possible topics of conversation besides bashing our very popular president in the interest of preven
Posted By: world on 2009-05-01
In Reply to: fighting for a perfect - world
http://www.npr.org/
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
topics to avoid during polite conversation.
We do have separation of church and state.
Politics board = political topics. Faith board = religious topics.
Please keep all religious/faith topics and discussions on the Faith board. This would involve your beliefs, whether Christian or atheist, etc.
The Politics board is strictly for political topics and discussions.
Moderator
Obama bashing versus Palin bashing... sm
Obama will be in the forefront for the next 4 years, assuming the electoral college pans out the way the popular vote did and providing his BC holds up in court.
Palin, on the other hand, has gone back to the frozen tundra. Whether she resurfaces in 2012 remains to be seen, but can't we just wait until then to start in on her?
There are several topics of debate
that have attempted to be started on the CON board. Unfortunately, no one seems interested in engaging in an intelligent discussion there. Instead, they apparently prefer to come here and vent. I have no idea why you're congratulating me. I don't believe I've chased one LIBERAL away from the LIBERAL BOARD.
And I obviously don't deserve any congratulations for chasing the CON trolls from this board because they've entrenched themselves here and won't leave. Maybe your congratulatory wishes should instead be directed at them.
politics are among those topics, and yet,
here we all are. The separation of church and state was never really intended to do anything other than protect religios rights, i.e., the right to practice religion. It was meant to avoid one church being connected to the government, forcing everyone to participate like the Catholic church had done. It was never meant to remove God from our government entirely. Whether we like it or not, religion is a core part of our society. It is the basis on which our country was founded.
Was bashing her, was bashing his choice of
her. I said she was not the MOST qualified. Did not say she wasn't qualified. I said he picked because she would help with the base. That's actually a compliment.
Rather than attacking, try to understand the content.
How did this get to be one of the funniest topics on this board?
This started as some sort of bizarre witch hunt and now it's one of the funniest topics I've ever seen on the Politics board.
Beats Saturday Night Live any time.
This is a good place for these topics
I go to the gab board to get my mind off of politics and have uplifting conversations.
It's good the replies were dropped. If people feel the need to reply again they will.
Yeah, and we talk about multiple topics
instead of blaming one person for every bad thing that happens in the world.
GP is entitle to have 2 opinions on 2 unrelated topics.
x
Take religious topics to Faith board. NM
NM
You mean one who won by 6.8% in popular vote
That's pretty legitimate if you ask me.
Popular vote
You know Obama did not win by a landslide of the popular vote so don't act like the whole country wanted him as president and the ones who didn't are a small minority. All its going to take is a few more people to people to wake up and if we make it through this term intact, we won't have to worry about a second term. His approval rating dropped 5% in a week while his disapproval rating went up 7%. As the economy gets worse and worse the disapproval rating will continue to go up. The stimulus bill is bloated and oh yeah does everyone know that the "rebate" we are getting in our paychecks is not really a rebate as the tax tables have not changes so some people will actually have to pay next year when they do taxes or not get a refund, guess they forgot to mention that, the housing bill he passed will help very few people...and eventually people will find out nothing he says is the truth. I wonder will happen then.
Leave it alone, folks. Move on to political topics.
Stop with the personal war. If you can't keep to political topics and continue making it personal, you need to move somewhere else.
popular vote was Gore
Im trying to remember back from 2000..there was a university, I think maybe University of Chicago..which did a recount and Gore won. If all the ballots had been counted and all the registered voters who were turned away were allowed to vote, based on the party they were registered under, Gore would have won. I remember back in 2001, the outrage, so I contacted the university and was assured the public would be allowed a copy of the study on the recount. Geez..seems like centuries ago..I will check back with my political friends and find out the university..Maybe they still are offering their results on the recount.In any case, however, to be fair, when there is a election in doubt, IMHO, you go with the popular vote, which was Gore.
Y'all are just jealous he's so popular
and you all can't get a liberal talk show to take. The Air America crowd can't keep themselves from stealing from their network long enough to try to get a quality show off the ground.
