Would like to respond, but need more info....
Posted By: Just curious on 2008-07-11
In Reply to: A little more unsettling news about Obama... - sam
I have been a bit out of touch the past week or so (looking for a job) and have not heard about Obama's latest remarks regarding sanctions, coalitions and the like. Could you please cite your sources for this information? It sounds like spin to me, but I like to keep open mind. You are right about much food for thought and I would like to enter this discussion once I know where this is coming from.
IMO, the sanctions against Iraq have very little to do with "punishing" Sadaam and more to do with serving US interests in destabilizing the region as a whole, thus facilitating US ambitions of securing and maintaining "oil"igarchy in the Middle East. We have been doing that ever since the late 1940s. Examples abound. Don't get me started.
The Iran sanctions discussion is a moot point. We have imposed sanctions against Iran ever since the Islamic revolution in 1979. Over the years, these have been extended and have become so harsh, there really is nothing left to sanction. This has succeeded in fueling the hatred Islamic extremists hold toward the West and emboldened their leaders, who have been quite resourcesful in bypassing US sanctions by forming alliances with other western and eastern countries.
With regard to "international coalitions" against Iran, I would be more worried about the Bush Administration covert operations as described recently by Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/04/17/060417fa_fact) than anything Obama may come up with.
Still, I would be interested in learning more about these remarks you find so troubling.
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'm sorry, I just HAVE to respond here...
This is just bunk. How arrogant can human beings be? To think that we can manipulate this planet in such profound ways is ridiculous. This is a dynamic planet. These things have always happened, and always will. The world has reinvented itself at least twice. It will shake us all off like fleas off a dog, if it chooses to do so. Not that we shouldn't be good custodians of the planet, but we don't even come CLOSE to having the kind of control that the environmental loons seem to believe. Reminds me of that movie Armgageddon where Bruce Willis is standing out on that oil rig hitting golf balls at a Greenpeace boat screaming at them asking them how much diesel does that boat you've got there use?
And lastly, the United States cannot be single handedly blamed for a supposed case of global warming? That people think that, specifically liberals, shows you just how political the whole thing is, and very little to do with science. Last time I checked there was a great big huge INHABITED world beyond our shores, and they're also especially good at polluting this planet that we all share.
cant respond right now
Im sorry, first thing in my morning reading your post after watching thousands without anything and knowing they are going to DEMAND what they need..Geez, Im sorry, I cant post response right now..Im too upset..Later today, I will however respond, I promise.
So why did ya respond?
If ignorance is bliss, the Obama-land is the happiest place on Earth! Screw Disneyland!
Respond away.
You claimed I was the first to bring it up and I wasn't.
Dixie Dew: Please respond to this!
Okay. Now you're back on the right.... er left.... er CORRECT board! Please stay here, okay? 
Wow. I really don't know how to respond to your post. sm
But you support the troops...right?
Please do not respond observer
Please do not respond to my posts *Observer*. This is the liberal board and my posts are to my fellow democrat/liberals not to a ring winger. I have nothing in common with you or right wingers, in fact, I cannot stomach right wingers, their ideas, what they have done to this country under their president. Do youself a favor, go back to the conservative board or just skip over my posts and dont even read them.
It is immaterial to me if you respond to me or not, LD...
still a free board, still a free country, still able to state an opinion. You do not have to waste your time or energy reading my responses. With all due respect of course.
Know you are not going to respond, don't mind....others might want to know...
any fire department employee is paid for by some branch of government...city, county, etc. They are all in essence government employees. Like any other city or county employee...like law enforcement. Los Angeles County FD, Orange County FD, they were the most heavily involved in fighting the Malibu fire, I believe. Generally volunteer firefighters are used where the municipalities cannot afford to pay firefighters, or for outlying areas that town firefighters do not cover. So I suppose that means firefighting is socialized anywhere the town, city or county government can afford it...not sure that qualifies as socialized firefighting. They are not universal firefighters all controlled from Washington, so really not similar to what socialized medicine would be. Control is at the local city or county level.
