone who knows what they're doing.
Obama, is not what we need. He cannot fix anything, has not ever run anything, has no real experience, and quite frankly, I have no desire to have a socialistic pseudo-communist president, thank you very much.
My gut feeling tells me that Obama is not presidential material, period, no matter how much the liberal media tries to coronate him and cram him down our throats. (Hillary isn't prez material either, by the way...too much baggage, and "it's my turn" mentality)
I am an Independent, have voted for all parties, at one time or another (even though it may pain me to say I voted for Anderson, lo all those years ago...lol...in hindsight, I should have voted Reagan.)
But believe me, if Obama was the real deal, I would be right there for him, but sadly, he is not. He has made too many fatal errors of late, the most recent was caving to the Clintons and giving them free reign over the DNC. He is not a true leader, in my eyes.
He will not win in November, mark my words.
please see inside
Seriously, I believe that all the things that enable a person to endure such torture over an extended period of time builds character and traits that are essential to leadership. So if you put 5 years in a prison camp up
see inside...
Her youngest son is named Trig Paxson Van Palin. After Trig was born, a spokesperson for Palin said that Trig is Norse for true and brave victory. His middle name, Paxson, is the name of an area of Alaska that Palin and her husband think is "one of the most beautiful spots in Alaska," according to a report on MSNBC.
Palin is on record joking that she was naming Trig "Van Palin" after eighties rockers Van Halen.
Bristol, Palin's oldest daughter, 17, means "meeting place by the bridge," according to thinkbabynames.com. Bristol is Old English and is the name of an important town in England, which many US cities were named after as well. It has not ranked in the top 1000 baby names in the US in the last 100 years. Bristol is also the name of a bay in Alaska where Palin's brother-in-law is a fisherman.
I have not found out about the rest yet.
see inside
I kinda like that name ... ROTFL
ok .. I'm finding this is difficult to put into words.
It's his tone of voice and his mannerisms at times. It's his attitude about why things are as bad as they are -- it's like he wants to blame Bush solely for it ALL, and that is just not the way this country operates.
I guess my answer is it is just my gut reaction to him.
I'm sure this is not an an adequate explanation (going to put the flame suit on, LOL)).
I sincerely apologize for not giving you a better answer, maybe later I can. I have to go to work now..
really gone this time!
yep, see inside
“I make [decisions] as quickly as I can, quicker than the other fellow, if I can. Often my haste is a mistake, but I live with the consequences without complaint.”
see inside
Slash teen pregnancy funding:
Washington Post’s false accusation that Gov. Sarah Palin “slashed” funding for a teen pregnancy program, when in reality, there was “over a threefold increase from the government funds they received from all sources in 2006 (FY2006 ending 12/31/06).”
She and her husband each owned 20% of the car wash so it was not controlling interest. Who owned the controlling interest?
Don't know about the books...everything I read that was on a blog and basically said she asked the question, but it can't be verified that I can find.
see inside
It seems to me you would like to justify how "innocent" this is by posting a link of someone who said "don't read into this". I know the poster isn't actually linking the two together, but there are a lot of "less informed" people who read Osama bin laden and Obama/Biden...yup, gotta be the same, they must be alike, Obama must be a terrorist. Believe me they are out there because I have read different web sites (can't remember where) that were saying they were connected together. This is why I take offense at it. Because there are stup!d people who can't tell the difference. Besides...this subject already came up with a big uproar the last time. How many times are we going to keep posting the same thing. And the last time it came up the poster said it was "freaky" and this is what this poster said so it leads me to believe its the same poster that wants to keep stirring up a hornets nest. When someone is offended by a post why can't others just say "I'm sorry it offended you" and drop it. That's all I'm asking to drop it. Not bring it up every other day or so.
No it's not....see inside
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
http://www.charlotteconservative.com/index.php/2008/02/global-warming-wrong-again/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
There's a lot of scientists against global warming. Inform yourselves of the facts, not scare tactics by the media and AL Gore.
Right on - see inside
Its like the inquisition is in full gear once again.
I guess Pagan would be a good way to describe me. I believe that life is in everything. I love going into the woods and just sitting by the trees by myself and listening to the earth spirits talk to me. I respect Mother Earth and all her beautiful gifts she gives us. The last time I went into a church the hair on my neck stood up. Never went back there.
