Your last paragraph is absolutely correct.
Posted By: Backwards typist on 2009-06-23
In Reply to: Definitely nuts, but not entirely stupid - C. Mudgeon
The UN is definitely weak. It could be because of some of the countries that belong to it have the same ideas as Iran and NK.
I wonder when the UN is going to pay up on their lease for the NY building they occupy. Probably never because they think they are above reproach.
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
That is absolutely correct...(sm)
Look it up. People who recieve food stamps are poor. Money in the hands of the poor and lower class means that they will SPEND it, whether it's in the form of money or food stamps. That's why it has the best return for the dollar. The tax cuts the pubs are proposing are for the wealthy (not the average American) and will be less likely spent.
As I've said NUMEROUS times on here, we have tried tax cuts again and again and again, and it has yet to be effective in stimulating the economy. It's like trying to run through a brick wall. I've tried it 3 or 4 times, have a serious concussion, but hey, lets try it again.
The whole problem with the economy right now (besides the housing and banking issues) is that people either do not have the money to spend or are not spending the money they have. That means we have a SPENDING deficit. So yes, food stamps are a very effective and quick way of getting that spending started again, unlike tax cuts.
On top of that, all the economists I have seen talk about this have already said they think the whole stimulus package, if anything, needs to be larger. So, what do pubs do? They take out spending (which is the whole point of the bill) and replace it with tax cuts, thereby making the spending portion of the bill SMALLER. This is nothing but partisanship from the pubs. They are so determined to have a say in this thing and stick to their Reaganomics philosophy (which has been proven to be ineffective) that in the process they are doing nothing but crippling the effectiveness of a package meant to help the American people.
If this thing passes as it is now with about half of it being tax cuts, don't be surprised when we have to turn around and do it again because the bill didn't have enough spending in it.
You are absolutely correct. nm
//
Absolutely correct.......
XX
You're absolutely correct, Sam.
rasberries
Unfortunately, you're absolutely correct.
nm
Yes, I did see the movie- and you are absolutely correct!!
The last paragraph of
this article is just tooooooo good. I would LOVE to see the Bush supporters actually really "go to Iraq," and for free!!!!
|
Sacrifice? Count Me Out
If You Supported the War, Pay For It
|
by Ted Rall |
|
If America is truly on a war footing," Thom Shanker asks in the New York Times, "why is so little sacrifice asked of the nation at large?" Military recruiters are coming up short of volunteers, yet neither party is pushing for a draft. No one is proposing a tax increase to cover the $60 billion annual cost of the Iraq and Afghan wars. There are no World War II-style war bond drives, no victory gardens, not even gas rationing. Back here in the fatherland, only "support our troops" car ribbons indicate that we're at war--and they aren't even bumper stickers, they're magnetic. Apparently Americans aren't even willing to sacrifice the finish on their automobiles to promote the cause.
"Nobody in America is asked to sacrifice, except us," the paper quotes an officer who just returned from a year in rose-petal-paved Iraq. "[Symbolic signs of support are] just not enough," grumbles a brigadier general. "There has to be more," he demands. "The absence of a call for broader national sacrifice in a time of war has become a near constant topic of discussion among officers and enlisted personnel," the general claims.
Northwestern University professor Charles Moskos says: "The political leaders are afraid to ask the public for any real sacrifice, which doesn't speak too highly of the citizenry."
To which I say: Screw that. It's not my duty to suffer for this pointless war. I've been against it all along, and you can stick your victory garden where the desert sun can't penetrate.
I was among hundreds of thousands of Americans who marched against invading Iraq in early 2003. Tens of millions cheered us on. The largest mass protest movement in history (so designated by the Guinness Book of World Records) brought together pacifists, humanists and people like me. We knew Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. We didn't believe that the same White House that propped up dictatorships in Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Egypt, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia--that had, when it suited them, supported Saddam--could possibly be interested in liberating the people of Iraq. When we scrutinized coverage of the CIA's prewar analyses, we found that there wasn't any. There were only reports dating back to 1998, ancient history in the intelligence business. We absolutely didn't trust Dick "cakewalk" Cheney's breezy predictions.
Bush and Cheney ignored our concerns. Instead of building a solid case and bipartisan political consensus, they bullied and lied to Congress and the UN to scam us into this unwinnable war. Who can blame them? They work for ExxonMobil and Halliburton, not the American people. But they, not us, broke Iraq. It can't be fixed, it's not our fault and it's not our problem. There's no reason to relinquish our creature comforts to back their grubby little oil grab.
