You write/fax/call your state senators over and over and over
Posted By: and over again...that's what you do! nm on 2009-06-22
In Reply to: what choice do I have but to wait and see what he does? - Amanda
--
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
Hold your president responsible!! Call your senators!!
XX
David Ogden - please write or call your reps
Obama has picked a man called David Ogden to be deputy Attorney-General. Ogden has made his legal career from representing pornographers, trying to defeat child protection legislation and undermining family values. As reported this week, he once represented a group of library directors arguing against the Children's Internet Protection Act, which ordered libraries and schools receiving funding for the Internet to restrict access to obscene sites. And on behalf of several media groups, he successfully argued against a child pornography law that required publishers to verify and document the age of their models, which would have ensured these models were at least 18.
The Family Research Council has more examples of his contribution to upholding American and western values. In one such case, he expressed the view that abortion was less damaging to a woman than having children:
In sum, it is grossly misleading to tell a woman that abortion imposes possible detrimental psychological effects when the risks are negligible in most cases, when the evidence shows that she is more likely to experience feelings of relief and happiness, and when child-birth and child-rearing or adoption may pose concomitant (if not greater) risks or adverse psychological effects ...
In another, co-authored brief, he argued that it was an unconstitutional burden on 14-year old girls seeking an abortion for their parents to be notified -- because there was no difference between adults and mid-teens in their ability to grasp all the implications of such a decision:
There is no question that the right to secure an abortion is fundamental. By any objective standard, therefore, the decision to abort is one that a reasonable person, including a reasonable adolescent, could make. [E]mpirical studies have found few differences between minors aged 14-18 and adults in their understanding of information and their ability to think of options and consequences when asked to consider treatment-related decisions. These unvarying and highly significant findings indicate that with respect to the capacity to understand and reason logically, there is no qualitative or quantitative difference between minors in mid-adolescence, i.e., about 14-15 years of age, and adults.
You cannot call an apartheid occupier and state sponsored terrorist "democracy"
Israel is a US-sponsored puppet regime, just like Saddam was in the 80s and the Shah of Iran was in the 60s and 70s. We all know how they ended up. JTBB said it well before in a post a few days back. They are no more than a bishop in a regional chess game.
Israel's so-called wealth and war chest has been amassed on the backs of US taxpayers over the years and their land has been "fertilized" with generations of Palestinian blood that deeply soaks its fields, alley ways, highways, byways and city streets. One of those geographic shortcomings is the water they fill their swimming pools with while they cut Palestinians off from their anemic water supplies. Nice folks, those Israelis.
The Palestinians do not have to "paint" themselves as anything as long as they are occupied and blockaded. That speaks for itself. Denying the occupation ranks right up there with denying the Holocaust. Shame on you. For the last time, you cannot bring God into the ungodly. You would do well to put your spiritual self into a meditative trance and read up on the real history of the region.
Two Border State Governors Declare Illegal Immigration State of Emergency
Two Border State Governors Declare Illegal Immigration State of Emergency
SIGN THE PETITION!
CLICK HERE!
THANK YOU!
You can have our federal money along with a new state motto: "Michigan - The Slave State". n
NM
#1 & #3 most liberal senators
It's a fact. The one between them is none other than Ted Kennedy! He's #2! Obama is #1, Biden #3.
How can so many people buy into this spin? Cuba thought they found their true messiah, too. Castro promised them change and something new, and look where that got 'em.
Senators and Congressman
If you have a senator or congressman up for reelection this year, are you going to automatically vote against him/her? I know people say they are mad as he@@ at the present congress, so I was wondering how people were planning on voting. I haven't decided yet, so I really need to start looking at who is up for reelection in my district.
I emailed both my senators........... sm
about him last night. I hope enough people will call, write or email their senators and let them know that this man has no business in the AG office.
What IS Obama thinking???? I wonder how he would like it if he found his daughters being exposed to the very websites this man fought to protect?
Sadly, some of the senators, if not all,
think we DO want this. Doesn't matter how many calls they get. They think we just love mortgaging ourselves, our children, and our grandchildren.
