Home Contact Us

Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

man, I left out Reagan

Posted By: why can't we be friends on 2008-11-11
In Reply to: promises, promises - why can't we be friends

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHXq8TRejow&feature=related

Complete Discussion Below:

marks the location of current message within thread

promises, promises - why can't we be friends
- man, I left out Reagan - why can't we be friends

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

Ron Reagan
Is great and tells it like it is. Keep spreading the TRUTH, Ron.

Non-Reagan is an idiot. sm
He's a disgrace to his father's memory and to his living mother. He knows nothing! Come on people. You can do better than this! I would accept Alan Colmes or Dan Rather, but NON REAGAN???? Unbelievable!

And Reagan?..he armed
was fighting Iran. We were in bed with Saddam, when Reagan was president...have you forgotten that? What does that make us?

When your hero, Reagan,
he apparently made you blind. Remember this when more of our infrastructure (already started with levees in Louisiana) falls apart and you wonder why there are more pot holes and you can't afford basic necessities. Look around, it's already happening.

Poverty Increases as Incomes Decline Under Bush

September 21, 2005
By Gene C. Gerard

The day after Hurricane Katrina hit, exposing much of the public to the tragic conditions of poverty in America, the Census Bureau quietly released its annual report entitled, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States. In some respects, it provided a demonstrable backdrop to the pockets of poverty common to New Orleans and other cities. It also explained why, despite President Bush's assertion last month that, Americans have more money in their pockets, many people aren't faring as well as they once did.

The report indicates that in 2004 there was no increase in average annual household incomes for black, white, or Hispanic families. In fact, this marks the first time since the Census Bureau began keeping records that household incomes failed to increase for five consecutive years. Since President Bush took office, the average annual household family income has declined by $2,572, approximately 4.8 percent.

Black families had the lowest average income last year, at $30,134. By comparison, the average income for white families was $48,977. The average pretax family income for all racial groups combined was $44,389, which is the lowest it has been since 1997. The South had the lowest average family income in 2004.

Interestingly enough, as the Economic Policy Institute notes in their analysis of the Census Bureau's report, not all families did poorly last year. Although the portion of the total national income going to the bottom 60 percent of families did not increase last year, the portion going to the wealthiest five percent of families rose by 0.4 percent. And while the average inflation-adjusted family income of middle-class Americans declined by 0.7 percent in 2004, the wealthiest five percent of families enjoyed a 1.7 percent increase.

Earnings also declined last year. This is despite the fact that Americans are working harder. Since 2000, worker output per hour has increased by 15 percent. Yet for men working full-time, their annual incomes declined 2.3 percent in 2004, down to an average of $40,798. This decrease was the largest one-year decline in 14 years for men. Women saw their earnings decrease by 1 percent, with an average income of $31,223, the largest one-year decline for women in nine years.

Women earned only 77 cents for every dollar earned by men last year. Clearly, the gender gap remains real and pervasive. In all major industry sectors, women earned less than men. In the management of companies, women earned 54 cents for every dollar earned by men; 57 cents in finance and industry; and 60 cents in scientific and technical services.

Not surprisingly, the report revealed that poverty increased last year. There were 37 million (12.7 percent) people living in poverty, an increase of 1.1 million people since 2003. This was the fourth consecutive year in which poverty has increased. In fact, since President Bush took office, 5.4 million more people, including 1.4 million children, have found themselves living in poverty. There were 7.9 million families living below the poverty level in 2004, an increase of 300,000 families since 2003.

The average income last year for a poverty-stricken family of four was $19,307; for a family of three it was $15,067, and for a couple it was $12,334. The poverty rate increased for people 18 to 64 last year by 0.5 percent. The South experienced the highest poverty rate of all regions.

The Census Bureau report also demonstrated that health insurance coverage remains elusive for many Americans. Those covered by employer-sponsored health insurance declined from 60.4 percent in 2003 to 59.8 percent in 2004. Approximately 800,000 more workers found themselves without health insurance last year. The percentage of people covered by governmental health programs in 2004 rose to 27.2 percent, in part because as poverty increased, more Americans were forced to seek coverage through Medicaid. The percentage of the public with Medicaid coverage rose by 0.5 percent in 2004.

