WH refuses to condemn Robertson's statement.
Posted By: Zauber on 2005-08-28
In Reply to: article from john dean - saturday evening
It's just amazing that our own President won't stand up and condemn this kind of terrorism - using the US airwaves to threaten assasination of foreign leaders, by a religious leader no less. Tough on terrorism? OK, so...when?
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
Typical response from someone who refuses to
xx
Fed Refuses to Disclose Recipients of $2 Trillion
(Okay. Everyone in Congress and the White House, empty your pockets.)
Fed Refuses to Disclose Recipients of $2 Trillion (Update1)
By Mark Pittman
Dec. 12 (Bloomberg) -- The Federal Reserve refused a request by Bloomberg News to disclose the recipients of more than $2 trillion of emergency loans from U.S. taxpayers and the assets the central bank is accepting as collateral.
Bloomberg filed suit Nov. 7 under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act requesting details about the terms of 11 Fed lending programs, most created during the deepest financial crisis since the Great Depression.
The Fed responded Dec. 8, saying it's allowed to withhold internal memos as well as information about trade secrets and commercial information. The institution confirmed that a records search found 231 pages of documents pertaining to some of the requests.
"If they told us what they held, we would know the potential losses that the government may take and that's what they don't want us to know," said Carlos Mendez, a senior managing director at New York-based ICP Capital LLC, which oversees $22 billion in assets.
The Fed stepped into a rescue role that was the original purpose of the Treasury's $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program. The central bank loans don't have the oversight safeguards that Congress imposed upon the TARP.
Total Fed lending exceeded $2 trillion for the first time Nov. 6. It rose by 138 percent, or $1.23 trillion, in the 12 weeks since Sept. 14, when central bank governors relaxed collateral standards to accept securities that weren't rated AAA.
'Been Bamboozled'
Congress is demanding more transparency from the Fed and Treasury on bailout, most recently during Dec. 10 hearings by the House Financial Services committee when Representative David Scott, a Georgia Democrat, said Americans had "been bamboozled."
Bloomberg News, a unit of New York-based Bloomberg LP, on May 21 asked the Fed to provide data on collateral posted from April 4 to May 20. The central bank said on June 19 that it needed until July 3 to search documents and determine whether it would make them public. Bloomberg didn't receive a formal response that would let it file an appeal within the legal time limit.
On Oct. 25, Bloomberg filed another request, expanding the range of when the collateral was posted. It filed suit Nov. 7.
In response to Bloomberg's request, the Fed said the U.S. is facing "an unprecedented crisis" in which "loss in confidence in and between financial institutions can occur with lightning speed and devastating effects."
Data Provider
The Fed supplied copies of three e-mails in response to a request that it disclose the identities of those supplying data on collateral as well as their contracts.
While the senders and recipients of the messages were revealed, the contents were erased except for two phrases identifying a vendor as "IDC." One of the e-mails' subject lines refers to "Interactive Data -- Auction Rate Security Advisory May 1, 2008."
Brian Willinsky, a spokesman for Bedford, Massachusetts- based Interactive Data Corp., a seller of fixed-income securities information, declined to comment.
"Notwithstanding calls for enhanced transparency, the Board must protect against the substantial, multiple harms that might result from disclosure," Jennifer J. Johnson, the secretary for the Fed's Board of Governors, said in a letter e-mailed to Bloomberg News.
'Dangerous Step'
"In its considered judgment and in view of current circumstances, it would be a dangerous step to release this otherwise confidential information," she wrote.
New York-based Citigroup Inc., which is shrinking its global workforce of 352,000 through asset sales and job cuts, is among the nine biggest banks receiving $125 billion in capital from the TARP since it was signed into law Oct. 3. More than 170 regional lenders are seeking an additional $74 billion.
Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said in September they would meet congressional demands for transparency in a $700 billion bailout of the banking system.