911 Widows Respond to Coulter
Statement of September 11th Advocates
Response to “Godless”
For Immediate Release -- June 6, 2006
We did not choose to become widowed on September 11, 2001. The attack, which tore our families apart and destroyed our former lives, caused us to ask some serious questions regarding the systems that our country has in place to protect its citizens. Through our constant research, we came to learn how the protocols were supposed to have worked. Thus, we asked for an independent commission to investigate the loopholes which obviously existed and allowed us to be so utterly vulnerable to terrorists. Our only motivation ever was to make our Nation safer. Could we learn from this tragedy so that it would not be repeated?
We are forced to respond to Ms. Coulter’s accusations to set the record straight because we have been slandered. Contrary to Ms. Coulter’s statements, there was no joy in watching men that we loved burn alive. There was no happiness in telling our children that their fathers were never coming home again. We adored these men and miss them every day.
It is in their honor and memory, that we will once again refocus the Nation’s attention to the real issues at hand: our lack of security, leadership and progress in the five years since 9/11.
We are continuously reminded that we are still a nation at risk. Therefore, the following is a partial list of areas still desperately in need of attention and public outcry. We should continuously be holding the feet of our elected officials to the fire to fix these shortcomings.
1. Homeland Security Funding based on risk. Inattention to this area causes police officers, firefighters and other emergency/first responder personnel to be ill equipped in emergencies. Fixing this will save lives on the day of the next attack.
2. Intelligence Community Oversight. Without proper oversight, there exists no one joint, bicameral intelligence panel with power to both authorize and appropriate funding for intelligence activities. Without such funding we are unable to capitalize on all intelligence community resources and abilities to thwart potential terrorist attacks. Fixing this will save lives on the day of the next attack.
3. Transportation Security. There has been no concerted effort to harden mass transportation security. Our planes, buses, subways, and railways remain underprotected and highly vulnerable. These are all identifiable soft targets of potential terrorist attack. The terror attacks in Spain and London attest to this fact. Fixing our transportation systems may save lives on the day of the next attack.
4. Information Sharing among Intelligence Agencies. Information sharing among intelligence agencies has not improved since 9/11. The attacks on 9/11 could have been prevented had information been shared among intelligence agencies. On the day of the next attack, more lives may be saved if our intelligence agencies work together.
5. Loose Nukes. A concerted effort has not been made to secure the thousands of loose nukes scattered around the world -- particularly in the former Soviet Union. Securing these loose nukes could make it less likely for a terrorist group to use this method in an attack, thereby saving lives.
6. Security at Chemical Plants, Nuclear Plants, Ports. We must, as a nation, secure these known and identifiable soft targets of Terrorism. Doing so will save many lives.
7. Border Security. We continue to have porous borders and INS and Customs systems in shambles. We need a concerted effort to integrate our border security into the larger national security apparatus.
8. Civil Liberties Oversight Board. Given the President’s NSA Surveillance Program and the reinstatement of the Patriot Act, this Nation is in dire need of a Civil Liberties Oversight Board to insure that a proper balance is found between national security versus the protection of our constitutional rights.
###
September 11th Advocates:
Kristen Breitweiser
Patty Casazza
Monica Gabrielle
Mindy Kleinberg
Lorie Van Auken
Stand down. If you respond, she will repeat herself
an over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
Kudo's to you. I was hoping you'd respond
to the tactics of those who try to silence others who don't agree with them.
Mom always told me you don't like the channel change it, you don't have to watch something you don't want to. Same with the posters. If they don't like what you have to say, ignore it and move on.
Life's too short.
Glad you can laugh....I should know better than to respond to you...nm
I hesitate to respond to this because I'm an Independent and see good and bad
in both liberals and conservatives.
Believe it or not, liberal/independent people can be pro choice, believe in God, love America, would like to see all nations free, and most of all, supports our troops.
First of all, we love our country so much that we have respect for the Constitution. Being pro choice or pro life is a direct result of your religious/spiritual beliefs. The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion for ALL people, even those who don’t subscribe to the same religion as YOU. The concept of when life begins relies 100% on religious beliefs. If I believe that life begins at the moment of conception, then the best way I can honor my God my religion is to not ever have an abortion. What I DON’T believe is that I have the right to impose my religious beliefs on every American in this country via laws. If I do that, I’m infringing on THEIR religious beliefs. The same hold true for stem cell research. If you don’t believe in it, then don’t participate in it. But don’t prevent others who don’t agree with you from reaping the life-saving benefits it may offer. In fact, some of us might think those against this research are anti-life, rather than pro-life, since they don’t seem to care at all about saving the people who are already here. A reasonable person of any faith might ask why in the world God gave us the technology if he/she didn’t want us to use it.