Last year was the fourth consecutive year in which employer-sponsored health insurance coverage declined. A total of 45.8 million Americans are now without health insurance. The uninsured rate in 2004 was 11.3 percent for whites, 19.7 percent for blacks, and 32.7 percent for Hispanics. Not surprisingly, the South had the highest portion of the uninsured population, at 18.3 percent.

Although we haven't heard President Bush say it much lately, he came into office as a self-professed compassionate conservative. But as the report by the Census Bureau suggests, which was sadly symbolized by the plight of many poor residents of New Orleans, the country hasn't seen much of that compassion in the last five years.

Many Americans are working harder, earning less, and without the benefit of health insurance. It's easy to understand why the report was released a day after the largest natural disaster in a century, when much of the country was distracted.

Bush and Reagan....
Each had one known accusation...the woman who accused Bush had definite mental problems (see below) and the accusation against Reagan was in the 50's...one accusation. Clinton has had several of all kinds of sexual allegations made against him. Like I said, I know Juanita Broaddrick. Bottom line, Reagan and Bush had one isolated allegation against them...see below for the one against Bush. Not hardly the same thing at all. I did not say Clinton was morally bankrupt because he was a Democrat...he is a Democrat who happens to be morally bankrupt. Was and still is.

George W. Bush Rape Allegation

In 2002, Margie Schoedinger of Missouri City, Texas, a writer of Christian books, filed a pro se lawsuit against George W. Bush alleging that Bush had raped her in October 2000.[9]. The complaint also claims that she had been harassed, that she had been drugged and sexually assaulted numerous times by Bush and two other men purporting to be FBI agents, that her bank account had been interfered with, and that she had been threatened and beaten. There was no substantiating evidence for any of her claims. The suit also claimed Bush raped her husband, Christopher. Christopher allegedly served a year in prison after pleading no contest to assault charges against his wife. He later filed for divorce.

Many believed Schoedinger suffered from mental disorders. Among American newspapers, Schoedinger's ordeal was covered only by the local Fort Bend Star, whose editor is said to have off-handedly opined, I had heard she was a nut case. [10]

This lady later committed suicide.

no--Reagan was generalizing
it just applied to Obama. We can learn from things that people have said in the past.

If you can't spell REAGAN, I don't want you to have a gun nm
nm

Former Reagan official: Is another 9/11 is in the works?

(There is NOTHING this administration could do that would surprise me. )

March 16, 2006

Is Another 9/11 in the Works?

by Paul Craig Roberts

If you were President George W. Bush with all available US troops tied down by the Iraqi resistance, and you were unable to control Iraq or political developments in the country, would you also start a war with Iran?

Yes, you would.

Bush�s determination to spread Middle East conflict by striking at Iran does not make sense.

First of all, Bush lacks the troops to do the job. If the US military cannot successfully occupy Iraq, there is no way that the US can occupy Iran, a country approximately three times the size in area and population.

Second, Iran can respond to a conventional air attack with missiles targeted on American ships and bases, and on oil facilities located throughout the Middle East.

Third, Iran has human assets, including the Shi'ite majority population in Iraq, that it can activate to cause chaos throughout the Middle East.

Fourth, polls of US troops in Iraq indicate that a vast majority do not believe in their mission and wish to be withdrawn. Unlike the yellow ribbon folks at home, the troops are unlikely to be enthusiastic about being trapped in an Iranian quagmire in addition to the Iraqi quagmire.

Fifth, Bush�s polls are down to 34 percent, with a majority of Americans believing that Bush�s invasion of Iraq was a mistake.

If you were being whipped in one fight, would you start a second fight with a bigger and stronger person?

That�s what Bush is doing.

Opinion polls indicate that the Bush regime has succeeded in its plan to make Americans fear Iran as the greatest threat America faces.