The Freedom of Information Act obliges federal agencies to make government documents available to the press and public. The Bloomberg lawsuit, filed in New York, doesn't seek money damages.
'Right to Know'
"There has to be something they can tell the public because we have a right to know what they are doing," said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Arlington, Virginia-based Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.
"It would really be a shame if we have to find this out 10 years from now after some really nasty class-action suit and our financial system has completely collapsed," she said.
The Fed lent cash and government bonds to banks that handed over collateral including stocks and subprime and structured securities such as collateralized debt obligations, according to the Fed Web site.
Borrowers include the now-bankrupt Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., Citigroup and New York-based JPMorgan Chase & Co., the country's biggest bank by assets.
Banks oppose any release of information because that might signal weakness and spur short-selling or a run by depositors, Scott Talbott, senior vice president of government affairs for the Financial Services Roundtable, a Washington trade group, said in an interview last month.
'Complete Truth'
"Americans don't want to get blindsided anymore," Mendez said in an interview. "They don't want it sugarcoated or whitewashed. They want the complete truth. The truth is we can't take all the pain right now."
The Bloomberg lawsuit said the collateral lists "are central to understanding and assessing the government's response to the most cataclysmic financial crisis in America since the Great Depression."
In response, the Fed argued that the trade-secret exemption could be expanded to include potential harm to any of the central bank's customers, said Bruce Johnson, a lawyer at Davis Wright Tremaine LLP in Seattle. That expansion is not contained in the freedom-of-information law, Johnson said.
"I understand where they are coming from bureaucratically, but that means it's all the more necessary for taxpayers to know what exactly is going on because of all the money that is being hurled at the banking system," Johnson said.
The Bloomberg lawsuit is Bloomberg LP v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 08-CV-9595, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).
To contact the reporters on this story: Mark Pittman in New York at mpittman@bloomberg.net;
Last Updated: December 12, 2008 11:35 EST
Obama refuses to present an official
!1
I was not around in the 60's, but I do condemn
ANYONE who is a terrorist. It was uncommon for things to escalate in this manner in the 60's (I am well educated). But, as you state, "The soldiers came home and were spit on by these kinds of radicals." Can you not see that it is definitely NOT rebuplican propaganda. You really make the argument for us. It is insane to think that we should excuse the behavior of hippies because they were on LSD--come on. I suppose we should forgive Barrack's drug use, as well. Judge me for what I did in my 20's. I am proud of who I was and who I became--and yes, I made mistakes, but I never terrorized anyone.
Palin's husband refuses to testify...ignores subpeona!
Okay, you ***** try to come up with a valid reason for this blatant violation of the law by Mr. Palin!
Immediate White House statement on Dr. Tiller - still no statement on
Having had at least three relevant opportunities to make a statement about the killing of an Army recruiter and wounding of another since this occurred on Monday, Obama has not said a single word about it - but a statement was forthcoming from him immediately concerning the killing of Dr. Tiller.
The media coverage of the two events has also been strikingly different. Please note that the sympathies of the liberal cause provide a complete explanation of both of these phenomena.
More than passingly strange that they think we don't notice stuff like this, n'est-ce pas? Well, they'll discover their mistake soon enough. The election cycle of 2010 is already starting up - and it isn't going to look anything like the cycle of 2008.
So much for transparency. Treasury refuses to give bank bailout information.
This again from the McClatchy news group, which is not conservative by any means:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/65195.html
What a surprise, you don't condemn skinheads.
And, as usual, you twist my words in order to attack my posts. I wrote, *It's too bad that these *rotten apples* are making the majority of the good military look bad.*
Shame on YOU for not thinking this is horrible. 
Is it just me, or is *condemn* the leftist buzzword for the day? nm
nm
You condemn McCain for adultery....sm
yet you support a man who will allow murder of children and homosexual marriage?