The most galling aspect of this fiasco is that it was entirely predictable. I know; I predicted it. Here's my column written back in July 2002:
"Most experts expect Iraq to disintegrate into civil war after an overthrow of Saddam's oppressive Ba'ath Party," I wrote. "Opinion of the United States is now at an all-time low among Muslims around the world. Going after Iraq will make matters worse. Why give radical anti-American Islamists even more political ammunition with which to recruit suicide bombers and attract the financial donations that fund their assaults?"
I'm no genius, but even I could see that this war was doomed eight months before the invasion:
"Do the Kurds deserve a homeland? Sure. Would Iraq be better off without Saddam? Probably. But if we're smart, we won't be the ones to blow over this particular house of cards. We have too much to lose and too little to gain in the mess that would certainly ensue."
Did I call that one or what?
David Hendrickson, a scholar at Colorado College, tells the Times: "Bush understands that the support of the public for war--especially the war in Iraq--is conditioned on demanding little of the public." Of course, Bush himself hasn't given up a second of vacation or a single donated dollar, much less one of his hard-partying daughters, to the "war effort." Sacrifice is a hard sell down here among the citizenry when we don't see it starting where it should start, among our leaders.
I'm already sacrificing too much for a war I always believed was stupid and wrong. I'm paying three dollars a gallon for buck-fifty gas and walking through gauntlets of over-armed National Guardboys at airports and bus stations. I'm in greater danger than ever before of getting blown up by a pissed-off fanatic. And I dread the giant tax hike we'll eventually need to pay off Bush's deficit. But these aren't enough sacrifices for Bush and his vainglorious generals, who are planning "a Civilian Reserve, a sort of Peace Corps for professionals. . . a program to seek commitments from bankers, lawyers, doctors, engineers, electricians, plumbers and solid-waste disposal experts to deploy to conflict zones for months at a time on reconstruction assignments, to relieve pressure on the military."
If you voted for Bush, here's your chance to plant your butt where your ridiculous car magnet is, smack dab in the middle of the Sunni Triangle. Good luck.
© 2005 Ted Rall
### |
|
Might we see the whole paragraph?
context, you know, to make a valid decision?
The last paragraph.
Now I know Emanuel is chief of staff and why obama picked him, makes sense.
I agree with the last paragraph, as well.
This is definitely a campaign against the First Amendment, and I believe Bush will do whatever he can to silence people who either disagree with him or who catch him in lies (a full-time job in and of itself).
Bob Geiger - see 2nd paragraph
The last paragraph is why I posted it.
I am not at all convinced that the issue of abortion is a liberal or conservative stance. I think it tends to be tied to conservative because of its religious roots, but even that is debatable. Women throughout history regardless of religion have been having abortions. I believe it simply to be your own belief that really should not be attached to a political process.
As war is always a political process, the comparison isn't really fair is it? and I really, really hope that you are not referring to the war on Iraq because there is just too much refuting evidence to continue to believe we were justified in invading Iraq in the guise that we were defending ourselves.
How can you be pro-choice in the voice of war knowing that the very nature of it kills more people than abortion ever could? Just the war in Iraq alone has probably killed more people than the abortions in the United States in the past 100 years.
Makes no sense to me.
Ho hum, lost me after second paragraph
x
Your last sentence of the third paragraph was just as...sm
uncalled for, I believe, and untrue.
I like this paragraph in your post....
'For the most part I will find people who live in other countries and are observing what is going on here to be a lot more credible because they do not have an agenda.'
Right, and they are more objective as they are far away from it all.
you should forward that last paragraph
to the White House where they seem to think terrorists can be rational and reasoned with and will play nice with us.
In one paragraph you have not only told me more than I ever wanted to know.
You have outlined and described in perfect detail the problem with why your arguments can never be recognized as anything but dividing. Gt, believe me, this is not all about you, which it always seems to end up being about in your posts. The fact that you refuse, not fail, but refuse to accept anything, any explanation, any single example of the image you project as well as your close-minedness, is illustrated in every post that you make.
I agree with the assessment in the last paragraph.sm
They will use kiddie porn and so-called domestic terrorism to limit our use of the Internet. Everything is greatly exaggerated to induce fear, and then you will allow them to slice up more of your liberties.