The Bush regime has created a major dispute with Iran over that country�s nuclear energy program and then blocked every effort to bring the dispute to a peaceful end.

In order to gain a pretext for attacking Iran, the Bush regime is using bribery and coercion in its effort to have Iran referred to the UN Security Council for sanctions.

In recent statements President Bush and Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld blamed Iran for the Iraqi resistance, claiming that the roadside bombs used by the resistance are being supplied by Iran.

It is obvious that Bush intends to attack Iran and that he will use every means to bring war about.

Yet, Bush has no conventional means of waging war with Iran. His bloodthirsty neoconservatives have prepared plans for nuking Iran. However, an unprovoked nuclear attack on Iran would leave the US, already regarded as a pariah nation, totally isolated.

Readers, whose thinking runs ahead of that of most of us, tell me that another 9/11 event will prepare the ground for a nuclear attack on Iran. Some readers say that Bush, or Israel as in Israel�s highly provocative attack on the Jericho jail and kidnapping of prisoners with American complicity, will provoke a second attack on the US. Others say that Bush or the neoconservatives working with some black ops group will orchestrate the attack.

One of the more extraordinary suggestions is that a low yield, perhaps tactical, nuclear weapon will be exploded some distance out from a US port. Death and destruction will be minimized, but fear and hysteria will be maximized. Americans will be told that the ship bearing the weapon was discovered and intercepted just in time, thanks to Bush�s illegal spying program, and that Iran is to blame. A more powerful wave of fear and outrage will again bind the American people to Bush, and the US media will not report the rest of the world�s doubts of the explanation.

Reads like a Michael Crichton plot, doesn�t it?

Fantasy? Let�s hope so.

I agree too. Former Reagan Republican here.sm
I agree with what you are saying. I voted for Bush the first time, sorry I did. 16 years of corrupt politics, lies, and scandals is hard to deal with. Clinton turned the White House into a ho house and Bush is turning it into the Reichstag. Think the country would be better off if Larry the Cable Guy was President.

Actually most of those laws were NOT done by liberals but in the REAGAN ERA sm
in an effort to cut and gut "big government". Don't blame us liberals, baby - blame your "great communicator".

Reagan's Socialist Legacy

An interesting article that expounds on several decades.......for a complete review, here's the link: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090323/scheer

Reagan's Socialist Legacy

by: Robert Scheer

Although gan's we still have a way to go to catch up with the good parts of the European system, including universal healthcare, high-quality public education and decent working conditions, we do have a system that is now as socialist in budget size as Europe's. That part I get when I listen to the right-wingers on Fox News bemoaning the reversal of the Reagan Revolution. But what I don't understand is how in the world they can blame this startling turn of events on Barack Obama.

The vast majority of money allocated so far on President Obama's watch is an extension of Bush's banking bailout, which has committed trillions to failed Wall Street conglomerates. I certainly don't want to defend the bailout and personally think the banks and stockbrokers deserve to go belly up, but what does that mess have to do with Obama, who was in college when the Reagan Revolution launched the deregulation that allowed Wall Street to run wild?

Never heard of rape charges against Reagan or GW. sm
Also, Kaye Summersby, Ike's *supposed* mistress said that they were very close but never consummated anything.

and when Ronald Reagan was prez, NANCY was

Actual entry in Reagan's diary

Beneath is an actual quote that Reagan wrote about George "W" in his

diaries, recently edited by author Doug Brinkley and published by Harper

Collins

"A moment I've been dreading. George brought his n'er-do-well son around

this morning and asked me to find the kid a job. Not the political one

who lives in Florida; the one who hangs around here all the time looking

shiftless. This so-called kid is already almost 40 and has never had a

real job. Maybe I'll call Kinsley over at The New Republic and see if they'll

hire him as a contributing Editor or something. That looks like easy

work."

From the REAGAN DIARIES------entry dated May 17, 1986.

