the reason for young chickens...
Posted By: Kendra on 2008-11-22
In Reply to: They do them just like they do chickens..(sm) - Just the big bad
is to keep costs low, so we can afford them--remember that chicken used to be very expensive. However, withdrawal times on steroids are such that chickens are not given steroids because they won't pass FDA standards. They are fed antibiotics in their water because with SO many in one chicken house, they are very vulnerable to disease, but no growth hormones or steroids. The faster maturing birds are due to selective breeding (short gestation=fast change). That is also why everything tastes like chicken. With the faster maturing young birds we eat, the meat actually has very little taste, so it is not as much that other things taste like chicken as it is that chicken does not really taste like anything. (I spent many unhappy classed in STINKY chicken houses in college). I HATE chickens! and Turkeys! but I do like to eat them.
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
Chickens
I'm not counting mine until they're hatched. I learned in 2000 that anything can happen in an election.
I do applaud the grace and dignity you exhibited in your post, though. 
They do them just like they do chickens..(sm)
Through the miracle of steroids you can have a 6-week-old chickadee that looks and tastes like a full grown chicken. The whole industry is kind of disgusting. And people wonder why I have a big garden.
I'm not counting my chickens yet.
Not unlike the leaders of this country, those chickens might appear healthy on the surface, yet be harboring something very dangerous and deadly inside.
I don't think it takes much for any reasonable person to fill in the blanks of what really happened here. Wilson told the truth and disagreed with Bush. Bush doesn't like the truth and particularly doesn't like people who disagree with him. Therefore, the messenger must be destroyed. If that includes an undercover CIA operative and all the people she worked with it, well, that just makes the revenge sweeter. Period.
If anyone else did it, it would be considered treason. If Bush does it, it's merely dirty politics.
The real question now is: IS it illegal or just dirty politics as usual in Washington? In my book, it's certainly immoral, unethical and I especially agree with the last paragraph of the article when it refers to our democracy being hijacked on the way to war.
I would love to see these scumbags indicted, and the only person I have any faith in IS Fitzgerald. I believe if something illegal occurred, Fitzgerald will indict.
Anyone who paid attention to these elections knows how the Bush camp works. Look what they did to John Kerry's courageous military service, when Bush himself was too much of a coward to put his own life in danger.
GT, I hope we all can survive the next 3 years. Between avian flu, terrorism and a president whose hobby is playing GI Joe for REAL, I'm not very hopeful.
I'm looking for a reason to smile this week. I hope Mr. Fitzgerald provides one. To see that honesty and accountability are still alive and well in the U.S. and that all has NOT been lost would definitely make me smile. 
Don't count your chickens...
I wouldn't be so sure about an Obama victory just yet. I seem to recall that not just four months ago, everyone thought the nominee was going to be Hillary and you see how that one turned out!
Don't count your chickens...
...until they're hatched.
The timing of this whole Israeli mess is very interesting. Don't count out martial law just yet, in case there's a "terror attack" on the USA or some other scheme going on in Washington. 
Sorry for you ......you think chickens and humans
xx
Don't count your chickens before they are hatched
Truth of the matter is we don't know who will win. The polls mean didly. I've said it before and I'll say it again - They don't mean anything. Even Rasmussen was interviewed and he said you cannot tell by polls who is ahead and a lot of it has to do with the media and their love affair with Obama and how they are manipulating what they are feeding you. The real poll will be on 11/4 after the election is held or the next day.
Oh, and your comments can go both ways -
What's going to happen to the rabid democrats when McCain wins?
Will their anger fade away or are we going to see riots in the streets because a black man didn't win with Farrakan leading the way?
Will they accept a McCain presidency, or are they going to remaind divided like they always have while pointing the finger that the other side won't work with them.
What's going to happen when they find out that their "lord" Obama was actually born in Kenya and there is a birth certificate to prove it, which makes him disqualified to run as president. Will his good friend (the leader of Kenya) be able to keep this silenced for long. He already threw one person in jail for getting too close - will he be able to jail everyone who wants to know the truth.
Will Franks, Dodd & others who benefitted from FMFM and threw the economy into a near depression be men and own up to their mistakes or will they sit on their hands and continue to blame the republicans.
I don't have to ask if they will undermine the progress to make themselves look better. They have already been doing that and they will continue on.
Domestic terrorists you ask? We don't have to look any further than Obama's close friends William Ayers, his good freinds in Pakistan whom he spent time over there with, and his friends from the Muslim schools he attended while growing up as a Muslim.
If I had known back then what I know now about Obama, I would have voted for Hillary. At least we know about her. It's what Obama is hiding about himself that HAS to make you wonder.