See inside....
"Most partial-birth abortions are performed in the fifth and sixth months of pregnancy. Even early in the fifth month, babies who are expelled by premature labor will often be born alive. At that stage the baby's lungs are too undeveloped to permit sustained survival, but if the baby draws breath it is a LIVE BIRTH." To my definition, the 5th or 6th month is late-term. Semantics maybe.
Even with the existing partial birth abortion ban, it is still recognized as a procedure that can be used to save the life of the mother, even though no physician will go on record saying they EVER had an instance where that procedure was necessary to save the life of the mother.
That is why the baby is turned around so that it is breech, so that the brain can be collapsed inside the mother...because if the head comes first and it takes a breath it is considered a live birth and protected by the Constitution like the rest of us...until the practice of infanticide came along and was practiced until that nurse in Illinois threw a fit and brought it to public attention.
So I am not wrong, and it is not a lie.
Here it is (inside) ... the one from
DELETE: Don't open!
http://www.obamacrimes.com/attachments/028_Obama,%20Motion%20for%20Leave%20and%20First%20Amended%20Complaint.pdf
see inside
I can't find a video on it, however, it made the rounds on news shows today....
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=14&entry_id=31736
see inside....
Yes, McCain has a refundable tax credit for health insurance. Is it aimed at a specific income group? No. Does it eliminate anyone's tax liability? No it doesn't. It isn't welfare.
Obama's refundable tax cut says specifically it will eliminate federal taxes for 10 million low income workers. People who heretofore WERE paying taxes, you have assured me repeatedly. Taxing "the rich" more to make up for that loss of revenue is marxist redistribution of wealth. There is nothing remotely like that in McCain's credit. It is basically welfare...giving a tax credit to eliminate taxes and making up the lost revenue by taxing others who make more.
You explain to me how that is NOT redistribution of wealth. He said it himself. Spreading the wealth. At least he IS honest about it.
see inside
First off, when you have a private conversation with a sitting president, it should remain private. One should be able to keep private, sensitive matters private...or in other words, to be able to keep your mouth shut.
Does anyone really want so much transparency that we know exactly what goes on every time Obama sits down to talk to a world leader, especially when it comes to our enemies? Does anyone really think world leaders will want to sit down and be honest with someone that leaks their conversations out right after they've had them?
But if it's "transparency" that you want, then Obama in this case, was just trying to make Bush look bad. But it blew up on him, and he had to retract.
This paragraph tells the lie. The first report of the leak was that they "horse traded"...see below...when in reality, no such think occurred, and the white house made them retract, as the articles state.
Barack Obama's transition team described as inaccurate news reports that irked President Bush claiming that the two had been horse trading over signing a second economic stimulus bill in exchange for congressional passage of the Colombia Free Trade deal.
But you know what, I really do give up. Obama supporters will never find any fault whatsoever with anything that he does. He's not perfect, and I just wish his supporters would at least agree that he's human, and that he's going to make mistakes.
See inside
Amanda, I'll try one more time. Only two people were in that room. Bush and Obama.
Obama came out of this first, private, oval office meeting and what was leaked to the press was that Obama urged Bush to get relief to the auto indutry and a stimulus plan I believe. Obama said that Bush said he would only do it if the Columbia trade agreement was pushed through Congress first.
So.
There is no way Bush or Bush aides would leak any of this information.
This information came from Obama. From a private conversation. To Obama aides. Who leaked this to the press. Who lied and said that Bush wanted the Columbia trade agreement signed before he would sign any other agreements.
This was a lie.
The White House was upset and asked for a retraction, as it was a lie.
It was retracted. By the Obama camp.
I personally do not want such transparency from a president. It shows me what little character he has.
I know it seems different to an Obama supporter.
So with that, good night. I don't blame you or the just the big bad poster for not being able to see what I see.
Night and take care.
Please don't anyone bash me, I can't take it anymore..............
see inside
Careful, Just me, we'll be called racist if try to link the O to treason. Not that I disagree with you at all........
see inside
In the realm of religious fanaticism a whirling Dervish was somebody who spun round and round until they got so dizzy they entered a prophetic state. This is what is also known as an obot.
Found it. See inside.