We further believe in the Constitution’s promise that we have freedom of speech. There is no doubt in my mind that you were surrounded by pro Bush people at a pro Bush rally. Were you actually in the same room with President Bush, though? You may have been. I, on the other hand, would never be allowed to attend one of his "town hall" meetings because he prescreens people and doesn’t let anyone in who doesn’t agree with him or might challenge him. Some of us would definitely think this is a very anti-American practice.
As far as other moral values are concerned, I personally don’t believe in lying. My personal God doesn’t care for that very much, either. The entire world was lied to by President Bush concerning the war in Iraq. What’s much worse than that is that he used the tragedy of 9/11 to propagate a war against the leader of a country that wasn’t associated with 9/11 in any way. He used the vast support he received during the Afghanistan invasion after 9/11 to achieve the goal he had before he was even elected President: To declare war against Saddam Hussein. He did this on the blood and backs of every victim of the Twin Towers attack. My personal God really has contempt for that kind of behavior.
As far as getting rid of God "from the publics views," I have yet to hear of one church/synagogue/mosque or other public religious building being shut down by a liberal. Liberals have EQUAL respect for all religions and are against one particular religion receiving favor over another. To bring Jesus’ name into the political arena or an arena paid for by the tax dollars of everyone diminishes other religious beliefs. There are people whose religious beliefs don’t include Jesus, and some liberals see the "My God is better than your God" game to be very dangerous in a country that claims to provide freedom of religion for all.
Finally, regarding our troops: Nobody has more respect for our troops than I do. It’s the President who seems to have no respect. The difference between me and President Bush is that I place much more value on each of their lives. I would never be so reckless with the lives of our children as to send them into an unplanned war, refuse to provide them with adequate equipment to fight that war and protect themselves, and lie to them about their release dates in order to hold them hostage. For several months in a row now, the military has failed to reach their recruitment quotas, which is no surprise to me. I want our troops to come home, ALIVE AND WELL, and that is a direct result of the respect I have for him all. Their lives should not be sacrificed casually for a false reason. Their lives should only be on the line when we are protecting ourselves from a direct threat. Perhaps if Bush cared enough about this country 30-some years ago and served combat duty in Vietnam, he would have more respect for our troops. But his wealth and privilege came to his rescue, and he was able to wiggle out of it. He never had to know firsthand what it’s like to wake up every morning (if indeed you’re that lucky) to wonder if this day is going to be your last. Perhaps if he did, he’d have more respect for our troops today.
Everyone supported the President when he sent troops to Afghanistan after 9/11. Unfortunately, we can’t leave Iraq right now. Bush "broke it," and now WE are MORALLY obligated to fix it. God only knows when that will happen. It’s not, as he and his cronies promised in the beginning, going to be a quick war, and contrary to what he declared in his well-planned photo op, "Mission Accomplished" by a long shot. The terrorists must figure that the odds are pretty good in their favor if only ONE suicide bomber can kill multiple people, Americans and Iraqis, in a single hit. And they’re not going away. They’re only getting stronger all the time because Bush created a haven for them in Iraq. So much for respecting our troops. And how are we going to "fix" the mess he made in Iraq when we simply run out of troops because young people refuse to enlist because they’ve lost faith in him and don’t trust our government any more? He promised he wouldn’t impose a draft. If/when he ultimately DOES impose it, I think a GREAT photo op for him would be when he accompanies Jenna and Barbara as they enlist. I don’t think I’ll hold my breath for that one.
Did you know that part of the Iraq war budget includes a comprehensive health care plan for every Iraqi citizen? I personally think it's very immoral for a President to take care of others in another country when his own Americans are in the midst of such a health care crisis.
