Well, here is my stance on the subjects.
Posted By: piglet on 2007-11-29
In Reply to: Okay. I have a question for liberals. sm - Trying to see both sides
1. Homosexual marriage: For it. If homosexual couples are afforded other freedoms, I am for this one too. If they are allowed to adopt children, they should be allowed to get legally married in the eyes of the state.
2. Welfare: Not for it. I do, however, believe in subsidies to provide help for those in need. Welfare needs an upgrade.
3. Abortion: I am for the right of choice and the right to privacy on these matters.
Hope your poll helps clarifies things for you.
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
Of course they are different subjects but
Obama said he wanted Gitmo closed BEFORE he was elected.....do ya miss that? And that was BEFORE he had any debriefing on the things going on there; he just simply wanted it closed.
The stimulus package---- well, that speaks for itself, that all the NO phone calls the white house has been getting.
You have seen today that Obama's wonderful package isn't wonderful....the American people want no part of his PLAN for our country.....they are waking up! Now, you can see that for yourself but you continue to live in your little world, even when the proof is now out there.
I saw that Rahm said he does not agree with Obama on some subjects - but
he said that Obama will be the president and he will not be pushing his own ideas as they are so completely opposite on some things.
Here is my stance and my reasoning
for what I said above. Government shouldn't have 80% of AIG. They should have let AIG fall on its face. They shouldn't have given them money in the first place.
Here is a little blurp I've copied: I will provide the link below.
On March 5, New York Fed officials forwarded to the Treasury Department a summary of AIG’s bonus and retention payment issues, including details of the retention program for officials of the Financial Products. This information included that $165 million in payments were expected that very month, as well as the fact that the contracts were in place in the first quarter of 2008, and so not covered by the limitations in the stimulus bill as articulated by an amendment to the stimulus bill offered by Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn.
As ABC News' Capitol Hill Correspondent Jonathan Karl reported, in February, the Senate unanimously approved an amendment restricting bonuses over $100,000 at any company receiving federal bailout funds, but during the closed-door House and Senate negotiations the provision was stripped out and replaced with a measure by Dodd exempting bonuses agreed to prior to the passage of the stimulus bill on February 11, 2009.
You can read the whole article at this link: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/03/obama-adminis-1.html
So this basically shows that these bonuses were pushed through by Dodd and so the government had its hand in giving out these bonuses and now they are going to turn around and take that away. It is a contract. I understand that AIG got butt loads of money from the government.....which was wrong in the first place.....but don't you see how scary it is for our government to have this kind of control and power. To give and take away at the drop of a hat. To null and void a contract that someone in government (Dodd) pushed through to make happen and then they turn around and want to tax it to death or just take it from them.
Why in the he!! did Dodd get this slipped in there in the first place? that is the real question. This wouldn't even be an issue. Dodd slips this in because he received the highest amount of money from AIG. So of course he wanted to pay back the hand that fed him...so to speak. And guess who had the second highest amount of contributions from AIG.....Barrack Obama..... So Dodd slips this through and allows a loophole for the AIG execs to get their big ars bonuses and now that it has gone public and people are furious......now government wants to take control and make them give the money back. Isn't it the governments fault in the first place....first for bailing them out and then for letting this loophole slip by to pay back AIG for contributions to campaigns.
This is why our government sucks. They don't care about Americans. All they care about is getting money back to the groups, etc. who contributed money to their campaign. That is why we can't get away from wasteful spending and earmarks.
Joy isn't happy unless it's HER stance
on politics. She forever tries to make a laughing stock out of everyone who doesn't share her views. I think she is ridiculous and I get a kick out of her when she cracks a "supposed funny" but no one laughs. She is he11 bent on views so much, she makes me sick. I don't see where or why she is part of that program. It's supposed to be open topics, but when someone she likes it on the program, she keeps her mouth shut. I just wish she would keep it shut more often.
WE KNOW Observer. You have made your stance
.
Obama stance on terrorism....
This latest quote of his just says to me he doesn't get it, especially where Muslim extremists are concerned:
At a fundraising luncheon, he said he told Gilani "the only way we're going to be successful in the long term in defeating extremists ... is if we are giving people opportunities. If people have a chance for a better life, then they are not as likely to turn to the ideologies of violence and despair."