If Rush is so wrong then won't you dispute what he says instead of personally attacking him?
my goodness....am I ever popular tonight....lol...
almost as much as you sam!!
When I told them to carry on, they reallllyyyyy carried on.....lol....
Gotta love those dems....
contrary to popular belief
Bush did not enact the Patriot Act.
Everybody KNOWS Al Gore won the popular vote
It is awfully coincidental that the state that had the problems counting their votes, which ultimately cost AL Gore the election, was what? Oh thats's right it was....FLORIDA - George Bush's brother's state. You do remember Jeb was governor of Florida during that time, don't you?
Contrary to popular belief.....the rich pay the
xx
Contrary to popular belief, O supporters
as their divine Savior. Rather, he is just a fine American who cares deeply about his country, running for the highest office in the land. He has the strength to step up to the plate, turn a blind eye toward all that would seek to destroy him and do his best to tackle the mop-up job after one of the most devastating administrations in the history of our country. More that this, we cannot ask. He is calm, thoughtful, inspiring, steady, intuitive and gifted with an uncanny ability to inspire millions of Americans in the throes of an economic collapse to unite behind the simple notion that we can do better, that we are at the dawn of a new day and that our shared imperative is to embrace optimism and confidence in ourselves and in his leadership. In comparison to his opponent, who would use shrub style politics of fear to scare us into voting for him and thinks nothing of igniting culture wars and stoking the fires of division for political gain, there is no contest. Obama deserves the respect he has gained and without a doubt, he the best man for the job.
I'd be very embarrassed to admit that he was popular, if I were you...kind of reflects on right-w
I saw very little admirable, factual, interesting or thoughtful in his post. If all these people admire him, like you say, this country is in more trouble than I thought.
On terrorist ties, since topic is popular for the moment
McCain link to private group in Iran-Contra case.
http://yorkdispatch.inyork.com/yd/sections/politics/ci_10655363
Obama could win popular but still lose election - see message
It is possible. It has happened before. I think now especially in these final two days, when people are hearing Obama saying in a radio interview that he will bankrupt coal companies and skyrocket electricity bills, a lot of people are really wondering. Especially the states where coal is their major industry. They are starting to realize that a vote for the O means they'll be out of work. Along with the birth certificate issue not being resolved, and other the other numerous questions about the O people are really wondering about him.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081103/ap_on_el_pr/split_decision_4
BTW, Popular Mechanics pretty much debunked all the myths you speak of.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html
I have been following the conversation. sm
I think Marylandgal is extremely defensive in her posting. I also KNOW she does not speak for all Jews. Having said that, it's really easy to weasel out of an argument by invoking the specter or something horrible...Hitler usually works really well, or the KKK. Then you are an anti-Semite or a racist. It's a shameful way to argue but SOME liberals do it a lot.
This conversation is going nowhere.
And I am sure that the rabbis who attended were not the only ones who agree with them. As with any other exploratory meeting, not everyone attends. I am happy that THESE rabbis and Ben Stein as well choose life and interpret their religious teachings to choose life. It's unfortunate that you don't feel the same.
Won't go there? Isn't the conversation about...
impeaching George Bush? I said impeach him already. If what Kucinich has is dam*ing and he can prove any of it, why don't they just impeach? What part of that don't you understand?? What is it you want me to say and why is my comfort zone so all consuming to you? LOL.