The questions still remains...
Why do so many people not care if we have a president who has ties/friends to known terrorists?
Why do so many people not care that their taxes will go up and they'll be left with less money to live on.
Why do so many people just blatantly ignore the facts about Obama, which is NOT, I repeat NOT a good direction for our country to go.
Why do so many people not care if they elect this guy our country will be turned to a socialist country. Are there really that many of you that don't have a lot so you believe that the people who have worked so hard all of their lives should just give you part of what they have worked for?
Why do so many people not care what happens to our country?
Why do so many people not care that our country will not be safe anymore?
Why do so many people not even care about 9/11 and everything we have done to keep our country safe since then. Lets just throw it all away and vote in this radical muslim. Why? Because it's PC?
Why do so many people believe him when he says he won't raise your taxes, when in fact his voting records shows that he voted to raise taxes over 50 times in the past, but now that he's running for President and telling you that he won't raise your taxes you believe him? Why?
There are too many why's and such an unsettling feeling. Sure McCain may not be my first choice, but between the two he is the better choice.
The election isn't over, and its with views like yours that I hope martial law is implimented and McCain is placed in the position. If that happens it will serve you right!
chickens and doves and cows etc....
I know what's going on.
I am a vegetarian!
Therefore!
I'm becoming more hopeful by the day. By 2012, the chickens
...a lot of voters will have lost their enchantment with the "idea" of voting for a President on the basis of his race or his superficial, glib mannerisms. In fact, if the Democrats themselves continue on the path they're starting to follow, I'm not entirely sure he'll be renominated!
The press can't change any of this, either. About 80% of the American population doesn't even watch the evening news on any of the so-called "main" networks.
Haha - I guess this poster goes to bed with the chickens
.
As a mom of 3 young men, I remember
vividly the day my oldest left for the Air Force. He was 19. There was no war. Then son #2 left in the National Guard in 1991 during Desert Storm.
I have to give her credit for even being able to speak, let alone hold up under fire, right after sending her son off to war!
You may be too young to remember, but that is what..sm
they said about John F. Kennedy and we all know what happened with that election and Nixon's loss, eventual election, and ultimate disgrace to our country. Most would have said Nixon was more qualified and had more experience. What do you think?
You must be quite young. It is an old saying originating..sm
from an actual doll that talked when you pulled the string. Chatty Cathy
Okay, pull it on.........young man said it with
xx
Wow you were married that young!
That's the crazy thing I read in any of your posts. LOL. Just kidding. Been with my DH since I was 18 but didn't get married until I was 25 and we decided to have kids. Good luck.
You must be too young to remember the 50s and 60s.
Can't get past the first laughable faulty premise that would have us believe there has never been an illegal election in the US. Discredits your entire post.
Thank god Im still young enough for someone to tell me to Grow up
LOL
PS I did not hear that on TV
Did you see the one about the young guy who worked
at McDonald's for 4 1/2 years? He couldn't get another job and wanted to know what O was going to do about it. I was absolutely shocked!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TptsP4ryido&feature=related
You must be pretty young if you
.
This is the reason we are in Iraq and it's the same reason I didn't vote for him in 2000: Didn't
his own personal reasons.
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050620/why_george_went_to_war.php
The Downing Street memos have brought into focus an essential question: on what basis did President George W. Bush decide to invade Iraq? The memos are a government-level confirmation of what has been long believed by so many: that the administration was hell-bent on invading Iraq and was simply looking for justification, valid or not.
Despite such mounting evidence, Bush resolutely maintains total denial. In fact, when a British reporter asked the president recently about the Downing Street documents, Bush painted himself as a reluctant warrior. "Both of us didn't want to use our military," he said, answering for himself and British Prime Minister Blair. "Nobody wants to commit military into combat. It's the last option."
Yet there's evidence that Bush not only deliberately relied on false intelligence to justify an attack, but that he would have willingly used any excuse at all to invade Iraq. And that he was obsessed with the notion well before 9/11—indeed, even before he became president in early 2001.
In interviews I conducted last fall, a well-known journalist, biographer and Bush family friend who worked for a time with Bush on a ghostwritten memoir said that an Iraq war was always on Bush's brain.
"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and Houston Chronicle journalist Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said, 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He went on, 'If I have a chance to invade…, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency.'"
Bush apparently accepted a view that Herskowitz, with his long experience of writing books with top Republicans, says was a common sentiment: that no president could be considered truly successful without one military "win" under his belt. Leading Republicans had long been enthralled by the effect of the minuscule Falklands War on British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's popularity, and ridiculed Democrats such as Jimmy Carter who were reluctant to use American force. Indeed, both Reagan and Bush's father successfully prosecuted limited invasions (Grenada, Panama and the Gulf War) without miring the United States in endless conflicts.