I'm forwarding this to Alan Combs, Greta Van Sustern (sp) and Bill O'Rielly. Thanks.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
AIKEN -- The 6-year-old Aiken girl who'd been dead for up to 14 hours before being taken to a hospital was beaten to death, authorities said Thursday.
And the woman who called Chaquise Gregory her life and her baby is being charged with homicide in the child's death.
![](http://chronicle.augusta.com/images/v4.5/story/photos_top.gif")
![](http://chronicle.augusta.com/images/v4.5/story/photo_prev.gif") 1 / 2![](http://chronicle.augusta.com/images/v4.5/story/photo_next.gif") Special
Aiken County Department of Public Safety officers lead a handcuffed Kathy Salley away from her residence in the 500 block of Abbeville Avenue. She is charged with homicide by child abuse.
Aiken police arrested Kathy Salley, 26, at her Aiken home Thursday evening and booked her into the Aiken County Deten¤tion Center.
She'll be charged with homicide by child abuse this morning, Aiken Public Safety Sgt. David Turno said.
Police arrested Ms. Salley on an outstanding warrant for fraudulent checks to get her in jail, he said.
An autopsy found that Chaquise, who'd moved to a home in the 500 block of Abbeville Avenue in Aiken with Ms. Salley in May or early June, died from a severe beating, he said.
Authorities had already revealed that Chaquise had been dead between 10 and 14 hours when Ms. Salley took her to an Aiken hospital June 23.
"That's all we can tell you," Sgt. Turno said. "I do not believe they're going to go into the full evidence of the case, but we do know it was from a severe beating."
Aiken County Coroner Tim Carlton said he couldn't release many details about what killed Chaquise, except that the beating "caused some internal-type malfunction in the body that caused her death."
Mr. Carlton said there were no drugs found in the child's system, but "there were some older injuries that we're looking into that may or may not have been related to previous abuse."
The autopsy found no broken bones, but there was evidence of past breaks.
Mr. Carlton said the initial results indicate that the child was not sexually abused, but he would not rule it out completely.
She was not molested "that I'm aware of at this point," he said.
Capt. Maryann Burgess, who has been the investigator in the case, said she can't say how many others may have been involved in Chaquise's death or what charges they face.
"We know where they are," she said.
She said investigators also have not been able to verify that Ms. Salley had legal custody of Chaquise, which she claimed.
If convicted of homicide by child abuse, Ms. Salley faces between 20 years in prison and a life sentence.
In an interview with The Augus¤ta Chronicle on June 27 - five days after Chaquise was pronounced dead - Ms. Salley denied any wrongdoing in her death. Ms. Salley said she'd raised Chaquise since she was 3 years old.
"She was the only child I could ever have," she said, and questioned how the girl's biological family could think she was responsible.
Ms. Salley hinted that another person living with her and Chaquise - and who m she said she'd left the child with the night before - may have had something to do with the little girl's death.
"I can't point fingers when I don't know what went on in this house while I was gone," she'd said.
According to preliminary autopsy results that were released soon after her death, Chaquise had been dead between 10 and 14 hours before Ms. Salley took her to Aiken Regional Medical Centers.
Capt. Burgess said the additional autopsy results she received Wednesday led to Ms. Salley's arrest.
Ms. Salley told The Chronicle that authorities found bruises on Chaquise's arm and bottom, and cigarette burns on her shoulder and back.
Mr. Carlton said investigators are still trying to determine whether those marks were cigarette burns.
"It's just a tragic incident that was visited on a defenseless child," Mr. Carlton said. "And if the allegations are all true, then we certainly hope that the law and criminal justice system will be the defender of this child's rights."
You might be right, on the other hand. (see inside)
Message inside.
I thought so, too, when I first read it, but there's a whole website dedicated to nothing but this kind of hatefulness. How could anyone communicate reasonably, intelligently and productively with a follower of this kind of religion? 
Sad, isn't it?
Again... WHERE DID I SAY I HAVE AN INSIDE TRACK?
What you copied and pasted was an opinion which I stated.
Nowhere in any of my posts do I claim to have an *inside track* to anything. That's YOUR ridiculous claim, not mine!
|
![](http://augustachronicle.com/images/headlines/071505/48568_170.jpg")