Yes, and regarding that final paragraph re: Iran
Seymour Hersh has yet to get it wrong, no matter how much the King George and his men attack.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060821fa_fact
Here's your answer, 1st paragraph, 2nd line.
...Parade Magazine ASKED the President-elect, who is also a devoted family man, to get personal and tell us what he wants for his children.
He didn't take out an ad in the newspaper. He simply answered a simple question posed to him by a reporter on assignment. If you had taken the time to read more carefully and weren't in such a hurry to slam the man, you might have noticed that.
There was nothing superficial about his response. In fact, the only superficial thing around here is your post.
That would be great but one paragraph has me a bit leary.
"The announcement comes less than a month after the world's largest maker of microprocessors used in personal computers said it would close plants in Southeast Asia and scale back U.S. operations under a restructuring that affects as many as 6,000 employees."
What do they know? Are they afraid O is going to put extra taxes on businesses that do business overseas (which I hope), or are they being smart? Sorry if my sarcasm shows, but this will still affect 6,000 jobs in the U.S.? Why? Need to do some digging here.
The paragraph about early retirement
That's where DH is. Forced to retire because of no work (road construction). The stimulus money went to 2 cities in my state. The rest of the state got nothing towards road construction or very little.
We didn't get last year's stimulus check because we owed taxes and they put the money towards that. Now he's getting screwed out of the $250 because he wasn't retired when this happened. Never fails.
Remember that cartoon of the guy always under the grey cloud? That's us. 
Once again you wasted a whole paragraph telling me how stupid I am SM
without a SINGLE FACT! I give up with you. You are just too much (or too little). Whateva!
Your 2nd paragraph is complete and utter nonsense. sm
You wrote: 'Besides, a lot of atheists who try to disprove that God ever existed will usually come to the conclusion that there is too much evidence to prove that He does exist. It usually scares the you know what out of them and they become converts.'
And you know this how? I would say show me the evidence to back up this ridiculous claim, but I already know you have none. It's your opinion/religious propaganda, and it's blantantly false. You also have it backwards. You're implying people start out being athiest, then convert to religion. It's the other way around, when religious or secular people start questioning all the improbable/impossible things the bible is overflowing with, in addition to all of its inconsistenties and outright contradictions.
Forgive me if I doubt that you're an expert on athiests, and forgive me if I doubt your critical thinking skills, because religion frowns upon that - you're not supposed to question god or think for yourself, just obey his commands, or should I say, various human interpretations of his commands...
If there was indeed
'too much evidence to prove that He does exist' then everyone would believe in him. How could anyone deny it? They couldn't. But that's just it, there is no evidence to prove it, whereas there actually IS scientific evidence to the contrary, that you apparently are unaware of or haven't investigated.
Instead, you're willing to believe something based only on 'faith.' In every other area of your life where you'd want or even *demand* facts, proof, or concrete evidence before believing something so important, with religion (some) people are all too willing to blindly accept it on faith.
BTW, an athiest doesn't have to DISprove god (you can't prove a negative, anyway), you have to prove that he *does* exist, and you can't. And wouldn't you think if he really existed, he would prove it to the entire world's satisfaction anyway and put an end to the debate and all the relious wars, conflict, genocide, misery, suffering, etc? He'd rather we kill each over it? I think not. It makes no sense.
You also wrote: 'You can say all you want, but you just can't argue with a completely changed life'
Yes, I can argue it. You changed your life because *you* wanted to change it. You! Not some mystical, magical, invisible being in the sky who cares about your every thought and action. People change their lives for the better every day, without religion. IMO, if you hadn't found religion, you would've kept looking until you found something else that worked for you, and it probably would've been a lot healthier than the brainwashing, closed-minded, divisive phenomenon that is religion.
a spokesman for M/P issued the last paragraph so not sure how reliable
that would be. Odd how they added it at the end but did not say if it was a fact. It was supposed to be an investigative article. There is no way of knowing if that is fact, it is only what the McCain people say is true.
Cannot trust anyone it seems.
oops - one paragraph made NO sense of mine..sm
That's not to say that they are not entitled to feel what they feel and they are entitled to their opinions/voice..even though I just reread my post and it could be interpreted that way (and sorry for that) -
(above is the corrected paragraph - sorry *lol*)
This paragraph is in my post...I guess you forgot to read it...nm
Actualy, my cut-and-past job didn't miss the first paragraph
but appreciate your selective reading. Nice name, BTW.