So, Ronald Reagan is a black liberationist
The windfall profits tax was not actually a tax on profit. Please read up on it's history. It was an excise tax which was enacted April 2, 1980, during the last year of the Carter administration. Interesting to note that it was not repealed until August 23, 1988. It stayed in effect for 7 years, 4 months and 21 days under Ronald Reagan; in other words, for 92% of his entire time in office. So does that make Ronald Reagan a Marxist/socialist black liberationist too?

Noonan (reagan speech writer) on

caught with microphone still on. Speaking with Mike Murphy, a repub talking head about SP's qualifications.

http://www.newsday.com/services/newspaper/printedition/thursday/nation/ny-usnoon045828642sep04,0,1097812.story

A quote from Ronald Reagan that I thought was appropriate
There are those in America today who have come to depend absolutely on government for their security. And when government fails they seek to rectify that failure in the form of granting government more power. So, as government has failed to control crime and violence with the means given it by the Constitution, they seek to give it more power at the expense of the Constitution. But in doing so, in their willingness to give up their arms in the name of safety, they are really giving up their protection from what has always been the chief source of despotism � government. Lord Acton said power corrupts. Surely then, if this is true, the more power we give the government the more corrupt it will become. And if we give it the power to confiscate our arms we also give up the ultimate means to combat that corrupt power. In doing so we can only assure that we will eventually be totally subject to it. When dictators come to power, the first thing they do is take away the people's weapons. It makes it so much easier for the secret police to operate, it makes it so much easier to force the will of the ruler upon the ruled.

Ronnie Reagan, the man who cut all the programs for mentally ill and sm
that is when you started seeing all the homeless people on the streets. During his reign of terror. A horrible president.

Obama apolgizes to Nancy Reagan

We all know Obama has a sense of humor. He's likeable and funny and I enjoy hearing him speak. But he really should think before he speaks, and not try to make jokes. Americans are needing issues to be solved, not seeing how funny our President elect is. This is a very serious and grave time for America and we need some reassurance that he will do what he promised on his campaign trail. He spoke of Hope through his campaign. Now we need to see the hope turn into reality. I had read a lot of articles from both liberal and conservative sources that he doesn't do well with "off the cuff" comments and I think he should stick to the speeches that are written for him.

Like I said - I like Obama. He's a good speaker. But his comment about Nancy Reagan whether you like her or not was indeed making fun of her and unecessary. He should have just said, "I've talked to the past presidents" and left it at that. By him having to state they were alive??? The public is not so stup!d that we wouldn't know he didn't mean the "dead" Presidents. I hope that's not what he thought. I'm just glad he called her to apologize.

On another note I watched the press conference he gave and I would have like to have heard a little more about what he's going to do once he gets in the white house, who he is picking for his cabinet, and what are the first things he is going to do to help Americans and what promises he gave to us that he will be able to keep and work on first. Not what kind of dog he is going to get or where his kids go to school. That does not affect American and I like many of my friends don't care. We care about issues that affect us.

you mean left wing....it's a left wing ding website on the messiah....the right wouldn't bothe