He’s apparently too concerned about "spreading freedom" all over the world to guarantee that same freedom is safe from peril here at home. I recently heard that al Qaeda is now joining drug lords from Central America to cross our carelessly unprotected borders and enter the country. They figured out they can do this successfully because their complexions are similar, and they can easily pass as someone of Latin descent. There is a myriad of other things this President should have done to make this country safer. But he’s too busy obsessing on his personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein. If he had put 1/100th of the effort into finding Osama bin Laden, we would have captured him by now. If he had put 1/100th of the effort into taking precautions concerning nuclear plants and other entities in this country, we actually WOULD be safer today.
Just because someone has tolerance and respect for all religious beliefs; perhaps has his or her own style of respect and support for our troops by wanting to keep them alive and using their service carefully, thoughtfully, and judiciously; believes a person already born and living in this country is a citizen and that an embryo isn’t; believes that we should clean up our own country before trying to clone more like it all over the world; and believes that the Constitution should be the written document that is relied upon to form laws and that religious documents should be left to churches and other houses of worship, doesn’t mean he or she doesn’t love this country, doesn’t believe in God, doesn’t have morals, isn’t a good person and doesn’t have values, and, most importantly, doesn’t support our troops.
The fact that you seem to think it does and would even ask that question, though, makes me wonder somewhat about you.
Just a hint. Next time respond to a post,
read it first.
This isn't about the ACLU, or an agency LIKE the ACLU.
I think you would be hard pressed to find a liberal who agrees with NAMBLA or any organization like them that is in favor of sexual exploitation of children. I don't think prison is even good enough for them. I think they should get the death penalty.
Maybe if you would have actually taken the time to READ the post, you would see it has nothing to do with your response.
Oh, before you call me a liar. I did respond to the flat tax,
but I brought my responses back here.
You didn't respond to Yepper's post.
I don't feel the need to make the choice. It's a child, not a choice. n/t
I am unable to respond to leaps in "logic" that
rasberries
I made a mistake and was trying to respond to the post below by *LOL* when I wrote that.
in the article you posted, nor did I see the word *impeach* anywhere in the article.
I agree with your comments and with the article you referred to, and I understood the comments of LOL to mean that the article was responding to some sort of "talking points" and using the word impeach often, when in fact, it can't be found once in that article.
As far as impeaching Bush, I believe time will tell. I personally believe he's guilty of war crimes, and that his war will be judged to be illegal before the end of his "reign as King of the USA." (if we all manage to survive that long).
The mere fact that he led us into this war based on lies should be enough to impeach him.
If I offended you, then I truly apologize. I agree with you and I'm glad you posted this article. I surely wouldn't have referred you back to the very article you obviously read and posted and tell you to educate yourself, and in no way, shape or form do I believe you are ignorant; far from it.
If you posted the LOL statement below, then I apologize for misunderstanding what you meant by it.
I made a mistake when posting my post, and instead of winding up under the intended post, it wound up under yours instead. Again, I'm sorry if I offended you.
LOL! Not bright enough to respond intelligently to a wonderfully written
If you know some good democratic blog sites, please respond to this post with the links. nm
Thanks.
Here's a little info for you.
You brandish the name of your saviour like it was a badge of honor.
Did it ever occur to you that some people don't believe in your religion/saviour? Perhaps it never occurred to you that there are OTHER RELIGIONS out there in this world that other people believe in. Your salvation might be another person's idea of mythology.
It's kind of sad that your religious philosophy is to shove your crap down everyone else's throat.
Bush is a nutcase. This country is going down the tubes. And, after reading the blurb above about how he said God told him to clean up the mess in Iraq and God told him to declare war on the mideast, I fear that this country is really in deep doo-doo. I shudder to think what the next three years will be like under this administration. A president has to please ALL THE PEOPLE, not just one segment of the population.
As far as the supreme court and the abortion issue, well let's put it like this. If abortion becomes a crime AGAIN - women will be like third world citizens - AGAIN. Abortion will not stop, it will go back to the alleys, backrooms and other dirty places where it used to be done and women will DIE. And to use a worn-out phase - If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one.