You are correct
the thing is we can find common ground with people who we don't always agree with 100%. Blair tends to be more socialistic, but he is unified in the fact that terrorism is the worst threat to our world right now, and we have to stop it at all costs. Social agendas come second to him. Safety is 1st.
You are correct
I'm sure there are some wonderful people in Iran!! You included. It's good that you can the government is scary though. Here are some words from Iranian president AhMADinejad from just yesterday...
Ahmadinejad warned the West that trying to force it to abandon uranium enrichment would cause an everlasting hatred in the hearts of Iranians.
From your comments it sounds as if this a false statement since you love America. You of all people I'm sure appreciates America!!
Yes, of course you are correct
However, my post topic was literally just a couple posts below yours and it seemed unlikely that you would have not noticed the duplication in monikers. This board may indeed be available world-wide, however, there is a fairly small group of folks who routinely post.
My point was simply that your posting may have erroneously led folks to believe that I was posting both pro and anti-liberal messages within a few posts of each other. That would be rather confusing to say the least and it would be thoughtless to confuse and/or mislead anyone who might be using this board, whether in the U.S. or outside of the U.S.
You are correct about the $40K....
that is the SCHIP program as it has been over the past 10 years (although income levels have gone up some from the start of it). The expansion of the program was to include the $80K families. This bill was about expansion of the program. Letting the program continue as it was was not the issue. The expansion was the issue. Bush would not have vetoed it if they had not sought to expand it that much. They knew he would veto it if they left that in, and they wanted him to veto it to score political points. That I do not understand. Yes, some Republicans voted for it too, also for political reasons, so if the fallout was really bad they could come back and say "Oh i voted FOR it." Kinda like the Iraq war resolution...lots of Dems voted for it...yada yada.
I want to correct myself on the above...
I was wrong about the poverty level. The figure quoted for a family of four at 300% of the poverty line is $62,000 so he was close on that. However, the bill does not state those people over that level will not get on it. It says the matching rate from the feds might not be available. Then we have the EXCEPTION...the waiver. That opens the door for New York and every other state who wishes to, to expand the program as high as they want to go. That is what Bush was talking about. The waiver makes it possible, and not only possible, probable.
Just wanted to be sure my facts were correct.
Thanks.
Yes you are 100% correct!!!
By george you are right!!! EVERY SINGLE POSTER ON THIS BOARD IS ME!!!!!! Except for Observer, of course, and a few old American Girl postings! I admit it, I am guilty, you have caught me. I have authored every single post you read on here. It keeps me very very busy but it's worth it!!!
There I have "fessed up and I feel sooooooooo much better. Whew! Thank you Observer for helping me to do the right thing.
You are correct - however, you were the one...
Yes, you are correct, a lot of people don't give middle names second thoughts, and certainly there is nothing to worry about when mentioning his name in full, but when you smear it like its a dirty word, I call that a dirty shame. I was simply stating why don't you say Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton or John Sydney McCain, no you don't, therefore it seems when people don't treat one candidate equal to the other they are up to something. I have no problem with his middle name. I think its a beautiful name. I also think Sydney is a beautiful name.. Second just because someone posts a long post does not mean they copy from other articles. I happened to write the post myself, however, if you would like a much longer one there are plenty that I can copy and paste from - just let me know....happy to oblige. :-)
Correct!
Strange how it's permissible to spread all kinds of rumors about McCain but off limits to mention the facts about Obama's past and present associates, such as the Reverend whose sermons he claimed he never heard.
Sam would be correct
nm
You are correct and I think you are going to see it...
more and more as this campaign goes on. I think it has finally happened. The slumbering lion is waking up. :)
I am sure you are correct, but please,
be specific as me was.
Well.....if you are correct in
assuming that she and her husband aren't working their butts off....at least she isn't living beyond her means regardless of how many hours she works. At least she doesn't want a handout from the government and money given to her that she hasn't earned. There are people making as much as she does a year and are well beyond their means with toys, cars, homes, etc. Crying that they are victims and requesting a handout.