special assistant to reagan sees the picture clearly
Federal Failure in New Orleans
by Doug Bandow
_Doug Bandow_ (http://www.cato.org/people/bandow.html) , a former special
assistant to president Ronald Reagan
Is George W. Bush a serious person? It's not a question to ask lightly of a
decent man who holds the US presidency, an office worthy of respect. But it
must be asked.
No one anticipated the breach of the levees due to Hurricane Katrina, he
said, after being criticised for his administration's dilatory response to the
suffering in the city of New Orleans. A day later he told his director of
the Federal Emergency Management Administration, Michael Brown: Brownie,
you're doing a heck of a job.
Is Bush a serious person?
The most important duty at the moment obviously is to respond to the human
calamity, not engage in endless recriminations. But it is not clear that this
President and this administration are capable of doing what is necessary.
They must not be allowed to avoid responsibility for the catastrophe that has
occurred on their watch.
Take the President's remarkable assessment of his Government's performance.
As Katrina advanced on the Gulf coast, private analysts and government
officials warned about possible destruction of the levees and damage to the pumps.
A year ago, with Hurricane Ivan on the move - before veering away from the
Big Easy - city officials warned that thousands could die if the levees gave
way.
Afterwards the Natural Hazards Centre noted that a direct strike would have
caused the levees between the lake and city to overtop and fill the city
'bowl' with water. In 2001, Bush's FEMA cited a hurricane hit on New Orleans as
one of the three top possible disasters facing the US. No wonder that the
New Orleans Times-Picayune, its presses under water, editorialised: No one can
say they didn't see it coming.
Similarly, consider the President's belief that his appointee, Brown, has
been doing a great job. Brown declared on Thursday - the fourth day of flooding
in New Orleans - that the federal Government did not even know about the
convention centre people until today. Apparently people around the world knew
more than Brown. Does the head of FEMA not watch television, read a
newspaper, talk to an aide, check a website, or have any contact with anyone in the
real world? Which resident of New Orleans or Biloxi believes that Brown is
doing a heck of a job? Which person, in the US or elsewhere, watching the
horror on TV, is impressed with the administration's performance?
Indeed, in the midst of the firestorm of criticism, including by members of
his own party, the President allowed that the results are not acceptable.
But no one has been held accountable for anything. The administration set this
pattern long ago: it is constantly surprised and never accountable.
The point is not that Bush is to blame for everything. The Kyoto accord has
nothing to do with Katrina: Kyoto would have a negligible impact on global
temperatures even if the Europeans complied with it.
Nor have hurricanes become stronger and more frequent in recent decades.
Whether extra funding for the Army Corps of Engineers would have preserved the
levees is hardly certain and impossible to prove. Nor can the city and state
escape responsibility for inaction if they believed the system to be unsafe.
Excessive deployment of National Guard units in the administration's
unnecessary Iraq war limited the flexibility of the hardest-hit states and imposed
an extra burden on guard members who've recently returned from serving
overseas. But sufficient numbers of troops remained available elsewhere across the
US.
The real question is: Why did Washington take so long to mobilise them? The
administration underestimated the problem, failed to plan for the predictable
aftermath and refused to accept responsibility for its actions. Just as when
the President took the US and many of its allies into the Iraq war based on
false and distorted intelligence. Then the administration failed to prepare
for violent resistance in Iraq. The Pentagon did not provide American soldiers
with adequate quantities of body armour, armoured vehicles and other
equipment.
Contrary to administration expectations, new terrorist affiliates sprang up,
new terrorist recruits flooded Iraq and new terrorist attacks were launched
across the world, including against several friends of the US. In none of
these cases has anyone taken responsibility for anything.
Now Hurricane Katrina surprised a woefully ill-prepared administration.
President Bush and his officials failed in their most basic responsibility: to
maintain the peaceful social framework within which Americans normally live and
work together.
Bush initially responded to 9/11 with personal empathy and political
sensitivity. But his failures now overwhelm his successes. The administration's
continuing lack of accountability leaves it ill-equipped to meet equally serious
future challenges sure to face the US and the rest of the world.
This article originally appeared in the Australian on Sept. 5, 2005

"There you go." A Reagan-esque pearl of wisdom.

Bush inherited Powell from Clinton who inherited him from Reagan.
Bush wouldn't have had the sense to pick Powell all by himself. Have you heard the latest on Condi? She's been palling around with senior Hamas leaders, sending them thank you notes and such.

Here's how that other thing works. When the fringers stop lying, dems stop denying. It's not that complicated.

Yeah right. Served under Reagan, Bush I and Bush II
x

No need. I can't think of who else left besides Nan before. sm
That's why I didn't name their name. Either way, my point was they'll be back.

Actually what the left
expects and the right should too is not to be lied to on a continual basis, to have our constitution upheld. We didnt go into this war to spread democracy we went because this administration lied. WMD remember? THATS why we went into Iraq, that and the fact that due to republican spin fully half of Americans believed Saddam did 09/11. and meanwhile the real perp of 09/11 runs free. If Iraq had no oil, we never would have gone in there. Sadly, Mr bush has made one huge mess that is costing us billions and killing our soldiers. Yeah a whole lot of America is furious and upset and we have good reason to be.