What kind of opportunities is he talking about giving them? And it does not matter what you give them...it is not about despair. I guess he did not see the poll done recently of Muslim students in London...way over half polled said it was okay to kill in the name of Islam, in fact it should be done; and way more than half thought Sharia law should be part of English law and supercede it in most cases. These Muslims are not in despair. Obama does not get it, he does not understand it, and that makes him plenty dangerous. Just like he says we cannot drill our way out of the energy crunch (and I disagree with that...might not drill our way out completely but certainly could take a bite out of our foreign oil dependance while working on those alternative forms of energy, which I do support...but there are no immediate answers there either)...we cannot talk Muslim "extremists" out of their extremism. And to think we can is naive at best and that is the nicest way I can put it.
Here's one. Palins' stance on war and peace.
nm
How is posting his stance bashing?
People are not supposed to compare the two?
OMG! Check out O's stance on immigration
Please note, these are from 2008 before the election, but I think they still hold true.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Immigration.htm
In fact, you can also check out Emanuel, Holder, McCain, Napolitano, Clinton, here:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Immigration.htm#Headlines
ok, here goes - I know I'll get flamed, but I am firm on my stance. SM
Well over 50% of the American population is either Hispanic or African American (I am being conservative because it is probably higher). This population IMO voted for Obama because of his skin color, without researching his view on major issues that revolve around being capable of tackling the presidency of the U.S. I think it is only a matter of time when this will come back and kick all who voted for him in the "you know what." It's not about our ethnicity or religion, but rather about a candidate who is experienced enough to tackle the job. I just cringe at the fact that someone as inexperienced as Obama is now running this country.
Since when does questioning a stance on a single issue
"changing his mind?" In fact, it is media's JOB to exercise both sides of an argument (in the same way that debaters are required to argue both sides of a premise). The mere fact that a reporter is doing just that during a broadcast does not necessarily say anything whatsoever about his personal beliefs.
It would be even funnier if it was written by the guy with the "wide stance"
what is it with those guys and airports? Larry Craig - what a twit! At least Spitzer likes women! In this economy, it's probably the only guaranteed job - and tax-free!
The no-political-stance rule applies both ways
this is not exclusive to just anti-war speakers. To remain non-profit pastors cannot endorse a political party or agenda, eventhough Reverends Jesse and Al do it all the time and they seem to get away with it. There is a church in my area who was threatened with having their non-profit status pulled due to the fact the pastor urged people to vote for Bush. Believe me this is not unilateral nor one sided.
Do you agree with this analysis of Jewish abortion stance? sm
Jewish beliefs and practice not neatly match either the "pro-life" nor the "pro-choice" points of view. The general principles of modern-day Judaism are that:
The fetus has great value because it is potentially a human life. It gains "full human status at birth only." 2
Abortions are not permitted on the grounds of genetic imperfections of the fetus.
Abortions are permitted to save the mother's life or health.
With the exception of some Orthodox authorities, Judaism supports abortion access for women.
"...each case must be decided individually by a rabbi well-versed in Jewish law." 5
Historical Christianity has considered "ensoulment," the point at which the soul enters the body) as the time when abortions should normally be prohibited. Belief about the timing of this event has varied from the instant of fertilization of the ovum, to 90 days after conception, or later. There has been no consensus among historical Jewish sources about when ensoulment happens. It is regarded as "one of the 'secrets of God' that will be revealed only when the Messiah comes."
I understand the moral stance, but feel the rhetoric is over-the-top.....sm
This man is NOT pro-abortion, as many of us are not. He is preserving the right of choice for ALL women, and does not believe that a poor woman who has undergone a rape, incest, domestic violince/intimidation situation, or even has just accidentally gotten pregnant with a child she cannot carry for medical, emotional, or financial reasons....I hate abortion also, but if Americans are to be equal, then a poor woman needs to have resources available to her which would be available to others, or you are damning her to the back-alley abortionists. That is reality. I, Myself, married 18 years, vigilantly spacing my children and on birth control, came up with an unexpected, very difficult pregnancy. Yes, we made the choice to love and take this baby into the world, but we also had SOME resources and family, some girls do not.
There are not many folk who are PRO ABORTION, but preserving the individual choice, though abhorrent to many of us, is part of true liberty. And God Himself will judge as appropriate.
And I do feel that those few who use abortion as a means of birth control, well there should be restrictions and a definite "no."
I think Larry Craig has the weird butt..he even has a wide stance! nm
x
|