Herskowitz's revelations illuminate Bush's personal motivation for invading Iraq and, more importantly, his general inclination to use war to advance his domestic political ends. Furthermore, they establish that this thinking predated 9/11, predated his election to the presidency and predated his appointment of leading neoconservatives who had their own, separate, more complex geopolitical rationale for supporting an invasion.
Conversations With Bush The Candidate
Herskowitz—a longtime Houston newspaper columnist—has ghostwritten or co-authored autobiographies of a broad spectrum of famous people, including Reagan adviser Michael Deaver, Mickey Mantle, Dan Rather and Nixon cabinet secretary John B. Connally. Bush's 1999 comments to Herskowitz were made over the course of as many as 20 sessions together. Eventually, campaign staffers—expressing concern about things Bush had told the author that were included in the manuscript—pulled the project, and Bush campaign officials came to Herskowitz's house and took his original tapes and notes. Bush communications director Karen Hughes then assumed responsibility for the project, which was published in highly sanitized form as A Charge to Keep.
The revelations about Bush's attitude toward Iraq emerged during two taped sessions I held with Herskowitz. These conversations covered a variety of matters, including the journalist's continued closeness with the Bush family and fondness for Bush Senior—who clearly trusted Herskowitz enough to arrange for him to pen a subsequent authorized biography of Bush's grandfather, written and published in 2003.
I conducted those interviews last fall and published an article based on them during the final heated days of the 2004 campaign. Herskowitz's taped insights were verified to the satisfaction of editors at the Houston Chronicle, yet the story failed to gain broad mainstream coverage, primarily because news organization executives expressed concern about introducing such potent news so close to the election. Editors told me they worried about a huge backlash from the White House and charges of an "October Surprise."
Debating The Timeline For War
But today, as public doubts over the Iraq invasion grow, and with the Downing Street papers adding substance to those doubts, the Herskowitz interviews assume singular importance by providing profound insight into what motivated Bush—personally—in the days and weeks following 9/11. Those interviews introduce us to a George W. Bush, who, until 9/11, had no means for becoming "a great president"—because he had no easy path to war. Once handed the national tragedy of 9/11, Bush realized that the Afghanistan campaign and the covert war against terrorist organizations would not satisfy his ambitions for greatness. Thus, Bush shifted focus from Al Qaeda, perpetrator of the attacks on New York and Washington. Instead, he concentrated on ensuring his place in American history by going after a globally reviled and easily targeted state run by a ruthless dictator.
The Herskowitz interviews add an important dimension to our understanding of this presidency, especially in combination with further evidence that Bush's focus on Iraq was motivated by something other than credible intelligence. In their published accounts of the period between 9/11 and the March 2003 invasion, former White House Counterterrorism Coordinator Richard Clarke and journalist Bob Woodward both describe a president single-mindedly obsessed with Iraq. The first anecdote takes place the day after the World Trade Center collapsed, in the Situation Room of the White House. The witness is Richard Clarke, and the situation is captured in his book, Against All Enemies.
On September 12th, I left the Video Conferencing Center and there, wandering alone around the Situation Room, was the President. He looked like he wanted something to do. He grabbed a few of us and closed the door to the conference room. "Look," he told us, "I know you have a lot to do and all…but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way…"
I was once again taken aback, incredulous, and it showed. "But, Mr. President, Al Qaeda did this."
"I know, I know, but…see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred…" …
"Look into Iraq, Saddam," the President said testily and left us. Lisa Gordon-Hagerty stared after him with her mouth hanging open.
Similarly, Bob Woodward, in a CBS News 60 Minutes interview about his book, Bush At War, captures a moment, on November 21, 2001, where the president expresses an acute sense of urgency that it is time to secretly plan the war with Iraq. Again, we know there was nothing in the way of credible intelligence to precipitate the president's actions.
Woodward: "President Bush, after a National Security Council meeting, takes Don Rumsfeld aside, collars him physically and takes him into a little cubbyhole room and closes the door and says, 'What have you got in terms of plans for Iraq? What is the status of the war plan? I want you to get on it. I want you to keep it secret.'"
Wallace (voiceover): Woodward says immediately after that, Rumsfeld told Gen. Tommy Franks to develop a war plan to invade Iraq and remove Saddam—and that Rumsfeld gave Franks a blank check.
Woodward: "Rumsfeld and Franks work out a deal essentially where Franks can spend any money he needs. And so he starts building runways and pipelines and doing all the necessary preparations in Kuwait specifically to make war possible."