Look what the left does..

maybe this was posted before but it just goes to show how biased the media is and what liars they really are. the quote in red was the actual quote. Look how the media decided to butcher it.

The media is trying REALLY hard to paint Sarah Palin into an evil religious zealot. The AP is willing to break the typically utilized laws of printing the English language to do it.

According to the AP, Sarah Palin said this about the troops while at church:

�Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God,"

According to real life, Sarah Palin said this about the troops while at church (with the AP�s selective quoting underlined):

�Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending them out on a task that is from God,�

The AP quote means �Iraq is a mission from God.�

The actual quote means �We pray Iraq is a mission from God.�

The headline is even more misleading.

Palin: Iraq war 'a task that is from God'

The AP not only doesn't mention the previous sentence, or the first part of the sentence they quote, they also essentially ignore the meaning of the very next sentence as well. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."

This is a statement of humble reflection from Palin. To translate into terms the media might understand, its "I hope we're doing the right thing."

This story is bad enough that the AP really should issue a correction on it, if not a full retraction. There's no story unless you butcher the quote. It's based on half (or a quarter) of a quote, mentally ignoring the previous and following sentences, and even presenting the trimmed quote as the start of a sentence --forcing them to capitalize a word that actually appeared in the middle of the sentence.

Really bad.

you left off

spinning his wedding ring. And everyone knows what a married man is thinking when he does that . . .

If you have next to no $ left now
you must be one of the ones that the rest of us will be supporting with our tax money.

I will if you put the left one in.

Left behind
I am just wondering if either of you read Tim LeHaye's "Left Behind" series. It is fictional but deals with the rapture and those left behind. I had read it many years ago but was just thinking the other day how scary it is that I find so many similarities between the books and our current situation and my feelings about what we as a country may be facing after this election. Part of it also deals with a "one-world" religion, another thought I find scary. Have you read it?

She is the only one left on there with
decency and common sense! She is definitely no twit and there is nothing to hate about her. Just my opinion of course, and I feel like all the others are twits.

Does anyone have anything left in their

those to the far left seem to think
we are to be all-tolerant of them and their lunatic ideas, but the tolerance doesn't work the other direction. Don't worry, those who counted on Obama for the gay/lesbian legislation -- i'm sure he'll come through for you before its all over.

Yes, I know someone who left the
country because Bush was reelected. So, in answer to your obnoxious question, YES!

I'm about as far left as you can get ....
and Dubya didn't have anything to do with prompting the 9/11 attacks. He just had the bad fortune to be the sitting president at the time. Those attacks were years in the making. Years. It's foolish to blame any one president or any one administration for it.

Is this what the left always does when they have no
nm

Oh, come on! Both can be mean, but the left can
nm

What will they do when there's no one left to pay
This, of course, is the major flaw in all socialist dreams and schemes. Sooner or later, the camel collapses under the weight of hauling everyone else's load. And my hump is already getting rubbed raw.

Here is one, but it's partisan left! sm

Neighbors for Peace to "Raise the Bar" for Democratic Candidates

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

St. Paul, MN � June 17, 2003 � When national Democratic leaders visit St. Paul next week, Merriam Park Neighbors for Peace and other Minnesota organizations will be on the scene to question presidential candidates, raising the electoral bar for peace, justice, and environmental issues.

The Association of State Democratic Chairs and the Democratic National Committee will convene this weekend at the Radisson Riverfront Hotel at 11 East Kellogg Boulevard in St. Paul. Gearing up for the 2004 presidential elections, Merriam Park Neighbors for Peace will be outside the hotel on Friday, June 20, from 2:30 to 5:30 p.m. to invite the candidates to join concerned Minnesota Democrats in dialogue about critical issues.

