Yes, please enlighten us, because as far as all the credible economists on.....sm

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

I say all life is sacred or no life is sacred, no exceptions. You say ** it works for you but not for me and everyone knows it.** You will excuse my reference to Darwinism here but there IS a missing link. I also believe that all deaths matter, or no death matters at all.

What I am trying to say is every life, no matter when you believe it begins or ends, is sacred, EVERY life, that includes every living breathing person on this planet, even those you really really really don't like or those who have created heinous crimes. All life is sacred or no life is sacred, no exceptions. God, not you or me or W is the real decider.

Now, please advise how did you get from my simple statement the idea that this **won't work for me and everybody knows it.**

obviously know everything....how many detainees have been through Gitmo and how many have been "tortured."

Sounds to me like you have no sympathy for those people who were killed execution style by a former Gitmo detainee. All you do is consistently show sympathy for terrorists. Or is it just the fact that the people killed were Christians and so you don't care since you have obvious hate and disdain for anything associated with God.

Bush made mistakes and if you have your way...him and Cheney will be swinging from the nearest tree in no time.

However, how can you be so blind as to allow Obama to hurry up and close Gitmo with no place for the detainees? Do you want them all released? Do you want them sent back where they came from so they can start up killing Americans again? Or how about we put them in our own prison systems so they can recruit within our own country and then later be released here in our own country?

It seems to me that you seem to forgive them killing thousands of Americans in an act of terrorrism and yet you keep harping on harsh interrogations like that is worse than murdering thousands of Americans. How sad you are!

How do you handle this then? Terrorists who want us dead and will do anything to accomplish that. How do you deal with them? What is the source? Do we all convert to their religion? What? I'm curious as to what your solution is for this mess.

I still would like to see Obama go after the CEOs of these big corporations and banks the pocketed loads of money and walked away from a failing business. Why aren't they being investigated and tried for what they have done? Instead of we going after the past administration even though dems knew what was going on.

As for your information about Mohammed giving info until the harsh interrogations.....there are two sides to this story and until everything is released and looked into, all you go by is what MSNBC says and the rest of us go by facts.

Nancy Pelosi and other dems were brief on these interrogations and they did NOTHING. The government has only allowed part of the information to be unclassified. There is still other information out there that they have not brought to light and seem to be not wanting to bring to light. Wonder why....hmmmm.

The reason behind terrorist attacks is because they are Muslim extremists who believe their religion has called them to rid the world of people who aren't Muslim. No tea and cookies and friendly talks is EVER going to change that.

...in your Iraq stance you would be over there as part of the fight. End of story. No buts, no excuses. You would be over there and not relying on teenage kids and reservists to do your fighting for you.

Likewise, our powers that be (no names mentioned) would have multiple family members over there also. No buts, no excuses, no whining. But of course, they don't.

But of course, your butt sits in your comfy chair in your house as well as our Washington bosses' butts. And you sit in your chair belittling someone who does not support this war, or any war, and does what she can to help peace world-wide. She is an activist, you are not. You are merely a cheerleader for a violent cause as long as it does not involve you directly.

My boyfriend says the ultra-rights are angry cowards. What I have seen illustrated on the conservative board makes me think he is 100 percent correct.

Until they make the "documents" public, as they should, I cant believe everything this lady says .

"Ms. MonCrief admits that she left after she began paying back some $3,000 in personal expenses she charged on an Acorn credit card. "I was very sorry, and I was paying it back," she says"

Sorry, but she has reason to point the finger away from her. If this is all true, where are the documents to prove it? Where is the court transcript, where is the paper trail for the public to view. This is reporting, just like reporting about the Keating 5 and other issues that arise on both sides. Facts are NOT facts just because someone writes a news piece.

What I would tend NOT to believe is government figures as to how many are out there. I know for a fact that a friend of mine in 2000 received $2,000 per month from the VA, in addition to Social Security benefits of a few more hundred dollars, for his PTSD disability, along with free medication from the VA to the tune of 200 5-mg Valiums per month in addition to 200 15-mg Serax tablets per month.

I have no idea what today's monthly payments are to these veterans. After repeated unsuccessful attempts to commit suicide on the pills the VA gave him (with the full knowledge of the VA), he finally succeeded in 2000 and is no longer with us.

I know firsthand what the effects of this disease are. It's not conjecture. It's fact.

As far as a credible site, how about this VETERANS site?

http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/index.cfm?Page=Article&id=2468&NoMenu=1

Battling the Effects of War

Combat can wound the mind. New science helps vets from Iraq to cope

By Peg Tyre

Newsweek

December 6, 2004

It wasn't the gunshot wound in the arm that bothered Jose Hernandez when he returned home to Cincinnati after serving in Iraq. It was the lock on the front door. He couldn't relax until he secured it twice, three times and sometimes more. Even then he was still on edge. "I kept thinking about the things I saw over there�shooting on the streets, dead bodies and the terror in people's eyes. I couldn't get it out of my mind," says Hernandez, who served in the Army's 101st Airborne Division. He stopped sleeping, withdrew from friends and dropped plans to go back to college. His girlfriend finally demanded that he get help. A Veterans Administration psychiatrist diagnosed Hernandez with posttraumatic stress disorder, or PTSD, a potentially crippling mental condition caused by extreme stress.