There are a few that are fighting against the bill as it stands but....and I know a certain person will blast me for this but Schumer, Dodd, and Kerry absolutely screamed today that this package is what HAS to pass. Schumer stated right out that it's what the people want. Kerry stated there was no reason to cut anything from it. Dodd stated that the TARP package has money in it to help with the mortgage debaucle so why they want amendments to the tune of $9B in this one was beyond him.
So, if there is money in TARP for the homeowners, why aren't the homeowners being helped? No rocket science in that. The banks and Wall Street are keeping it.
They just don't get it.
Well, I'm glad to see that neither of my Senators.......... sm
were the Republicans who voted for it. Texas has spoken.....FWIW! LOL!
I just contacted my senators
and as politely as I could told them that I was not happy with the the direction our country is going. I also told them both that if they vote yes to cap-and-trade, I will vote against them come next election.
Everything you list here is shared by all the other senators ....
serving. This is legislative experience. It is not executive experience, and it is not foreign policy experience. Obama admitted it, that is why he chose Biden. I choose to believe him.
As far as executive experience...she has run a state, a multibillion dollar budget, made executive decisions every day.
He is running for PRESIDENT. She is running for VP. She has more government running experience than he does. His qualification is running a presidential campaign. Ah. I see. And I thought it was the campaign managers who did that.
She IS more qualified.
It is the way of a democracy. I keep in touch with my senators and one...sm
lone representative. I pay attention to whether they vote in my best interest and are honest in their dealings and let them know if I disagree, and vote or not vote for them in the next election. You are naive if you think that democrats are solely responsible for this meltdown. Looking for the other party to blame is counterproductive and will help no one. Money hungry greed is what has led us to this and both parties are to blame.
Senators, etc, don't have the same security clearance as
the president. Do a little research on the subject. Face it, if the chosen one gets in we are screwed, without the benefit of dinner and a movie first.
Not necessarily....enough Repub senators ....
remain so that the democrats don't have a filibuster-proof majority. So if the repubs grow a backbone and stand up...the dems will be somewhat limited in what they can do. We shall see how it all turns out. But yeah...the potential for a major hosing will still exist.
Laws vary state-to-state
Many people were confined against their will just because someone wanted them "out of the way." These were normal people with no mental illness - that is why it is so difficult - don't blame the liberals. Blame your state.
CONFINING THE MENTALLY ILL
In the legal space between what a society should and should not do, taking action to restrict the liberty of people who are mentally ill sits in the grayest of gray areas.
Our notions about civil and constitutional rights flow from an assumption of "normalcy." Step beyond the boundaries and arrest and prison may legally follow. Short of that, government's ability to hold people against their will is severely and properly limited. Unusual behavior on the part of someone who is mentally ill is not illegal behavior. Freedom can't be snatched away on a whim, or on the thought that a person is hard to look at, hard to hear, hard to smell.
It was only a few decades ago that the promise of new medications and a change in attitude opened the doors of the mental hospitals and sent many patients into society. There, they would somehow "normalize" and join everyone else, supported by networks of out-patient facilities, job training, special living arrangements and regular, appropriate medication. But the transition has been imperfect, long and difficult.
In some parts of urban America there is little professional support for those with mental health problems. A new generation of drug and alcohol-fueled mental illness has come on the scene. People frequently end up on the street, un-medicated and exhibiting a full range of behaviors that are discomforting at the very least and threatening at their worst.
There are children of congresspeople and Senators serving...
from both sides of the aisle.
Serious question...you do not view a radical Islamist with a nuclear weapon dangerous?
Didn't I hear some senators say that passage of....sm
the "bail out" would not preclude bringing those people criminally responsible to justice? I am for that. Let's see if either candidate steps up to the plate and advocates that now that the bail out has passed.
I am personally involved and communicate with my senators...sm
and represenatives. However, I have talked until I am "blue in the face" to people who believe everything they are told by their church, their husband, their wife or their parents, etc. Unless I am talking to someone who has an open mind and not willing to follow the pied piper and check their facts, I am wasting my breath. Of course, I keep trying. LOL.