Here is more info. sm
The term New World Order (NWO) has been used by numerous politicians through the ages, and is a generic term used to refer to a worldwide conspiracy being orchestrated by an extremely powerful and influential group of genetically-related individuals (at least at the highest echelons) which include many of the world's wealthiest people, top political leaders, and corporate elite, as well as members of the so-called Black Nobility of Europe (dominated by the British Crown) whose goal is to create a One World (fascist) Government, stripped of nationalistic and regional boundaries, that is obedient to their agenda.
Listen to the Zionist* banker, Paul Warburg:
We will have a world government whether you like it or not. The only question is whether that government will be achieved by conquest or consent. (February 17, 1950, as he testified before the US Senate).
Their intention is to effect complete and total control over every human being on the planet and to dramatically reduce the world's population by two thirds. While the name New World Order is the term most frequently used today to loosely refer to anyone involved in this conspiracy, the study of exactly who makes up this group is a complex and intricate one.
The corporate portion of the NWO is dominated by international bankers, oil barons and pharmaceutical cartels, as well as other major multinational corporations. The Royal Family of England, namely Queen Elizabeth II and the House of Windsor, (who are, in fact, descendants of the German arm of European Royalty - the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha family - changed the name to Windsor in 1914), are high level players in the oligarchy which controls the upper strata of the NWO. The decision making nerve centers of this effort are in London (especially the City of London), Basel Switzerland, and Brussels (NATO headquarters).
Would welcome info.
I would like to hear both your thoughts on stem cell research. I know little about it, really.
don't know where you get your info from
Probably some whack-job radio show who spew only one side (their side). The hatred those shows put out I still don't understand why people listen - or believe it! Guess they all feed off of "hate". And its on both sides! I've voted both. I voted for Clinton the first term. Two weeks later got a rude awakening on what he was about. Voted republican the next time. Then voted against Gore cos I didn't want a third term Clinton, but I wasn't voting for Bush, I was voting against and it has been like that ever since. You said McCain has more insight into the real world? Are you kidding? He is like Bush - exactly alike! He does not have insight into the real world and everytime he says something he has to be corrected by his closest peers. It reminds me of when I was watching Regan and Nancy Regan had to help him along. McCains wife is a billionairess. I have seen nothing to show that McCain will help the people. All he's interested in is keeping the war going for the next hundred years. Then somewhere along the line someone must have told him its popular among the people and they'll vote for you if you tell them you have a plan for bringing the troops home, so he started saying that. The truth is he has no intention of bringing troops home. And if the war ends in Iraq/Afganistan he'll send them somewhere else. He refuses to sit down and talk to leaders of other countries. Just "take-em-out". As for new world order. Take another look ....they are all for it. This is nothing new with leaders - Hillary especially. What she has in her sights is creating one world government and she wants to rule over it. But I've been listing to Obama talk and I hear nothing of that (I'm still not voting for him, but I haven't heard any of what you seem to be hearing). As for him changing the Seal of the US President - I sure don't know where your getting your info but that is just plain wrong. Sounds like something Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or some other nut case republican radio show host is saying. And as for his church. I have heard other people talk about the church and it is not all hate. So they take a sound bite from one sermon and blow it up. Let's talk about Hague (a supporter of McCain), or how about Fallwell when he was alive (another supporter of the republicans). They are the most hateful and biggotted people. They don't talk about love (unless you happen to be their religion). You can keep religion. I want to be closer to God so therefore I am staying away from all churches. So go ahead and vote republican, I myself will be thinking for myself and deciding for myself, not what someone else tells me I should do.
Info
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26496189/
Here is some info...
In the middle of this blog's home page is a section called "Seriously?" in which someone's comments are quoted incredulously. It currently features John McCain and his reply at Saturday's Saddleback Forum when asked to define "rich": "I think if you're just talking about income," McCain said, "how about $5 million?"
To be fair to McCain, his answer was more nuanced than that.
As soon as he said it, he gave the following qualification (note, too, his own use of the word "seriously"):
I don't think, seriously that—the point is that I'm trying to make here seriously—and I'm sure that comment will be distorted, but the point is...that we want to keep people's taxes low and increase revenues.
...So it doesn't matter really what my definition of "rich" is because I don't want to raise anybody's taxes. I really don't. In fact, I want to give working Americans a better shot at having a better life. And we all know the challenges, my friends.
