obviously you haven't seen Sicko

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

and murdered him justifies himself by saying it was not a murder; it was a justified killing....... Our liberal media has been so hush hush about the murder of this solider, maybe they think they same thing!! They sure have talked about the baby murderer's murder til I'm sick to death of hearing it!!!

Too bad Obama thought discussing the tiller murder was more important than mentioning a soldier's murder in THIS country due to a sicko islamic convert within our own country.... speaks volumes to me...

That's the whole point. Bush acts like a dictator in complete privacy. Of course nobody can name names because this president thinks he can spy on whoever he wants without ever telling the person.

Just to take the first point: How about a speech he gave in 2008 which he criticized the US because most of us speak one measly language, while Europeans often speak 2 or 3? There is actually a pretty good reason for that, by the way. A person could drive in Europe a distance equal to the trip from Cincinnati to Chicago and pass through several countries. Some countries even have several dialects. Many European countries are tiny. Being multilingual in Europe is very practical. America is huge and people a couple of thousand miles away can understand one another in a single language, from youse guys to y'all.

I don't remember ever hearing a US president or presidential candidate publicly criticize his country the way this one has (well, maybe Kerry). And of course our foreign critics simply lap it up. I think Michelle Obama has some foreign language skills, but I've got to wonder in what second and third languages Barack himself is fluent. Surely he must be.....

I was unable to find the full text/location/date of the speech I am referring to, but here's a link to an article on it. Sorry, it does seem to be an piece that is overall critical of the great man, but then the mainstream would probably not have mentioned this at all

Oh, by the way, no spam file, I wrote it. Whether or not you find it witty, it's the way I view O's public criticism of the US, as though we are a collection of bumpkins he's stuck with and trying desperately to fix up.

I have seen at least four conservatives express concerns about Bush on several occasions, and they even elucidated them. Of course, you would have to take off those blinders to see them but you aren't about to do that. What a joke. As far as your remarks about racisms, I consider your remarks extremely racist. And never mind the fact that black Americans, one of whom was quoted here, are also defending Bennett. Their voices don't count because they must be Uncle Tom's, right. AGAIN, a racist way of thinking.

I would imagine it is $250,000 on the bottom line profit since that is what we all pay taxes on. I agree that a business with a gross income of $250,000 is not all that much, as a rule of thumb, probably $125,000 net. On the other hand if it is $250,000 NET that's a pretty darn good income and I say they could well afford to pay a few measly dollars so those making a net of say $25,000 could have a little relief. But the middle or lower class workers are going to get NO relief because the big businesses are going to protect their greed and the small businesses have to raise their prices to survive. Example: We ate at a family owned restaurant the other night. Sirloin steak was $17.95 the last time we ate there was $21.95. The owner posted a sign apologizing for the price increases but said he didn't have any choice if he was going to stay in business because of his wholesale prices going up. THANKS Bush and big oil.

I'm planning on hitting the polls a little later this morning. Not too concerned about lines as our polling place is in a small town.

IOW, you were for the financials getting bailout money and then letting them do whatever they wanted to do with it? Like hosting great parties, spa resorts, etc?

I have always been against the bailout and I'm still against letting the financials use the money as if it's a free handout. They don't have to pay it back. WE do.

Now, O is trying to get Congress give them MORE? No way. Not without lots of stipulations.

I also haven't forgotten what Clinton did to try to go after terrorists and how Bush managed to put all that work on a shelf.

Just think, while Clinton was trying to work on all this, all you guys could do was worry about where his peter was.

watching/listening to him speak. Instead, my impression is that he's thinking on his feet and trying to choose his words very carefully. In that regard, he's a definite improvement over his predecessor (LOL).

Having said that, I can definitely understand how he could come across to people as he comes across to you.

The press seems to be riding his tail pretty close, and I hope they continue to do so. (Just the other day, I saw a clip where the press secretary, Robert Gibbs, was 20 minutes late, and a member of the media scolded him, saying basically to knock it off, that nobody appreciates sitting around and waiting for Gibbs to begin a press conference.)

MSNBC (who was definitely in the "tank" for him) is beginning to challenge some of his actions/words, which I think is good.

obviously according to JTBB that black people are allowed to be racist. It is the white fold who aren't allowed to make any sort of comment against any other religion or race or their career will be in the dumpster. Minorities are the only ones allowed to be racist vocally.

To me....Rev. Wright is nothing but a racist black man who is bitter with a huge chip on his shoulder. He says what he wants when he wants and obviously there is as reason why Obama was made to get away from him....even though he really didn't want to in the beginning.

lost people due to other health issues. I don't want government telling us what we can and can't do, but deep down I cannot hate regulating cigarettes. My dad would still be alive today if it weren't for his smoking habits. Not only did he choose to kill himself with cigarettes but he exposed me, my mom, and sister and brother to that poison filled smoke for years. God only knows what health issue we might have later in life. My dad was a healthy man for years. He worked as a salvage man for GM for 30+ years until he couldn't breathe enough to work anymore and he retired. I literally watched my dad go from a strong healthy man to a man who couldn't walk from his chair to the bathroom without blow breathing to try and breathe. I watched my grandfather die of emphysema as well because of his smoking. Yes....it was their choice to smoke, but they are still my family and I lost them because of that. You cannot help hate something to took away the people you loved so much. I watched my dad struggle to breathe for so long and then when he was in the hospital and I could literally hear the gurgling in his lungs while he tried to breathe....I just finally asked God to stop it. Make it stop and an hour later....He did. Don't preach to me about other health issues because I know they exist too. You tell me to allow you to choose to kill yourself smoking. That is your choice and more power to you but for once....think about your kids and how they would feel watching you die like that. My dad loved me and he was one he!! of a provider for the family but I'd give anything to have him back and I can't have him back. My dad was killed by cigarettes....end of story. You can't blame me for hating cigarettes. I don't want anyone else to have to die the painful death that he did. It was so slow and then....he was gone. I actually tried to mimic his breathing one time and I couldn't do it. It hurt just for that short time. I can't even imagine living years like that until you couldn't breathe at all.