I e-mailed my senators telling them the same thing! nm
nm
Call me what you want, just don't call me late for dinner. LOL....
GP, I like your sense of humor.
You call it hysteria, some call it concern for the
nm
Red state, blue state?
Written last Thanksgiving: "Some would argue that two different nations actually celebrated: upright, moral, traditional red America and the dissolute, liberal blue states clustered on the periphery of the heartland. The truth, however, is much more complicated and interesting than that.
Take two iconic states: Texas and Massachusetts. In some ways, they were the two states competing in the last election. In the world's imagination, you couldn't have two starker opposites. One is the homeplace of Harvard, gay marriage, high taxes, and social permissiveness. The other is Bush country, solidly Republican, traditional, and gun-toting. Massachusetts voted for Kerry over Bush 62 to 37 percent; Texas voted for Bush over Kerry 61 to 38 percent.
So ask yourself a simple question: which state has the highest divorce rate? Marriage was a key issue in the last election, with Massachusetts' gay marriages becoming a symbol of alleged blue state decadence and moral decay. But in actual fact, Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the country at 2.4 divorces per 1,000 inhabitants. Texas - which until recently made private gay sex a criminal offence - has a divorce rate of 4.1. A fluke? Not at all. The states with the highest divorce rates in the U.S. are Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas. And the states with the lowest divorce rates are: Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Every single one of the high divorce rate states went for Bush. Every single one of the low divorce rate states went for Kerry. The Bible Belt divorce rate, in fact, is roughly 50 percent higher than the national average.
Some of this discrepancy can be accounted for by the fact that couples tend to marry younger in the Bible Belt - and many clearly don't have the maturity to know what they're getting into. There's some correlation too between rates of college education and stable marriages, with the Bible Belt lagging a highly educated state like Massachusetts. But the irony still holds. Those parts of America that most fiercely uphold what they believe are traditional values are not those parts where traditional values are healthiest. Hypocrisy? Perhaps. A more insightful explanation is that these socially troubled communities cling onto absolutes in the abstract because they cannot live up to them in practice.
But doesn't being born again help bring down divorce rates? Jesus, after all, was mum on the subject of homosexuality, but was very clear about divorce, declaring it a sin unless adultery was involved. A recent study, however, found no measurable difference in divorce rates between those who are "born again" and those who are not. 29 percent of Baptists have been divorced, compared to 21 percent of Catholics. Moreover, a staggering 23 percent of married born-agains have been divorced twice or more. Teen births? Again, the contrast is striking. In a state like Texas, where the religious right is extremely strong and the rhetoric against teenage sex is gale-force strong, the teen births as a percentage of all births is 16.1 percent. In liberal, secular, gay-friendly Massachusetts, it's 7.4, almost half. Marriage itself is less popular in Texas than in Massachusetts. In Texas, the percent of people unmarried is 32.4 percent; in Massachusetts, it's 26.8 percent. So even with a higher marriage rate, Massachusetts manages a divorce rate almost half of its "conservative" rival.
Or take abortion. America is one of the few Western countries where the legality of abortion is still ferociously disputed. It's a country where the religious right is arguably the strongest single voting bloc, and in which abortion is a constant feature of cultural politics. Compare it to a country like Holland, perhaps the epitome of socially liberal, relativist liberalism. So which country has the highest rate of abortion? It's not even close. America has an abortion rate of 21 abortions per 1,000 women aged between 15 and 44. Holland has a rate of 6.8. Americans, in other words, have three times as many abortions as the Dutch. Remind me again: which country is the most socially conservative?
Even a cursory look at the leading members of the forces of social conservatism in America reveals the same pattern. The top conservative talk-radio host, Rush Limbaugh, has had three divorces and an addiction to pain-killers. The most popular conservative television personality, Bill O'Reilly, just settled a sex harassment suit that indicated a highly active adulterous sex life. Bill Bennett, the guru of the social right, was for many years a gambling addict. Karl Rove's chief outreach manager to conservative Catholics for the last four years, Deal Hudson, also turned out to be a man with a history of sexual harassment. Bob Barr, the conservative Georgian congressman who wrote the "Defense of Marriage Act," has had three wives so far. The states which register the highest ratings for the hot new television show, "Desperate Housewives," are all Bush-states.