Thanks for clearing that up. sheesh
You don't support it, but you don't necessarily condemn it either
If there are homosexuals being killed, it is not in this country. You just don't hear about it and the media would have a hey day with something like that. No, I don't believe it, just because you say it's happening. Proof please. I have every right to come across any way I please. Stop telling me I have no "right" to say, feel, think the way I do. I have no idea how you feel about your son or even how you handle it, so I wouldn't even begin to tell you what's going on in your life. But this is the way I feel. No, I wouldn't disown my children. However, I did do the groundwork when they were small. They knew it was wrong. They knew it would not be accepted by me or their father and maybe they had enough respect for us to do the right thing. I don't know. I do know that most kids are not taught that it's wrong, regardless of what society tells us. I do know that some kids do this to get back at their parents for different reasons. All sins can be forgiven. This is one sin that can kill you before you have a chance to be forgiven. I loved my kids enough to make sure they understood it was not only wrong, but could lead to their deaths at an earlier age. Not just HIV, AIDS but anal cancer, hepatitis C and a score of other terrible diseases. I didn't want that for for my sons. I'm not a hippocrit. But you are judgemental.
Pat Robertson
Like I told gt below I don't echo Pat Robertson. However, Cindy Sheehan has said as much about our president but in much more vulgar verbage. Don't lump us into all being Pat Robertson followers, because it just ain't so.
You must have Pat Robertson
running through your veins. You're totally whacked.
Get some help.
Have you heard him condemn election fraud?
!!
Robertson, Falwell, et al. are the very same
people who publicly claim that they and their followers are the only people who are good enough to go to heaven. It's easy for Americans to just dismiss these snake oil salesmen and their followers as whackos, just laugh at them and brush them off as having no importance.
You're right. The inmates are going to be running the asylum if Harriet Miers becomes a Supreme Court Justice, and America will continue its downward 5-year spiral backwards time. I already wrote to Senator Harry Reid a couple days ago, basically asking what he was thinking when he was hoodwinked by Bush and Miers. I've also written to many of the Senators on the Judiciary Committee. I obviously don't live in all of their states, but at the federal level, I feel my voice is just as important in such a serious matter as this. I do live in Senator Specter's state, and he will probably be tired of hearing from me before it's all said and done.
I hope those who have strong concerns about precisely the things described in the article you posted do the same and write to the Senators on the Judiciary Committee...unless you're okay with the Bible replacing the Constitution and the inmates running the asylum.
As far as God's actual involvement in all this, I'm starting to wonder if God is getting fed up with the inherent evil of this White House and all the lies and corruption that accompany it. Maybe it's actually God's love and pursuit of the truth that will result in Bush's house of cards toppling over in the next few weeks as, one by one his scandals, are revealed to the world and hopefully many indictments will be handed out. 
Like Pat Robertson calling for
of Chavez? Or telling the people of Dover not to pray to God 'cause God won't answer? Must be nice to have such a straight line to the Lord God. Yeah, that's REAL Christianity alright.
And yet you STILL refuse to condemn child sexual abuse!
When this was first posted, it was posted before there were separate political boards. Still, there was no response.
You people have done nothing by drive-by sniping posts for the last couple weeks, to the point where some of them had to be removed by the moderator.
Yet you're AFRAID to post outrage over child sexual abuse?
I guess we can leave it at that. You're obviously more outraged that I posted regarding this subject than you are at the subject itself.
And THAT speaks volumes.
Too bad Robertson doesn't look in the mirror.
We have our own Taliban right here in the U.S...so-called Christians calling for people's assassinations, etc. And the darling of the right, Coulter, *joking* that Justice Stevens should be poisoned? Makes me wonder who is really *satanic* and *crazed fanatics*? Apparently my copy of the New Testament is different than theirs. Robertson in his infinite wisdom comparing Mohammed to a politician?