I really don't want government to control our lives like this but deep down...I can't help but like the idea of regulating cigarettes. I know government shouldn't but I just don't want other people to go through what I did when I lost my dad. I can't help but feel that way.

All you've done is attack. We don't care for that low class type of behavior on this board. We want this to be a friendly, respectful place, but you and all the others from the CON board (assuming there actually are different people and not just difference voices in someone's head), can't stand respectful. You can't stand friendly. You're not happy unless you're intruding on someone else's space and bullying them.

You're just very distasteful people, and you have your own board. Please take your dumps over there. It's really starting to reek over here. <PHEW!>

and I'm pretty sure we did back when the Jessica case broke, however, that's neither here or there. Like I said in my post on the subject you can bet your sweet bibby that conservatives care A LOT about this issue. I will reiterate that this guy better hope he gets the death penality, because if he goes free or if he just gets life in prison there's going to be a bounty on his head.

Please don't take this as an admission that all conservatives are Rednecks out to kill people, but I just know how the world works, and good men, either liberal or conservative, will not let this man be free in society again.....he's evil personified.

Updated in light of today's news that kangaroo centers, petting zoos and ice cream parlors are included in Homeland Security's list of vulnerable terrorist targets:

If Its Broken, Why Haven't They Fixed It?

Fort Knox is robbed in an unusual way. Burglars break in through an air conditioning vent and shine a laser at the video cameras to blind them. Billions are stolen.

The head of Fort Knox (let's call him the Chief) announces that no one could have foreseen this type of burglary.

The commission investigating the robbery -- stacked with the Chief's business partners and friends -- finds that the break-in was unexpected. The commission makes numerous suggestions on how to thwart similar burglaries by installing motion detectors in the air conditioning vents and main vault.

Independent researchers, however, discover that there have been many previous break-ins at repositories of valuable items where the burglars crawled in through the air conditioning vents and shined lasers at video cameras.

They also discover that the Fort's security system would normally have caught the burglars in the act and alerted the military in time to stop the burglarly, but the system was undergoing a series of safety tests that night -- including some that were similar to what actually occurred -- and so the military assumed that the alarms were part of the test.

There had been safety tests before, but never so many at the same time. The Chief personally scheduled multiple, overlapping tests for the night of the robbery, and then oversaw the operation of the tests and the Fort's reaction to those tests.

Years pass, but the Chief does not follow the commission's recommendations. He fails to install any motion detectors.

That's circumstantial evidence that the Chief was in on the heist. Why? Because if the robbery really had not been foreseeable and if he was innocent, he would have a very strong incentive to install motion detectors to prevent further robberies at the Fort. His personal reputation, the government's reputation, and its gold reserves would all depend on it. You can bet that he'd shore up the Fort's defenses.

Perks

Let's take it a step further: the Chief's personal bank account has suddenly gotten alot bigger after the heist. That helps to prove he was in on it, right? But it also shows that one of the reasons the Chief is leaving the Fort's defenses in a compromised state now is so that additional heists can occur, and he'll get more loot.

9/11

Similarly, the 9-11 Commission -- stacked with cronies of the Bush administration (like executive director Philip Zelikow, who is very close to administration hawk Condoleeza Rice, and steered the Commission away from the most important lines of inquiry) -- found that the attacks were unexpected, despite very strong evidence that they were not, and despite the fact that the government scheduled numerous, overlapping war games for 9/11 -- some involving a plane flying into a building and others involving hijackings.

And while the 9-11 Commission made numerous recommendations on how to prevent future terrorist attacks -- many of them simple and inexpensive to implement -- the Bush administration has failed to do so. Indeed, the Department of Homeland Security, instead of protecting vulnerable targets, has instead randomly made up lists which include kangaroo centers, petting zoos and
ice cream parlors as high-priority terrorist threats.

Just like with the Chief, the current administration's failure to make the recommended and preventative changes -- many of them cheap fixes -- despite billions being spent on supposed homeland security, is strong evidence that the administration was in on it.

This is especially true because the administration has recieved so many perks from 9/11: justification for wars in Afghanistan (where a huge oil pipeline benefitting American companies was being held up by the Taliban) and Iraq (one of the world's largest oil producers), permanent military bases in the Middle East, and consolidation of power at home.

And by failing to implement the recommendations of the 9-11 Commission, the administration keeps open the possibility that another terrorist attack will occur which will whip the now-dissenting American public into line, justify the invasion of Iran, and allow for the suspension of our remaining constitutional rights.

The bottom line is that the administration's, like the Chief's, inaction to fix the alleged holes in security which allowed supposedly unforeseeable crimes to occur shows that they are guilty of the crimes, and hope to benefit from additional crimes in the future.

And if foreign terrorists really had carried out 9/11, why is the government using all of its resources spying on innocent people who obviously have never met a terrorist in their life?