My only interest in
posting this was BECAUSE it came from someone on the ground in Iraq, an American soldier. I also said the war seems to affect ONLY those directly involved and you and your husband and family fall into that category. Most Americans do not. I'm sorry you see this as leftist arrogance, but it is how I feel. I did not feel this way about Bush 41 either (this is in reference to Clinton and Somalia) and I think that is because both of them had a plan, listened to those more knowledgeable, had a plan B and C, as the military is wont and got in and got out. It is the arrogance of this administration that angers the left so. At this point Iraq is not ours to win or lose; it is theirs - the Iraqis - and if we had done in the beginning, as recommended by THE MILITARY who know a bit more than the CEOs in office, we would probably be out of there. The US cut a deal with the Ba'athists to calm Anbar province which was totally out of control a few weeks ago and it worked. As I understand it the Ba'athists, altho the old Iraqi army, are not Sunni or Shi'ite bound. They are more like mercenaries than an I-do-not-know-how-many-thousand-year-religious-land conflict that has and will probably go on forever between the Sunnis and Shi'ites. If we had sent in more troops (recommended by military) and had gotten the Ba'athists to cooperate with us earlier; then maybe we would be out of there or at least on our way out. The arrogance I see is the stubborn, petulant refusal of this administration to do anything differently ever, no matter what. Stubborness is not a foreign policy. My feeling also is that because **that is the way we have always done it** is not a reason to keep doing it that way (reference to flag lowering).
This might interest you.
This is only one of a bunch of things he's rushing through so they can't be repaired easily once he's gone (IF he goes).
Here's part of it. The rest of the article can be found at: http://www.truthout.org/110708K
Washington - In the next few weeks, the Bush administration is expected to relax environmental-protection rules on power plants near national parks, uranium mining near the Grand Canyon and more mountaintop-removal coal mining in Appalachia.
The administration is widely expected to try to get some of the rules into final form by the week before Thanksgiving because, in some cases, there's a 60-day delay before new regulations take effect. And once the rules are in place, undoing them generally would be a more time-consuming job for the next Congress and administration.
It was on the old board, it was a conversation you had with Nan. SM
and it was about Affirmative Action. I remember it well because it was very long and civil exchange between the two of you back when I thought you could be reasoned with. Nan said something about you have a different perspective and something like she could not challenge you from an African American point of view, I don't remember all the details, because you were African American at which point you said something like, what makes you think I am African American and she said, she thought you had said you were and you said I didn't say that because I am not. Now this is not word for word but it is the gist of it. Remember now?
But the conversation is about kids who are having
things done without the parents' knowledge.
I thought you were done with the conversation? sm
But when you got some back up you wanted to throw in a little more sarcasm? Well I am behind on my work now because I spent to much time talking to you. I can't change your mind, so I am just going to leave you alone.
This conversation reminds me of...(sm)
an event that took place during the Iraq war (not sure of the date, but I'm sure some of you will remember it). There was an Iraqi child who was (as well as many others) caugt in a bombing raid. It was all over the news about how the US military had given him provisional care and transported him from place to place, trying to get him to a place where he could be treated appropriately. Unfortunately (like many other Iraqi civilians) he eventually died. This in itself was not that remarkable, especially considering at the time the US was lobbing bombs into Iraq with the precision of a pumpkin-chunkin contest. What was remarkable, however, was when the doctor who was caring for the child came out and told the news of his death to the world. There were several questions entertained by the doctor from reporters, but the one that really struck home for me was one from a US reporter. The question was, do you think the boy understood what we are trying to do here? The boy that died was all of about 4 or 5 years old.
Not long after, the US decided to not show casualties in the news. The government unfortunately was right in assuming the out of sight, out of mind thing would work. It's amazing just how naive Americans can be.
This is a perfect example of what you would call American pride, honor, etc. Nevermind the people who die, just make sure we look good doing it. Again, I am not negating the value of the American soldiers here, they are simply doing what they've been told to do.
When you talk about soldiers helping the Iraqi people, exactly how are they helping them? Are they bringing them food and medicine because we have destroyed their infrastructure? Are they helping them find a place to stay because their house played catch with a US missle? Or are we just taking care of their kids because we took mommy and daddy to a torture camp? Believe me, we are doing much more harm than help. Have you noticed that Iraqi civilian casualties far outnumber the casualties of American soldiers? Where's the help for that?
And yes, I did have someone serving in Iraq.