McCain's answer was a good one. He refused to play the game of defining "rich," because the premise of that game is that "rich" people aren't taxed enough. The percentage of one's income forked over to the federal government is hardly the best indicator of one's contributions to the American economy—not least because it assumes lawmakers spend the money wisely. Allow individuals to retain their earnings and they invest in companies, buy new cars, or remodel their houses—all of which keeps the economy humming. As hard as it is to imagine, even nitwitted Paris Hilton has her benefits. Her spending sprees keep shops open, salespeople employed, and importers, manufacturers, marketers, and a whole host of others in business.
But what was Barack Obama's answer to what constitutes rich? A family earning $250,000. Given that he proposes raising the top marginal rate to 39.6 percent, that would mean the family is left with $151,000—and that's before local, state, property, and sales taxes.
So for Obama, leaving a family with $151,000 means they're rich? Er, "Seriously?"
Really...SERIOUSLY???
Some info for you on the ads
Said I wouldn't be back because of all the bickering and fighting going on, but I came here today to let you know about the following information. I think everyone will find it interesting.
WGAL-TV reporter Matt Belanger will be looking at the ads of both candidates in the coming weeks and break them down so we can be INFORMED voters. Here are his first investigations. He will be doing this every week until election day. It may help some people on this board make up their minds without going to the trash sites for garbage news. Enjoy and PLEASE STOP FIGHTING!!!!
If the links don’t work, go to www.wgal.com and in the search box at the top left, put in “Video 8: On Your Side.”
http://www.wgal.com/video/17508920/index.html
http://www.wgal.com/video/17491060/index.html
Thanks for this info. I would like to see it, too. nm
x
A little info on this......
http://www.waronfreedom.org/dox/BONoUsCitizen.htm
More info here....
http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/08/did_il_abortion.html
August 22, 2008
Did IL abortion law protect babies aborted alive?
Sean Hannity has done a fabulous job covering the Barack Obama/Born Alive scandal.
For the past 2 nights his liberal counterpart, Alan Colmes, has proposed rationale far and away from Obama's original reason for opposing the IL Born Alive Infants Protection Act, which he stated on the IL State Senate floor in 2001, at the genesis of this debate:
I just want to suggest ... that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny....
I mean, it - it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.
Colmes has maintained, quoting from last night's show, "there was already a law in place that said that in the unlikely case that an abortion would be - cause a live birth, a doctor should provide immediate medical care for any child born alive."
Here are Hannity and Colmes segments from August 20 and August 21, debating Obama's opposition to Born Alive:
Was there a law in place? As National Review Online's Ramesh Ponnuru explained in a column August 20...
IL law has rules - loophole-ridden rules, but rules - requiring treatment of babies who have "sustainable survivability." If an attempted abortion of a pre-viable fetus results in a live birth, the law did not protect the infant. Nurse Jill Stanek said that at her hospital "abortions" were repeatedly performed by inducing the live birth of a pre-viable fetus and then leaving it to die. When she made her report, the attorney general said that no law had been broken. That's why legislators proposed a bill to fill the gap.
National Right to Life adds:
Obama's defenders... fail to mention that the law covered only situations where an abortionist decided before the abortion that there was "a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb."...
Moreover, as [liberal columnist] Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune notes (August 20, 2008), "Prosecutors in IL entered into a consent decree in 1993 agreeing not to prosecute doctors for apparent or alleged violations of this law based on 'born alive' definitions or other definitions." To read or download the consent decree to which Mr. Zorn refers, click here.
Also see this letter we received from Republican pro-life IL Attorney General Jim Ryan in July 2000 stating he could find no law Christ Hospital was violating (click to enlarge):
![Jim](http://www.jillstanek.com/Jim%20Ryan%20letter%20page%201-thumb-500x822.jpg")
info about AP
They are now free to put opinions in their so-called news. Check it out if you don't believe me. It's not like it wasn't that way previously, but now it's out in the open.
Thanks for the info....(sm)
I hadn't really thought that much about how much manipulation Israel itself does with these groups. I've always looked more from the aspect of US intervention and backing. I'll have to read up on that. Thanks.
More info...........