The most disgusting thing that I have ever seen was during Christmas. Every year my church does an angel tree. Every year I would take names of children and their ages and their interest and go out and buy them gifts so they would have something for Christmas. I wanted to help. What kid doesn't deserve a nice Christmas....ya know. So I went out and spent a lot of money on these kids. Come to find out....these kids weren't poor. Their parents drove newer and more expensive cars than I drove. The parents were only out for a free handout....and that sickens me. I felt used. I so wanted to help people who really needed help. Not people who were just looking for a free handout come Christmas time.
Unfortunately you are correct. s/m
Unions don't have any clout anymore thanks to the Reagan years. Without the ability to strike, what can they do? While my husband, as a retiree, has excellent benefits, it is something that is not available to workers retiring now and in the future. Fact is, we are worried that his benefits may be cut. They have raised the retirement age and will have to pay more for their medical insurance. Why? Because they have lost members. People who worked at CF with my husband and weren't of retirement age for the most part had to take non-union jobs which paid far less causing many of them to lose their homes and file bankruptcy. Did anyone hear about them? I guess not. That was in 2001 and truckers are worse off today than they were then as are most American workers.
People have let the unions that people fought for go down the tubes. American workers bought into the "unions have outlived their usefulness, aren't needed any more" from the Reagan years. Unhuh and we see how much the employers care about their employees now. Unions are no different than politics. They are no better or worse than the people who support them. Basically the clout of the unions came from people that had the fortitude to stand up for their rights and stand together. Unfortunately we don't have that any more, it's more like, "I've got mine, sorry about you."
Unfortunately, since McCain says Reagan is his hero, I expect if he is elected the American workers can expect to be further shafted. JMO of course.
You are correct on that one.
Consider that the tax issue will have to pass Congress unless my memory fails me. I would say middle-class is more like $80,000 to $150,000, depending on whether you fall at the lower or upper end. As I understand it what Obama is seeking to do is do away with Bush's tax cuts, which WILL affect just about everyone. The tax cuts, as many of Bush's policies, was a bad idea in the beginning. Now because of his poor management of the economy EVERYONE is going to pay more taxes and many of those free loaders we talk about may get told to get to work as they should be. Obama's plan appears to be to be nothing more than rolling back Bush's ill advised tax cuts in the first place.
You are correct..........sm
Arnold can run for Senate (provided he has his citizenship papers in order, and I believe he probably does. Not sure what the laws are in Kollyfawnya.) but he could never run for the POTUS or VPOTUS.
you are correct..it's still that way,
born and raised there, it doesn't change.
You are 100% correct. n/m
x
I would say you are correct
Is anyone really so ignorant that they think that if there was anything illegal about Obama's run for the presidency, that HILLARY first would not have exposed it? Certainly if she didn't McCain would have. Why do you suppose THEY let it go? Because it wasn't going to bear any fruit for them, that's why.
M is correct below - no, they did not
Bush gave his acceptance speech (like everyone does) then had respect for Clinton to finish out his term. Even though Clinton was a disaster too, Bush had the decency to wait until he was sworn in. I do remember hearing about who he was picking for cabinet members but he never held the press conferences that OMessiah is. Also, Clinton did not either. He too had respect for Bush Sr. This is just something you don't do. It is very disrespectful no matter how much you don't like or disagree with the outgoing president. You DON'T do it. They are not president yet and as far as I know the electorates have not even voted yet. So it is still not "cinched" that he is going to get in there. I do believe however he is giving so many press conferences (as many as he can get his face on the camera for) because can you imagine the outcry if the electorates do not vote him in. He's already preparing people to riot if he does not get elected. My take is that the more he gets his face on the camera, the more the idi@ts will believe he is already president. Then it puts pressure on the electorates and others that still have not voted him in yet that if they do anything to disrupt this there will be he!! for them to pay. O'Messiah knows what he's doing alright, but it doesn't make it right.
That is correct, but....(sm)
the middle man (the stores) get a share of that. As far as computers go, a lot of the components are made overseas, but there are some places here where they put them together. Then you have companies like Intel, who make computer chips, who have decided to move their stuff back to the US. Hopefully more will follow.
Correct
I do stand corrected. Thank you.
You are most definitely correct -
Many things our founding father said we should be listening to and following advice of, but they don't. They have an agenda to destroy all that is good in our country and they don't care anything about what the founding fathers went through to make this a great country. They understood very well what was happening and it's happening once again.
I should correct what I said about
straight people. I think that SOME straight people don't get marriage. Sorry if I offended anyone.....that wasn't my intention.
|