"People are leaving the Democratic party in droves, because in recent elections the candidates have become so centrist that they are almost indistinguishable from the Republicans," comments Merriam Park Neighbors for Peace co-founder, Anne Benson. "We want to see the Democratic party return to its progressive roots�to stand up for working people and poor people, and to fight against the regressive domestic and foreign policies of the Bush administration."

The neighbors from the Merriam Park area of St. Paul hold that in recent elections, Democratic candidates have lost their chance to take office because they've neglected the concerns of their own voters.

"It has always been said, 'There are more Democrats than Republicans; we just need to get out the vote,'" states member, Steve Schwarz. "We, however, need a reason to get out the vote. Many Democrats have felt alienated and misrepresented by the party and have looked instead to other alternatives. We believe in the principles that made the Democratic party what it was and still can be today. Remember, we in Minnesota have supported a long line of Democratic politicians who voted on principle and not on predictions of popularity. We expect our candidates to make peace and justice issues a priority."

Adds Benson, "We're encouraging candidates to ask themselves the hard questions: Where are the weapons of mass destruction? Was I misled by the administration when I voted for the War Powers Resolution? How do we get out of this quagmire in Iraq? Does the PATRIOT Act infringe on too many civil liberties?"

Merriam Park Neighbors for Peace has invited all Democratic candidates to meet with them after their sessions conclude on Friday to answer a series of fourteen questions regarding issues of pre-emptive war, international relations, arms development, military spending, V.A. benefits, U.S. economy, social programs, employment, globalization, education, health care, civil liberties, terrorism, and environmental policy. They invite all Minnesotans with these concerns to join them in St. Paul on Friday in addressing the candidates.

"We're not endorsing a particular candidate," group member, Jeanne Schnitzen, notes. "We're giving them all a chance to look us in the eye and answer to the issues we vote for. If they're really in this race to turn the tides, we'll make sure they get that chance. I want to believe there is a Democratic candidate who is capable of sowing the seeds of change."

So much for the tolerance of the left. nm

Looks like you left your *objectivity*

on the Conservative Board. Might be time for you to return.

Left leaning.

I am well aware that I am on a *left leaning* board; however, how can you ever possibly gain a true picture of real facts if you only visit left leaning sites? It isn't possible. I don't do it. In fact, on the other political boards I post on, some left and some right, Daily Kos, Democratic Underground, News Max, Fox, are not used as sources.

You misunderstand me about the Constitution and Iraq.

The left really hates this guy
This is so laughable that with all that's going on the world the left stoops to National Enquirer style reporting. Get a life and a clue.

Why do you think everyone not for Bush is left?sm
I guess compared to those over on the conservative board, I am a little left. I was a registered Republican up until 4 years ago. Because their policies and actions conflict with my beliefs, I can no longer support the party. There are many many more just like me.

I think there is still dispute over even when they left sm
and why planes were allowed to come into US airspace to pick them up when all other aircraft were grounded. Also, why they were not questioned by FBI, etc.

Also, researchers requesting information from the FBI about their disposition with Osama, and were told that Osama is wanted by the FBI, but not for 911. So my question would be, well then who is?

Too bad folks, it's not just the left...sm
Like Lurker said, the gig is up! People are pushing for change in Iraq. Personally, I would have rather seen us release the full fury on terrorist who are invading that country and clean it up before leaving. However, if our strategy is to keep peddling around like street police then something has to give. We have our own country to fix and too much attention has been given to Iraq in the past 3 years.

On to the economy for a sec. Republicans have been boasting on how good the economy is doing, but guess which group is reaping the benefits. You guessed it - the rich. So sorry if the working man, you know those of us who punch the clock, are not feeling so thankful for the Dow and Nasdaq earnings. What's funny is that the *beltway boys* as AG calls them can not seem to figure out why 50% of Americans tend to feel the economy is not so hot.

What is typical of the left?
It kind of got lost in the point you were trying to make, something about Lurker not answering your question the way you wanted her to...or somethin' like that.

What I want to know is who left you in charge?
nm

Posters like this need to be left alone
nm here

Would that be left or right bias?
nm