The complicated truth is that America truly is a divided and conflicted country. But it's a grotesque exaggeration to say that the split is geographical, or correlated with blue and red states. Many of America's biggest "sinners" are those most intent on upholding virtue. In fact, it may be partly because they know sin so close-up that they want to prevent its occurrence among others. And some of those states which have the most liberal legal climate - the Northeast and parts of the upper MidWest - are also, in practice, among the most socially conservative. To ascribe all this to "hypocrisy" seems to me too crude an explanation. America is simply a far more complicated and diverse place than crude red and blue divisions can explain.
I don't know what state you live in but in my state
they are adding police and only in the big cities do they have paid firemen. The rest are volunteers.
I look at it this way: If a state can't stay in the black, then they have to cut spending some place that wouldn't jeopardize the safety of the citizens. Threats of cutting essential services like Barney Fife stated today are unjustified. Cut the non-essential services first.
Our governor talks about cutting back on services, laying off government workers, which I think is a good idea because government is too big anyway, but then he turns around and spends more money on non-essential items. Doesn't make sense.
How many did it take to write this note?
Just wondering.
I know you didn't write it. sm
Another obvious glaring error. Bill Clinton. Not on the list.
They need to write a better bill
This is a mute point now, because the bill was vetoed by the Pres.and for good reason. Why do we have to accept bad bills? This was a poorly written bill, and that's the reason it was vetoed. Why all the vagueness? $83,000 per year is hardly poverty level. If this bill was truly going to help poor kids then write it that way. I don't understand why it has to be so vague. To me it reeks of dishonesty and pork.
Write a good understandable bill...what's the problem with that?
You need to write some more posts
on this board because you really seem to know what you are talking about. Maybe you can explain the popular vote versus the electorial vote to some of the people in posts further up that don't believe thier votes count.
Can't you still write in your vote for someone else?
because they don't like either candidate. Actually, I'm in that boat right now. I don't like either one of them. OTOH, I want to vote because it's my one chance to be "heard," even though I largely agree that the media and politicians have already chosen a president for us (look at Ron Paul--he was able to garner such a large following online where the media couldn't control the people that I think they were actually worried he'd throw a kink in their plan so he was basically shut out in the media). If they weren't trying to control our vote, why else do they shut out any coverage on certain candidates and cover every word said by others? Why wouldn't they just cover all equally and fairly? I'm looking into whether I can still write in a candidate other than the 2 yahoos the current media has chosen for us. Wouldn't it be wild if everyone wrote in someone else and that person won out over both of them? LOL I know, it's a dream, but still, it'd be really cool if that happened and showed the media and politicans of this country that USA is still run BY THE PEOPLE!
What possible write-in candidate has all the necessary
exists, then why were they not nominated?
Maybe he will just write a check... sm
That's what my son used to tell me to do when I told him I didn't have any money. "Just write a check, Mommy," 
Levity, people........... LEVITY!!!!
Interestingly, you write:
"Obama is flying on the premise that he is innocent until proven guilty..."
That's what the Constitution you claim to support so much demands: Innocent until proven guilty (and not a word about "flying on the premise" of same).
I'm just curious. Once this bogus b/c issue is "officially" revealed as such by the SC, you have promised to let this issue go.
What's next on your list to pound this man into the ground about? Because it's obvious that you're never going to give him an honest, fair chance to be a good president. (He hasn't even been sworn in yet.)
So what's the next bogus issue on the agenda that will be raised to continue to try to drag him (and the country) down?
My last question: Did you complain as vigorously about George W. Bush's blatant contempt for the Constitution that you claim to love so much?
The one who is going to write a book
for our country and how he kept our country safe for the last 7 years from terrorists. He could not state it while he was in office, but now he can write a whole book about him being in office. I felt much more secure with Bush than I will with O as he still scares me.