This conversation reminds me of...(sm)
an event that took place during the Iraq war (not sure of the date, but I'm sure some of you will remember it). There was an Iraqi child who was (as well as many others) caugt in a bombing raid. It was all over the news about how the US military had given him provisional care and transported him from place to place, trying to get him to a place where he could be treated appropriately. Unfortunately (like many other Iraqi civilians) he eventually died. This in itself was not that remarkable, especially considering at the time the US was lobbing bombs into Iraq with the precision of a pumpkin-chunkin contest. What was remarkable, however, was when the doctor who was caring for the child came out and told the news of his death to the world. There were several questions entertained by the doctor from reporters, but the one that really struck home for me was one from a US reporter. The question was, do you think the boy understood what we are trying to do here? The boy that died was all of about 4 or 5 years old.
Not long after, the US decided to not show casualties in the news. The story above may have contributed to this, but the basic idea was that Americans didn't like to see Americans dead. The government unfortunately was right in assuming the out of sight, out of mind thing would work. It's amazing just how naive Americans can be.
This is a perfect example of what you would call American pride, honor, etc. Nevermind the people who die, just make sure we look good doing it. Again, I am not negating the value of the American soldiers: they are simply doing what they've been told to do.
When you talk about soldiers helping the Iraqi people, exactly how are they helping them? Are they bringing them food and medicine because we have destroyed their infrastructure? Are they helping them find a place to stay because their house played catch with a US missle? Or are we just taking care of their kids because we took mommy and daddy to a torture camp? Believe me, we are doing much more harm than help. Have you noticed that Iraqi civilian casualties far outnumber the casualties of American soldiers? Where's the help for that?
And yes, I did have someone serving in Iraq.
And yet you just keep dragging the conversation on and on and on....sm
If you don't want to discuss it on the political board, quit discussing it. 
Of interest, Iraq and oil
"The invasion of Iraq plays a crucial role in the agenda of the neoconservatives. Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world. It could replace, in case of need, other producers such as Saudi Arabia, a fragile ally of the United States. The control of oil production and prices gives the United States potential power to pressure consumer states such as Russia, China, and many in Western Europe."
This is by the former French ambassador to Tunisia, now a journalist. I guess I hadn't realized that Iraq was that oil-rich.
Whiners are of no interest. Got more
nm
Tell me....if Obama said it was in your best interest....
to do a swan dive off the statue of liberty, which of you would get to the top the fastest?
Thought this might be of interest s/m
seems to be a pretty unbiased report.
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081102/candidates_business.html
There was interest, as they were being read...
This might interest you.......at least somebody CARES!!
This is from NumbersUSA.com
You can sign up with them; they will keep you up to date on EVERYTHING and you can fax your politicians directly from their site! It is a great way to go !!
The unemployment numbers for May were recently released and are truly disheartening. More than 345,000 Americans lost their jobs last month and unemployment rocketed to 9.4% (the highest since August, 1983). Clearly, it is time for Congress to reduce or suspend most immigration. However, the Congressional leadership is pushing for a mass amnesty!
This push for Comprehensive Amnesty is happening because the White House is holding an immigration summit this week -- the purpose of which is to pave the way for various amnesties (AgJOBS, the DREAM Act, and comprehensive amnesty).
Please fax your Members of Congress and urge them to oppose any attempts by open borders and pro-illegal alien lawmakers to foist an amnesty on the American people. Any amnesty, no matter how small, would have a devastating impact on America's 14 million unemployed workers.
Click here to read a Los Angeles Times article on Congress' push for amnesty and President Obama's immigration summit.
Do you want more or less information?
As a NumbersUSA subscriber, you will receive occasional emails about immigration-related opportunities. If you want to increase or reduce the frequency of these emails, click here and choose from Total Activism, Moderate Activism, or Limited Activism at the bottom of your registration form: http://www.numbersusa.com/user
NumbersUSA - relies upon individuals like you to reach its goal of an environmentally sustainable and economically just America.
No, and please don't twist my words. The conversation is sm
that Hitler founded his total belief system on the three pillars I posted here, the first being Jews and Communism. I don't know how much more clear I can be frankly! Where in the world did I EVER say he was sane. I am talking about HISTORY. I am not quite sure what you are talking about!
Did you see the video of the conversation with the Fox reporter?