From the March 13 broadcast of CBN's The 700 Club:
ROBERTSON: Imagine one cartoon, one cartoon showing Mohammad with a turban with a missile out of it. I mean, we have stuff like that, that is vastly worse against our politicians all the time. It's part of free expression. The fact that this elicited this incredible outpouring of rage just shows the kind of people we're dealing with. These people are crazed fanatics, and I want to say it now: I believe it's motivated by demonic power; it is satanic; and it's time we recognize what we are dealing with. But, political correctness will not face one religious ideology with the strength of another because they don't have the strength of another. And, so, they're caving in before this vicious assault, and the goal of Islam, ladies and gentlemen, whether you like it or not, is world domination. These people are saying it over there in Europe -- world domination. We're going to take over Europe. We're going to take over England. We're going to take over Denmark. We're going to take over France. That's their goal! And, why don't we wake up to the fact of who we're dealing with? And, by the way, Islam is not a religion of peace.
I didn't agree with Pat Robertson either. sm
However, I doubt Chavez offer came free of strings. I am glad we did not accept his help. He has shown himself for what he is.
You must mean Falwell, Robertson and Hagee, who also
Here's a few more points you may want to mull over:
The idea that America deserves terrorist attacks and other horrendous disasters has long been a frequently expressed view among the faction of white evangelical ministers to whom the Republican Party is most inextricably linked. Neither Jerry Falwell nor Pat Robertson ever retracted or denounced their view that America provoked the 9/11 attacks by doing things to anger God. John Hagee continues to believe that the City of New Orleans got what it deserved when Katrina drowned its residents and devastated the lives of thousands of Americans. And James Inhofe (who happens to still be a Republican U.S. Senator) blamed America for the 9/11 attacks by arguing in a 2002 Senate floor speech that "the spiritual door was opened for an attack against the United States of America" because we pressured Israel to give away parts of the West Bank.
The phrases "anti-American" and "America-haters" are among the most barren and manipulative in our entire political lexicon, but whatever they happen to mean on any given day, they easily encompass people who believe that the U.S. deserved the 9/11 attacks, devastating hurricanes and the like. Yet when are people like Falwell, Robertson, Hagee, Inhofe and other white Christian radicals ever described as anti-American or America-hating extremists? Never, because white Christian evangelicals who tie themselves to the political Right are intrinsically patriotic. Do Obama haters believe that those individuals are anti-American radicals and that people who allow their children to belong to their churches are exercising grave errors of judgment?
To subscribe to this paradox is wildly understating the magnitude of the association between "anti-American" white evangelicals and Republican leaders. By all accounts, George Bush had private conversations with Pat Robertson about matters as weighty as whether to invade Iraq. Isn't that a big scandal, that the President is consulting with an American-hating minister, someone who believes God allowed the 9/11 attacks as punishment for our evil country, about vital foreign policy decisions? No, it wasn't controversial at all.
John Hagee privately visits with the highest level Middle East officials in the White House and afterwards pronounces that they're in agreement. John McCain shares a stage with Hagee and lavishes him with praise, as Rudy Giuliani did with Pat Robertson. James Inhofe remains a member in good standing in the GOP Senate Caucus. The Republican Party has tied itself at the hip to a whole slew of "anti-American extremists"…people who believe that the U.S. provoked the 9/11 attacks because God wants to punish us for the evil, wicked nation we've become…and yet there is virtual silence about these associations.
Nor have the views of televangelist Rod Parsley, one of McCain's self-proclaimed "spiritual advisers," received a fraction of the attention generated by Wright. As both David Corn and Alan Colmes, among others, have documented, Parsley espouses views at least as extreme and radical as Wright, including his proclamation that "America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion [Islam] destroyed." Unlike Wright and Obama, for whom the former's controversial views are found nowhere near the latter's public or private conduct , both George Bush and John McCain's Middle Eastern militarism are perfectly consonant with the most maniacal and crazed views of Christian Rapture enthusiasts such as Hagee, Parsley, Inhofe, and Robertson. Yet the controversy created over their close ties is virtually non-existent.