This lady did give birth prematurely to the child (only 3 to 4 months pregnant) with several severe conditions and, of course, it still is in critical condition, and this was in January she gave birth.
So if the child is living and in critical condition, the mother is now in custody and in jail and could face 20 years in prison, why is it our precious president thinks it's no big deal to allow late term abortions, allow a STILL living aborted baby to lie in a bucket until dies an agonizing death because Obama says it doesn't deserve medical care even though the child is still alive and abortion didn't kill it, and the doctors and nurses present aren't put in jail and the mother who chose to have this sick procedure isn't put in jail?
This country is going to he!! in a handbasket fast!!!
thanks for the info
Thanks for the nice reply - I was a little hesitant to post, thought I might get blasted as I realize this can be a sensitive topic.
I just posted because I believe there were misconceptions about what a universal sytem might entail. And obviously any attempt so have something similar in the United States would be a massive undertaking and probably would be a different model than what we have. Just want to mention a couple of things. Someone mentioned government interference, not specifically referring to Canada, but more to the US. There really isn't much here - everyone has a health card and wherever we go we use it. Within your own province and going to most other provinces (excluding Quebec, where they always like to be different) most of the time there is no government-related paperwork, no permission for tests/surgeries/etc., and everything is between the patient and doc.
I realize some doctors would no longer be involved in direct patient care, but some here are not as well, although I would think universal coverage would mean fewer doctors needed as legal consultants, people wouldn't need to sue to cover their medical bills?
Another bonus. I've been working as an MT for 29 years, for many different places, have never been employed at a place where our work is sent offshore (probably happens, but not to such a degree). Maybe combination of health care not being run by private interests and I believe we have stricter privacy laws covering all personal information, including health-related.
Thanks
Where did you get your info?
I saw nothing in the bill that included all you included in your statement. As I read it, it just allows for stiffer penalties for hate crimes.
I would definitely like to check this out more.
Actually, thanks for posting this....appreciate the info.
Not sure what all the rants are all about. You were simply echoing what Santorum said in a tongue-in-cheek kind of way. Thanks for sharing this article.
A little info PK, or should I say *Stephen*
Your...his post was deleted because they were accompanied by profanity. The usual left spin machine is in full swing here.
If you simply follow the rules and don't curse people you will find your posts have true staying power.
This is interesting info, but does not add anything to...sm
THIS debate. Not buying it...Clinton can not be used as a scapegoat here.
If you believe the allegations and conspiracy theories against Clinton, why turn a deaf ear to Bush? That is partison ignorance.
and I too had to pass on this info
http://share.triangle.com/node/13576
The questions remain :
What is Barack Husein Obama - a Senator from Illinois - doing when he is interacting with a violent rebel, muslim leader in Kenya who may have been responsible for the murder of dozens of innocent people burned to death simply because they took refuge in a church?
What is Barack Husein Obama doing when he interferes in the internal operations of a foreign nation like Kenya?
Are you going to let a well organized and well financed representative of a foreign government push his way any further into your national government?
How many more people have to die before Americans come to understand that Barack Husein Obama is not a product of the land of Lincoln?
Born in Hawaii he spent most of his life in the violent and backward nation of Indonesia – where not too long ago the Australians had to stop the Muslims from killing all the Christians in East Timor.
When will this blood soaked travesty of our national political system come to an end? When will the mocking smirk of our enemies be wiped from our television screens?
Change they want? With the gun? With the torch?
THanks for the info. I think others here could benefit from it also.
Thank you for sharing. I really didn't know that.
Got this info on Kilkenny...
According to Ann Kilkenny, a Democrat who observed City Council, Palin also brought up the idea of banning some books at one meeting, but did not follow through with the idea.[18]
This is the Kilkenny who wrote the email. Obviously the story has changed.
I cannot find anything to verify the size of the deficit other than heresay. I guess the only way you would know is fly up there and look at the city records. Out of curiousity I did Google average city budget deficits, and when I saw all the cities here and all the deficits...
And I would also need to know if that "surplus" was an actual surplus or another one of those phantom "projected" surplusses. I cannot find anything concrete on that either.