Hernandez says he was one of the lucky ones. With a combination of antianxiety medication and talk therapy, his symptoms have begun to fade. Many of the 170,000 men and women now returning from Iraq and Afghanistan may not be as fortunate. When they get home, tens of thousands of them will be grappling with psychological problems such as PTSD, anxiety, mood disorders and depression. Though scientists are learning just how trauma affects the brain�and how best to help patients heal�there are still many obstacles to getting the treatment to the people who need it most. For starters, no one knows how many soldiers will be affected or how serious their problems will become. Early in the war the Army surveyed 3,671 returning Iraq veterans and found that 17 percent of the soldiers were already suffering from depression, anxiety and symptoms of PTSD.

Experts say those numbers are likely to grow. A study of Vietnam veterans conducted in 1980 found that 30 percent suffered from an anxiety condition later dubbed PTSD. Experts say the protracted warfare in Iraq�with its intense urban street fighting, civilian combatants and terrorism�could drive PTSD rates even higher. National Guard members, who make up 40 percent of the fighting force, with less training and less cohesive units, may be more vulnerable to psychological injuries than regular soldiers. Last year 5,100 soldiers who fought in Iraq or Afghanistan sought treatment in VA clinics for PTSD. That figure is expected to triple.

PTSD, a specific diagnosis, is not the only psychological damage soldiers can sustain. And experts say that mental disorders can make the already rugged transition from military to civilian life a harrowing one. Soldiers can experience depression, hypervigilance, insomnia, emotional numbing, recurring nightmares and intrusive thoughts. And in many cases, the symptoms worsen with time, leaving the victims at higher risk for alcohol and drug abuse, unemployment, homelessness and suicide. Sometimes families can become collateral damage. Christine Hansen, executive director of the Miles Foundation, which runs a hot line for domestic-violence victims in the military, says that since start of the Iraq war, calls have jumped from 50 to more than 500 a month.

Without treatment, some conditions such as chronic PTSD can be lethal. Five years after the Vietnam War, epidemiologists studying combat veterans found that they were nearly twice as likely to die from motor-vehicle accidents and accidental poisoning than veterans who didn't see combat. In a 30-year follow up, published in the Archives of Internal Medicine this year, the same combat vets continued to die at greater rates and remained especially vulnerable to drug overdose and accidental poisoning. "We had the John Wayne syndrome," says Vietnam veteran Greg Helle, who grappled with severe PTSD for decades. "We were men, we'd been to war. We thought we could tough it out." Doctors hadn't developed effective treatment for PTSD and besides, says Helle, seeking help was an admission of weakness.

Doctors now know that PTSD is the product of subtle biological changes that occur in the brain in response to extreme stress. Using sophisticated imaging techniques, researchers now believe that extreme stress alters the way memory is stored. During a major upheaval, the body releases massive doses of adrenaline which speeds up the heart, quickens the reflexes and, over several hours, burns vivid memories that are capable of activating the amygdala, or fear center, in the brain. People can get PTSD, doctors say, when that mechanism works too well. Instead of creating protective memories (ducking at the sound of gunfire), says Dr. Roger Pitman, a psychiatry professor at Harvard Medical School, "the rush of adrenaline creates memories that intrude on everyday life and without treatment, can actually hinder survival."

Why some people get PTSD and others don't remains a mystery. Recent studies suggest that a predisposition to the disorder may be genetic and that previous traumatic experiences can make soldiers more vulnerable to it. Once a soldier has it, though, says Dr. Matthew Friedman, executive director of the Department of Veterans Affairs National Center for PTSD, the good news is that the medical community now knows that "PTSD is very real and very treatable."

The challenge, says Friedman, is getting help�counseling or drug treatment�to veterans who need it most. As the Iraq war continues, officials at the Department of Defense and the VA are scrambling. After a rash of suicides among soldiers, they've increased the number of psychiatrists and psychologists in combat areas. Social workers trained to spot PTSD and other mental disorders are assigned to military hospitals around the country. Primary-care physicians at VA clinics and hospitals are now able to access combat records to see if their patients might be at risk for PTSD. Doctors are issued wallet-size reminders on how to spot PTSD and refer patients for further treatment. The VA has recently hired about 50 veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan to do outreach in the Vet Centers, a system of 206 community-based mental-health clinics around the country. But their resources are limited: Congress has set aside an additional $5 million a year for three years to deal with the new mental-health problem.