The Republican Party long ago adopted as a central strategy aligning itself with, and granting great influence to, the most radical, "America-hating" white evangelical Christian ministers in the country. They're given a complete pass on that because political orthodoxy mandates that white evangelical Christian ministers are inherently worthy of respect, no matter how extreme and noxious are their views. That orthodoxy stands in stark contrast to the universally enraged reaction to a few selected snippets from the angry rantings of a black Christian Minister. What accounts for that glaring disparity?
Robertson apologizes - He was misunderstood. Any takers on this one?
See link.
Yes, by all means, lets condemn the religious right or for that matter religion period but ...
let's continue murdering babies by the millions. Prophecy is being fulfilled.
I tell you, I didn't know that Pat Robertson tried to get on the republican ticket in 1988...sm
and I was enjoying the 700 club last year. They have some good Christian stories on there and motivational things that I actually liked. That was until one day Pat started talking politics and throwing his opinions around as if they were God's. That show hasn't gotten a rating point from me since then. He's definitely a radical in my book.
Robertson to build theme park in Israel; Jews unwilling to convert
Plans for Holy Land theme park on Galilee shore where Jesus fed the 5,000
· Evangelical groups and Israel on brink of deal
· Some Israelis fear motives of US Christian right Conal Urquhart in Tel Aviv
Wednesday January 4, 2006
Guardian The Israeli government is planning to give up a large slice of land to American Christian evangelicals to build a biblical theme park by the Sea of Galilee where Jesus is said to have walked on water and fed 5,000 with five loaves and two fish.
A consortium of Christian groups, led by the television evangelist Pat Robertson, is in negotiation with the Israeli ministry of tourism and a deal is expected in the coming months. The project is expected to bring up to 1 million extra tourists a year but an undeclared benefit will be the cementing of a political alliance between the Israeli rightwing and the American Christian right.
However, the alliance has not been welcomed by all Israelis, including some who fear the ultimate aim of the evangelicals is the conversion of the Jews to Christianity rather than support for Israel.
Jonathan Pulik, a spokesman for the Israeli ministry of tourism, said the Christian market was very important for Israel's tourism industry. We would like to give them more of a reason to come here. We would be willing to lease the land to them free of charge and they would finance the construction.
The site of the centre, covering nearly 50 hectares (125 acres) and provisionally called the Galilee World Heritage Park, would be north-east of the Mount of the Beatitudes where Jesus delivered the Sermon on the Mount, and Capernaum which was described as the town of Jesus in the Bible. It would feature a garden and nature park, an auditorium, a Holy Land exhibition, outdoor amphitheatres, information centre and a media studio.
The ministry of tourism estimates the total cost would be $48m (£28m). Mr Pulik also pointed out that the project would bring large numbers of jobs to the area. Mr Robertson said in a statement that he was fully cooperating with the project but no deal had been formalised. He said he was thrilled that there will be a place in the Galilee where evangelical Christians from all over the world can come to celebrate the actual place where Jesus Christ lived and taught.
The Sea of Galilee is more reminiscent of the Scottish Highlands than the Middle East, particularly in winter and spring when the hills are green. The existing Christian sites are picturesque and understated oases of calm and there is even a Church of Scotland hotel and church in Tiberias, the main town in the area.
A major part of the shore of the Sea of Galilee was Syrian until it was conquered by Israel in 1967. Syria and Israel are still officially in a state of war and Syria insists the return of the Golan Heights and the Galilee shore is a prerequisite for peace.
Uri Dagul, the project coordinator, said the land issues would be concluded within a few weeks and then the final details would be agreed between the Israeli government and the Christian communities which are primarily American evangelical churches.
The American Christian right, best known for television evangelism and its stars such as Mr Robertson and Jerry Falwell, has been among the strongest supporters of Israel in the US.