I'm sure reliable info is out there somewhere...... sm
but it would be hard to find. Any national coverage for the UAW would be the same, I would think, as the national coverage that Obama wants to put in place for all Americans.
one of many places for this info
And plenty more will be posted here. I hadn't even heard of Democratic Underground. Classy!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,419964,00.html
Your info is wrong
Show me the link that shows McCain is blaming Obama. I keep searching and am not finding it. Everything I am finding says "McCain is blaming Obama allies" (not Obama himself as you stated).
I did find an article that says "McCain all but blames Obama for the crisis". The article then goes on to state that two years ago McCain called for reform of the curruption at FM/FM and congress did nothing (I believe we have a democratic congress). Senator Obama did nothing and actually profited from this system of abuse and scandel.
The fact of the matter is that Obama was taking the money and he received more than anyone in congress except for the democratic chairman of the committee that overseas them. If you want to talk about corrupt you should start first with Obama and find out why he kept accepting money and why he isn't paying any of it back.
Here's the article in full so you can read it for yourself. Another lame try from the liberals at trying to take the focus off of what Obama has done (or not done).
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/McCain_pitchfork_in_hand_blames_Obama_allies_for_crisis.html
More info on Obama
OBAMA/AYERS PUSHED RADICALISM ON SCHOOLS
Turns out their relationship runs much deeper than Obama's campaign lets on. |
Permalink | ShareShare | E-Mail
visiting www.spectator.org has sent you a link to the following story:
You can read this story in its entirety on the web at:
http://www.Spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13459
Freedom and the View From Obamaland
By Jeffrey Lord
From talk radio to oil and guns, the left’s chilling vision of the future emerges.
FYI: Many Dems do NOT want passage of The Fairness Doctrine, knowing full well that it'll come right around to bite them. That's not even considering the obvious fact about silencing freedom of speech. Also, think how irate 60 Minutes, etc. would be when the conservative view would have to be instilled into their shows. It's the goose/gander thing.
|
So many assumptions......so little info
Here ya go again. If there is info that doesn't look great about Obama, then one must be a McCain supporter. Look, I can't help it if the person you want in office is disliked by his own VP and his own VP choice has already said Obama is NOT the man for the job. He has no experience. It's fact....deal with it. It just goes to show ya what strange bed fellas get together. All Biden wants is to get his foot in the door 4 years from now. He has no faith in Obama and probably also took the job to keep an eye on his disasters while in office.
Biden actually is a McCain lover, sorry to pop your bubble on that. He sings nothing but praises for John McCain BUT he can't do that for Obama. Even Biden can't stoop to lying about a man he doesn't care for, even if he is of his own party.
Where did you find all this info?
I know he didn't put his hand over his heart during the national anthem, but I haven't heard about him not saying the pledge, saluting the flag, or not shaking the hands of soldiers.
I do feel that Obama is someone that we need to question. I think his followers are in for a big surprise if Obama gets elected. But putting aside all of his associations, etc.......Obama will not help this economy. He puts Bush down for the deficit going up and if you add up all of Obama's government plans and spending.....he will actually add more to the deficit. To raise taxes on anyone during this kind of crisis isn't good for the economy. There aren't enough "rich" people to tax to pay for all Obama wants to do. It isn't feasible.
I don't make enough money and I will be one of the supposed 95% that benefits from Obama's plan. However, I still don't think him taxing only the rich is a feasible thing and I don't want a government handout. Not all of that 95% are working people and they will basically get a welfare check with money they didn't earn. Just let me have and keep the money I earn. I don't want money taken from others who earned it. That isn't right. I want the American dream. I want what I have because I earned it....not because it was given to me and taken from someone else.
I've always been told by my parents that you will feel good about yourself if you work hard and achieve something. Getting a monthly welfare check with money you didn't earn at the expense of hard working individuals isn't achieving anything. It is doing nothing but penalizing hard work. It is destroying the American dream. Why strive to achieve something when the government is going to take it away from you and give it to someone who didn't strive to achieve anything?
Latest info
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/17/obamas-lead-falls-two-points-in-new-cnn-poll-of-polls/
Now you get your info from wikipedia?
??
Info on Obama on FNC
Make up your own mind about Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers. It's on now, but check your own TV schedules. It also repeats. FYI.
Pretty scary.
|