VA officials admit they're not catching everyone who needs help. National Guard members often do many tours and can be exposed to more combat than regular soldiers. But instead of rotating back to military bases where they can be monitored, they often return to their hometowns where readjustment problems can become a family crisis. If they begin to exhibit signs of PTSD or other psychological problems, they need to get help quickly. The VA will provide mental-health benefits for them for only two years following their service [The article is incorrect: Vet Center benefits are available for the remainder of a combat veterans life, not just two years; however, some physical care benefits are available for only two years].

Regular soldiers get mental-health benefits indefinitely.

Help came too late for Marine reservist Jeffrey Lucey. In July 2003, he returned home to Belchertown, Mass., from Iraq and gradually sank into a deep depression. His family looked on in anguish as he began drinking too much and isolating himself from their close-knit clan. By spring of 2004, he'd stopped sleeping, eating and attending college. When his sister Debra Lucey tried to have a heart-to-heart, "he'd describe the terrible things he'd seen and done," she says, "and he'd always end by saying 'You'll never be able to understand'." Frantic, family members had him committed to a psychiatric hospital but he was soon released. A few weeks later he crashed the family car, and the following month a neighbor found him wandering the streets in the middle of the night dressed in full camouflage with two battle knives he'd been issued in Iraq. Last June, Jeffrey Lucey hanged himself in the basement of his family home.

Shortly before he died, Lucey talked to an Iraq vet turned counselor at his local Vet Center. "He said he'd found someone who could really understand," says Debra. But before he could keep his next appointment, his demons took hold. Now Debra is telling her brother's story in the hope that others find the help they need in time. Psychological problems, she says, are an enemy that no soldier should face alone.

Can you point me to somewhere on Obama website that gets anywhere close to what this guy is talking about? The youtube was made by some obscure person, NOT showing the alleged speaker at any time. I have found no credible source for "barracks and uniforms" anywhere.

Personally I would support an addition to school curriculums that required community service as part of social studies. A local 4-H club leader called me the other day and asked if I could help her find community service opportunities for her 22 kids. I could and I did. I think before this economic mess is done we'll all help each other or we won't survive. There are a lot of opportunities for input on the Obama website. Time might be better spent flooding that site with your thoughts and concerns rather than posting here. I can promise you that I'm doing my part to flood the suggestion boxs, are you?

I worry more about the Clintons continued involvement in the government....like Ole Bill's "Foundation." .

I have read and researched everything about the birth certificate, his association with Ayers and everything else that was lobbied against him. I have found nothing to hold against him with the exception of preacher Wright and time will tell about that. After looking at the "evidence" on Factcheck, I am convinced his b/c is as credible as my own. I do not believe the Health Department of Hiawaii would have certified it if it were not so.

You can rest assured that I read everything about a subject which troubles me and Obama DID trouble me. Having heard him have news conferences and getting right down to business gives me somewhat more faith in him although I am still not convinced that he can undo what has been done the past 8 years and starting even before that, even if his intentions are squeeky clean. We are in for a VERY rocky road IMHO and we need to move on past the issues that have already been settled. The b/c on Factcheck leaves no doubt it is the real deal and the SC isn't going to find any differently...if they even hear the case. You are aware that they did not order him to produce the b/c by Dec. 1? They actually ordered him to answer...which of course he will do, to do otherwise would cause the complainant to win by default and he is not going to let that happen. It is customary in any court to give the defendent X number of days to answer a complaint. I should think you would know that. They can't "order" him to produce the b/c until there has been a hearing. I expect they will turn these frivilous suits back to the lower courts and refuse to hear any more about it.

I'm sorry I go back to this subject and it might have been discussed but can someone tell me the following. I am really curious because I keep seeing posts with people cutting down others and making fun of them and telling them the sources are not credible, but they will post their own sources. So...

Why is Factcheck (supporters of Obama) more credible than an independent fact checking site?

Why is Keith Olberman, Rachel Maddow, and others liberal talk shows more credible than Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or other conservative rado shows? (although I can't stand Rush and that little pipsqueek leprechaun Hannity), just wondering why the liberal radio shows are more credible than the conservative.

Why are independently written articles by people who some of them do not reside in the US but watch the political and economic scene here in the US, not credible (even though they are giving their opinions of what they see happening), but if there is a good article written about the liberal politicians those articles are credible.

Why are people made fun of and not called credible because they post articles about UFO's, yet our own Astronauts James Lovell, Frank Borman, and Buzz Aldrin actually did see UFOs when they were in space.

Why will people scream and shout and get so totally upset because Bush has not been impeached (which he should be), but when the people who had the authority to impeach him (Pelosi, Reid and others) never pushed for impeachment the same people screaming for impeachment keep silent.

Okay, my post originally started out to be about why some articles/sources are credible while others are not, but I am curious about the last paragraph and would like to hear people's viewpoints on all the issues.

Why is Factcheck (supporters of Obama) more credible than an independent fact checking site?