The primary reason is that according to the Old Testament, Israel was given to the Jews by God. Fundamentalist Christians believe that in order for Jesus to return, two preconditions are Jewish control of the land of Israel and the conversion of the Jews to Christianity.
Yossi Sarid, a former government minister and member of the Knesset, said he was wary of the friendship of the American Christian right and projects such as the Galilee centre. He said: I am not enthusiastic about this cooperation because I have no desire to be cannon fodder for the evangelists.
As a Jew, they believe I have to vanish before Jesus can make his second appearance. As I have no plans to convert, as an Israeli and a Jew, I find this a provocation. There is something sinister about their embrace.
Avraham Hirschson, the Israeli tourism minister, said: I'm not a theologian, I'm the minister of tourism, and I'm not interested in the politics of our tourists as long as they come here. They come here as tourists, and they're friends of Israel.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
Sorry. That last statement should have been
x
RIGHT, but it was actually a statement that was
nm
What an odd statement
"God's will has been done"???
Whenever somebody gets what they want they always say it's "Gods will" or what "God wants". As though they know. Then as if to try to convince us it's true they will throw in a "I prayed and was shown a sign". Well I know a lot of people who are priests, biships, and very spiritual and religious people and they were praying for a different outcome. They were praying for McCain to win. So are you saying 50% of Americans praying for a different outcome all have a different God than yours who "answered your prayers"? Also I have found that when things don't work out they way they want they'll have a different answer (but usually the same canned answer).
There is good and evil in this world. I'm not saying Obama is either. Only he and his family know his religious viewpoints. This is the kind of conversation that is 1/2 religious 1/2 political. If your talking about our government (DC people) I would say that is the least likely place to find "God". Then if your going to go there you should say say "Allah" has spoken and wants him in the office, after all that is who the muslims pray to.
Yes things happen in the world. I think that's were that phrase "$hit happens" comes in.
You said all things happen in this world for the good of those that love the Lord. Does this include the parents who murder their children because God has told them to do so, or even just murder their children for no reason (like that lady in Florida). How about the senseless shootings, robberies, gang rapes, do you think all that happens for those becuase I'm sure those victims loved the Lord too. Oh what about 9-11 all those victims who died. I'm sure there were a lot who loved the Lord. Like I say I don't want to make this a religious message because that is for the faith board but you are mixing the two together and they are very different things.
My aunt does the same thing though. She will talk of something and then add in "I prayed about it and the lord told me this or that" I guess she's trying to put validity behind her statement but it has the opposite effect.
We all hope Obama becomes a great president and does good things for the country. That is the hope of any president elected. Nobody is saying he's going to do a bad job. We're all saying we hope he will do good, but we know about his history/background, associations, voting records, and inexperience, and there is a lot that is not sitting well with us. I believe we all hope to be pleasantly surprised but only time will tell and we will be keeping our eyes open just like we would do with any person elected.
I'm just trying to figure out the logic of this post and it makes no sense and is an insult to those of us who feel differently and "prayed" for a different outcome.
I have to wonder at your statement... sm
""Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country" used to hold a positive meaning in this country."
How does this apply when people like Peggy Johnson (or whatever her name was) proclaim on national tv that they are so glad they don't have to worry about paying their mortgage or putting gas in their cars? I wonder how people who are getting ready to quit their jobs and live off the government will react if they find out that the gravy train is being pulled by the engine of "serve your country?"
I would agree with you. America has gotten greedy and spiteful. I also feel they have gotten lazy, apathetic and complacent and depend on the government now more than ever to meet their needs instead of the other way around.
Your statement a few posts above that (SM)
liberalism is the problem with this country is BASHING.
If you want to bash Liberals - go do it on your Conservatives board.
I see you haven't changed. BTW, Nan, who in the world supposedly "invited you back" as you state below? Perhaps you were invited back to the Conservative board? LOL
A statement from Shrub!