I was just going to write that. No message
x
I did not the write the post, CNN did.
I am glad Obama succeeded in a human life. Hopefully Obama will succeed in the 2 wars of many and the economy, etc. I am glad the Captain was rescued by the SEALs.
If you do not like what I write, MOVE ON.
Your own words. Stick to it and do as you preach.
My goodness - you'd better write and tell someone
Hardly quite that simple or people way smarter than you or I would have solved it. The studies on the effectiveness of preventive measures, incidentally, study people who DO participate in prevention - not those who don't.
you can write to the network
I did and let them know they should be embarrassed for pimping themselves out for this biased promotion instead of two-sided reporting on an issue and told them one less viewer would be looking to them for any attempt at fair reporting. There is a link on their website to contact them.
Relax, I didn't write it.
It was simply for amusement and speculation, not of scientific value.
The Democrats did not write this book.
A man who calls himself a **Christian conservative** did. He was I believe the #2 man on the **faith-based initiative program.** His name is David Kuo. He is a Republican. I think he will be on 60 minutes tonight. I have seen a couple of recognizable names from the Christian right denounce the white house after hearing some of the things Kuo writes. I am anxious to hear what Kuo himself says.
I am a Christian and I do not feel stiffled at all about voting.
Exactly...well, they did manage to write and get passed...
one piece of legislation...the "reform" bill that was supposed to straighten out Fannie/Freddie...instead was the straw that broke the camel's back...forced them to offer those floating rate mortgages to low and moderate income people and the creditworthiness of said people was not to be an issue. The floating rates went UP, and a bazillion people went into foreclosure, and if the Bush admin had not stepped in and taken over, the economy could very well have collapsed. The "reform" bill, plus the crooked Dems at the top of Fannie/Freddie, just about did us in this time. Other than that piece of legislation, they have not done a blessed thing in the year they have been in charge. That is why their approval rating is in the tank.
Not voting for Obama either. Will write someone in instead. nm
//
Well, then explain to us how voting for a write-in
Nobody ever agrees completely with ANY candidates full agenda. You pretty much have to look for the main ideas that matter to you most, at that particular point in history. Sometimes you have to vote for those, and let other principles ride for a while. Not easy, and I HATE letting anything slide in order to vote for what is a more pressing issue to me. But the 'perfect candidate' has not, does not, and never will exist. So we've gotta do the best we can with what we've got to work with.
Boy, that never gets old. Never. You should write Osamabama's speeches.
nm
Don't worry, I'll still write. nm
x
I can't write too fast anymore, but here's what I did get
1. Fiscal Stimulus Plan: Before or after inauguration (sp). Wants to get it moving quickly, but if he has to wait until January 20, so be it, but states he will try during these couple months to push one through now.
2. Retooling assistance plan for automakers for fuel-effieicnt cars. He realizes that the auto industry employs thousands and other companies depend on the auto industry for their jobs. Wants this package done quickly.
3. Review implementaion of plans and not rewarding management for housing problems that are caused.
4. Grow middle class in the long term.
Reporters asked questions but couldn't get them all.
1. He wants to help the states financially.
2. As to going to other countries for conferences: He is developing a team and weighing all his options. Iran's nuclear weapons are unacceptable along with the militants. This has to cease. It's not something he can do in a knee-jerk fashion and wants to be careful (not to p--s them off).
3. Tax plan: 95% of WORKING Americans will get it. His first goal is tax relief for struggling families and to build the economy from the bottom up.
That's all I could get.
Hillary can write another book
And her debt will be wiped clean or pretty near to it. She just is greedy and wants everyone to pay for her expenses. Her and Bill make enough money to wipe out their (or her) debt.
This is ridiculous that the DNC is asking people to give for them. We're already going to be paying a ton for the bail outs they gave a few weeks ago.
M, did u write the post Vie is referring to?
just wondering
i didn't write that - shows what you don't know
x
Question: When repubs. speak (or write), why is every
.
So tired of reading you write McClain....nm
x
|