The BP was not a very nice guy
Nobody asked you to butt out of the conversation.
You are being asked to respect the SEPARATION between the politics board and the faith board. If all you have to offer is religious in nature, your post does not belong here.
This breaking news just in....religion and politics are only as "intricately intertwined" as the secular among us allow it to be. There seems to be a consensus in America as there is in other western nations that the two do not mix well and certainly are not conducive to democratic process. I am neither atheist, agnostic or Christian, but I do consider myself to be a spiritual person of Universalist faith. I count myself among the secular citizens who will fight tooth and nail to keep religion out of politics and out of the government. There is a place for it in our society and in our lives...churches, synagogues, mosques, temples our homes and in our psyches. Why is that not enough for the theocrats? This constant push to pervade is a REAL LIVE BUMMER. Cease and desist, won't you?
More info on this, plus other items of interest
Check out this website:
factcheck.org
It's part of the Annenberg Foundation (don't know anything about that group). Anyway this seems to be a fairly nonpartisan website (even gives statistics backing that up). It provides great coverage of the claims made by both candidates and where the truth actually lay. Not surprisingly it appeared that overall Bush had a bigger problem with manipulating the truth than Kerry.
The site is not limited to just the candidates from the last election - I check it periodically out of general interest. As I said, I want the truth, even if it's painful sometimes.
Of interest, but probably of limited significance
FACT......Those who have never seen battle personally are usually cowards and the first ones to want war, who preach for war.....and will send your kids and keep their kids home...
Do We See A Pattern Here?
10-20-4
Democrats
* Richard Gephardt: Air National Guard, 1965-71.
* David Bonior: Staff Sgt., Air Force 1968-72.
* Tom Daschle: 1st Lt., Air Force SAC 1969-72.
* Al Gore: enlisted Aug. 1969; sent to Vietnam Jan. 1971 as an army journalist in 20th Engineer Brigade.
* Bob Kerrey: Lt. j.g. Navy 1966-69; Medal of Honor, Vietnam.
* Daniel Inouye: Army 1943-47; Medal of Honor, WWII.
* John Kerry: Lt., Navy 1966-70; Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V, Purple Hearts.
* Charles Rangel: Staff Sgt., Army 1948-52; Bronze Star, Korea.
* Max Cleland: Captain, Army 1965-68; Silver Star & Bronze Star, Vietnam.
* Ted Kennedy: Army, 1951-53.
* Tom Harkin: Lt., Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve, 1968-74.
* Jack Reed: Army Ranger, 1971-1979; Captain, Army Reserve 1979-91.
* Fritz Hollings: Army officer in WWII; Bronze Star and seven campaign ribbons.
* Leonard Boswell: Lt. Col., Army 1956-76; Vietnam, DFCs, Bronze Stars, and Soldier's Medal.
* Pete Peterson: Air Force Captain, POW. Purple Heart, Silver Star and Legion of Merit.
* Mike Thompson: Staff sergeant, 173rd Airborne, Purple Heart.
* Bill McBride: Candidate for Fla. Governor. Marine in Vietnam; Bronze Star with Combat V.
* Gray Davis: Army Captain in Vietnam, Bronze Star.
* Pete Stark: Air Force 1955-57
* Chuck Robb: Vietnam
* Howell Heflin: Silver Star
* George McGovern: Silver Star & DFC during WWII.
* Bill Clinton: Did not serve. Student deferments. Entered draft but received #311.
* Jimmy Carter: Seven years in the Navy.
* Walter Mondale: Army 1951-1953
* John Glenn: WWII and Korea; six DFCs and Air Medal with 18 Clusters.
* Tom Lantos: Served in Hungarian underground in WWII. Saved by Raoul Wallenberg.
Republicans
* Dick Cheney: did not serve. Several deferments, the last by marriage.
* Dennis Hastert: did not serve.
* Tom Delay: did not serve.
* Roy Blunt: did not serve.
* Bill Frist: did not serve.
* Mitch McConnell: did not serve.
* Rick Santorum: did not serve.
* Trent Lott: did not serve.