Actually, I didn't think it was funny either when he made that statement as our troops were and are being maimed and dying for him, and he thought it was funny that "whoops, no WMDs!" Rude indeed!!!!!
dumb statement
she gets what she deserves? All the woman wants is to meet with the person who is supposed to be our servant, the person WE put into office. That is not asking too much, in my opinion. It is not like he is a king or dictator. He is supposed to be working for US. If he had met with her, she would have went home and none of this shooting guns, crashing into crosses, etc., would have happened. He is the reason she is getting all this press coverage. Gets what she deserves? What a dumb statement. He should get what HE deserves, impeachment, a criminal trial and imprisonment for this illegal immoral war of his.
broad statement
And have you taken a poll of every democrat in the country as to whether they love or hate Phil? These broad statements are not helping your credibility.
Not a broad statement at all.
And since you make broad statements all the time, that's a little disingenuous, don't you think? I asked a question. You didn't answer it. How many politicians have you seen embrace Phil? As far as credibilty, let's be perfectly frank. I don't care if you find me credible and I am sure the same can be said for your feelings about me. We are worlds apart in our thinking. Thank God.
broad statement
I make broad statements all the time? When, where? LOL. That in itself is a broad statement from you. I make statements with facts to back them up, I post articles. As far as how many politicals back Phil, who knows, who cares. Is he running for office? I must have missed it if he is. He is a tax paying, charity giving, hard working adult who has opinions and ideas and beliefs on how our country should go and I applaud him for speaking out, with his own independent ideas. As far as your and mine ideas? Sure they are different. I dont thank god for that..Frankly, I dont think god has anything to do with that. We are free thinking human beings (at least I am..are you?) and it is great that you have your ideas and I have mine. That is what this country was built on..differing opinions. Heaven help us all if this country ever becomes one thought and one opinion..that is called a dictatorship. I dont know about you but I could never live under that situation..So, long live your opinion and long live mine and never the two shall meet.
true statement
This statement shows that architects of war and politicians, they know just how to manipulate the nonpolitical masses and do it well.
If that's not the most pompus statement ever
I don't know what is...it's a wonder you can breath with your nose so high in the air
That is just as much a racist statement as the one above. sm
Racism goes both ways. How about let's not labeling people at all.
I borrowed that statement from you by the way.
I'm not sure where you get your history or how it go so skewed; Johnson didn't run from war in the Vietnam, he started it, and you consider the way John Kennedy handled the Cuban missile crisis as running from war? As opposed to the alternative? Nuclear war.
What you fail to understand is that the conservative party is not running on the political theory that it was intended to.
Emancipation proclamation is a LIBERAL idea. Voting for women and African American is a LIBERAL idea, not a conservative one.
You have absolutely succeeded in proving that you are not only uneducated but incredibly misguided. You are a political conservative's wet dream.
This is not an accurate statement
Please provide non-partisan sources that state that the majority of scientists state that global warming is bunk.
Your statement, and I quote....(sm)
"A half a Xanax works just as well as a full one."
NOT TRUE. A half a Xanax will take the edge off. An entire Xanax will afford you the opportunity to take a 2-hour nap.
McCain had a statement...
"Phil Gramm does not speak for me. I speak for me. So, I strongly disagree," McCain responded. "America's in great difficulty, and we are experiencing enormous economic challenges."
I agree somewhat with what Gramm said tho...things have gone really well for a long time...gas was low, home values were high, joblessness was at all-time low (yes, during the dreaded Bush administration), and now we are entering some tougher times...and instead of hitching up their bootstraps and moving on through the tough time, a lot of Americans are just whining...well, more than whining, screaming at the top of their lungs for the government to bail them out. Well, again...overtaxation is the prime reason we are in the fix we are in. Democrats and their never-ending social programs, throw more money at problems approach, and to fund all that...higher taxes. Higher taxes for ALL of us, including the so-called "rich" (who employ 75% of the people in the US and pay 85-90% of the taxes already). I would like to know how many people in the good old US are on some kind of government assistance. I think the numbers would astound most. And what are the Democrats doing this election season...hawking yet MORE taxes. Obama wants higher payroll taxes. He wants to tax small businesses even more. Well, something has to pay for the largest entitlement EVER...government-run health care. What a debacle THAT will be if it ever happens. Better be careful what you ask for...