* John Ashcroft: did not serve. Seven deferments to teach business.
* Jeb Bush: did not serve.
* Karl Rove: did not serve.
* Saxby Chambliss: did not serve. "Bad knee." The man who attacked Max Cleland's patriotism.
* Paul Wolfowitz: did not serve.
* Vin Weber: did not serve.
* Richard Perle: did not serve.
* Douglas Feith: did not serve.
* Eliot Abrams: did not serve
* Richard Shelby: did not serve.
* Jon! Kyl: did not serve
* Tim Hutchison: did not serve.
* Christopher Cox: did not serve.
* Newt Gingrich: did not serve.
* Don Rumsfeld: served in Navy (1954-57) as flight instructor.
* George W. Bush: failed to complete his six-year National Guard; got assigned to Alabama so he could campaign for family friend running for U.S.
Senate; failed to show up for required medical exam, disappeared from duty.
* Ronald Reagan: due to poor eyesight, served in a non-combat role making movies.
* B-1 Bob Dornan: Consciously enlisted after fighting was over in Korea.
* Phil Gramm: did not serve.
* John McCain: Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross.
* Dana Rohrabacher: did not serve.
* John M. McHugh: did not serve.
* JC Watts: did not serve.
* Jack Kemp: did not serve. "Knee problem," although continued in NFL for 8 years.
* Dan Quayle: Journalism unit of the Indiana National Guard.
* Rudy Giuliani: did not serve.
* George Pataki: did not serve.
* Spencer Abraham: did not serve.
* John Engler: did not serve.
* Lindsey Graham: National Guard lawyer.
* Arnold Schwarzenegger: AWOL from Austrian army base.
Pundits & Preachers
* Sean Hannity: did not serve.
* Rush Limbaugh: did not serve (4-F with a 'pilonidal cyst.')
* Bill O'Reilly: did not serve.
* Michael Savage: did not serve.
* George Will: did not serve
* Chris Matthews: did not serve.
* Paul Gigot: did not serve.
* Bill Bennett: did not serve.
* Pat Buchanan: did not serve.
* John Wayne: did not serve.
* Bill Kristol: did not serve.
* Kenneth Starr: did not serve.
* Antonin Scalia: did not serve.
* Clarence Thomas: did not serve.
* Ralph Reed: did not serve.
* Michael Medved: did not serve.
* Charlie Daniels: did not serve.
* Ted Nugent: did not serve. (He only shoots at things that don't shoot back.)
I have no interest in addressing your name calling, but
I will just say here that, once again, Peggy Noonan is spot-on. If you read the Conservative board with any regularity at all, it should come as no surprise that conservatives often disagree with GWB's spending; this is one of the two principal areas of disagreement that have been discussed over the past couple of years on the board. The other is border control.
At present, as Ms. Noonan says, he is better than the last alternative. He's also the only game in town as of right now, but he does need to be cautious about being too laissez-faire about alienating the conservative base.
IMHO, unless the Republicans come up with a candidate who is truly a fiscal conservative and is willing to prioritize and cut spending, he is setting Republicans up for another 1992 - a third party candidate siphoning off conservative votes and handing the election to the Democrats. Also IMHO (this will come as no surprise), that would not be a good thing.
Back to the Conservative board....sorry to intrude here, but I can't resist Peggy Noonan.
Hmm...in the interest of full disclosure...
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/07/where_in_the_world_is_obamas_m.html
Don't care where Waldo is, but would like to know where the thesis is...and also the rest of the missing Columbia records. If people are so concerned about where what the #2 on the other ticket did in Wasilla, Alaska, and how many colleges she went to, I would like to know what the #1 on the Democratic ticket was doing during his Columbia years. After all...he IS running for the #1 slot.
You must be talking about our shared interest
resource bases, pride in our candidate, his vision for America and our confidence he will be the "chosen one" come November.
Lack of interest was the point.
Focks Noise is rarely relevant. I am retired and as grown as I can get. Resorting to name calling when someone doesn't agree with you does not exactly imply a great deal of maturity.
|