What we need to do is cut all programs except those absolutely needed, that being people who because of health or injury absolutely cannot work. Stop keeping families on welfare generation after generation. Stop making it more profitable to sit at home and draw a check than it is to get out and work. And, in my humble opinion, I don't mind an interim check if someone finds themselves out of work, or while they are in job training. But it should NOT be open-ended. Criminal laws should be tougher and anyone in prison should have to work. Period. It should not be 3 squares and a roof without work. There is plenty they could do.
I believe we need to move back to what made America great..the chance to, through education and/or hard work to better yourself, and family responsibility to one another (meaning moms and dads need to work to feed their own families)...back when welfare should be the LAST resort and effort was made to get off as soon as possible.
Okay, off my soapbox now. I do not mean to offend anyone...just giving my opinion.
hello? the statement that the woman
loves to fire people? pretty simple what i was responding to.
LOL - It was a blanket statement
I said my pet peeve is when people make fun of other people for the way they talk. But now that I think of it, it's not a pet peeve, its more of an irritant. Now I know why my parents taught me not to make fun of other people for the way they talk or look.
Can you back that statement up?
This is like the statement that one poster said- nm
.
There is a substantive statement. nm
nm
Now that's a right bright statement!
I don't think this statement was racist.
I'm sure that there are some white people who are so nuts in their racism that they could potentially assassinate Obama or at least attempt to. That doesn't insinuate all white people. As for riots....I'm sure there are some black people who are so racist that they could potentially riot if Obama loses. That isn't saying that all of them will. You need to pull back the race card you just threw out there and perhaps lay off of the caffeine as well. Making these statements doesn't make someone racist.....it just points out that there is racism out there in the world and it comes from all sides.
This is a hurtful statement
Guess I was stunned when someone calls you a name because the can't see you face to face. I don't need to explain my nationality to you. Do you know how many black people there are who are not supporting Obama. Are you gonna call all of us racists.
What do you define as a racist? Just becuase people don't vote for Obama doesn't make them racist. Not once in my post did I mention his race. It's the facts and his policies I am against.
I like the idea at the end of your statement
I like your statement "I also believe a system such as this, in place for a number of years, would tremendously cut the waste in America drastically by causing the American people, especially those in the middle class and lower class to consider their purchases more carefully. However, I doubt it would have as much of an affect on the higher income class in terms of wastefulness"and agree with it. We used this principle while trying to teach our kids some financial responsibility. We used to buy their school clothes, etc. When they got to the ages where shoes were $100 a pair for tennis shoes and jeans were outrageously priced as was everything else in a teenager's wardrobe, and they were old enough to babysit or whatever to earn a little money, we told them they could pick what they wanted and we would buy it but they would have to pay the tax portion of those purchases. They learned a lot about responsible spending at that time and cut back a lot on their wants. Small scale, but I believe your idea sentiment is correct.
Yes that's me - and I still stand by my statement.
I just agreed that the site has been changed; however, if you compare the 2 sites they are virtually word for word until you have to add the part about the college credit (which I posted 4 links below that show that that has been part of the "requirement" all along and not a new idea). That is why I say that it was a mistake on somebody's part that was doing the typing.
I am telling you, when I am wrong, I am admitting I am wrong, and I will continue to admit I am wrong.
If Obama does something that is wrong, then in the next election, I will most definitely not support him again. I am, however, giving him the benefit of the doubt until he is actually in office and doing the job of the POTUS, and not condemning him on typos, rumors, innuendos, outright lies, hypothetical situations, fear and hatred...
I base my decisions on that person's actions, not the public's opinion.
|