Bush wanted a war so that he could build the political capital necessary to achieve his domestic agenda and become, in his mind, "a great president." Blair and the members of his cabinet, unaware of the Herskowitz conversations, placed Bush's decision to mount an invasion in or about July of 2002. But for Bush, the question that summer was not whether, it was only how and when. The most important question, why, was left for later.
Eventually, there would be a succession of answers to that question: weapons of mass destruction, links to Al Qaeda, the promotion of democracy, the domino theory of the Middle East. But none of them have been as convincing as the reason George W. Bush gave way back in the summer of 1999.
They not only *prey* on young people
but they are so desperate to find kids to die in Iraq that they even take kids on drugs and teach these kids how to pass a drug test so they can get in the military.
I think you underestimate the young minds...sm
Thought I'll agree the walkout probably was not for political reasons so much so as for what they believe is right. Do you think they probably have a lot of respect for this teacher? Maybe. It is possible to be passionate about something other than cutting class as a teenager. I know I was, and so is my daughter who just turned 13.
I also have to give you the point that the teacher should have stayed on the subject matter of the class. If you're hired to teach geography then teach geograpy BUT we don't have the privlege of seeing the course outlines, book, etc. It may not be so cut and dry as capitols, states, and what have you. So before you call for his head on a plank you should at least know that much. Whose to say that this course was not comingled with history and this teacher was within his right to bring up subjects to provoke thought. I don't see the problem with that.
Listening to the message in a whole, I don't see a problem in what the teacher said excpt that he may have deviated from the subject matter. And the fact still remains that we don't know the totality of the course description.
Young soldiers I know personally and on TV. Many
many of them felt very differently when they first went to war. After coming back they seem to come back with a very different view. Most of the soldiers I know think the war needs to end. I don't think most Americans think we should stop funding the war until the soldiers come home, and that's just it, many of us want them to come home! I watched a documentary on Showtime called Semper Fi, and it was a really moving account of a proud Marine's time in Iraq. I would definitely recommend watching it if you want to hear a first-hand account of how one patriotic soldier was disillusioned by the war and how he was given false information over and over again by his higher-ups. I don't claim to know the solution, and I know none of the candidates on either side have the perfect solution either, but I just feel that we are not making the progress we should be making, kids' mothers and fathers are dying every day in Iraq, and it makes me incredibly sad. Simple as that. I don't think we have any right to be there. I do believe we had a right to go to Afganistan, but not Iraq. That's just my feeling, and I really don't feel like getting into a huge debate about the war. I just want it to end.
She's that young? I figured McCain was at
encouraging young people to
become involved in the election process -- can anything be more CHILLING!!!!!!
I loved him in Young Riders
He's a good actor (he can play some real creepy characters). Not sure about his political viewpoints because I'm not very conservative.
right, al the young and educated, progressive
people voted for Mousavi. Even before all the votes were in, the government already announced a landslide win for Ahmedinejad. Definitely fraud, Ahmedinejad's ratings before the elections were very low, high unemployment rate. How could he win?
I'm assuming you are quite young, am I correct in
that assumption?
Recruiters *prey* on young people. sm
You do realize recruiters are part of the military you scream so loudly that you support. Recruiters have always come to high schools. I happen to think that the military is a fine career. No one is twisting anyone's arm. Military has been a part of our existence since we settled here and had the calvary. You are suggesting that high school students have no free will. That isn't logical in the least.
Young black man said he signed up 73 times
xx
Do you know how many young people BUSH KILLED FOR OIL? sm
Even Palin admitted in her interview with the moron Glenn Beck that the war was at least partially about energy resources. Wise up!
Who was rude? I just said she sounds young. You are just mad cuz Obama is winning
so everything i say is hateable from your point... well you can kiss my grits lady...you cannot come to my victory party... no snotty argumentative loser rednecks allowed.
It is new kid on the block as a national entity. 60 years young.
I don't need to consult Wikipedia. I've witnessed and dealt with Israeli atrocities first hand over the past 40+ years. Palestine has always been of interest to me. Israel's theft of Palestine occurred in my birth year.
In response to your oh-so-typical anti-Semite accusation, my issues are not with the people of faith in any religion. Rather, I take strong exception to the ugly politicized version of Jewish nationalism/Zionism in much the same way I do with politicized Islam. Palestinians did not make this into a religious war. For them, it is a question of national identity, as you very well know. So let's not pretend this is about hatred of Jews. The shame is on you to try to drag God into the ungodly.
My artificial intelligence includes 4 decades of dedicated research, personal acquaintance with scores of Palestinians, too numerous to count Arabs and progressive Jews who do not identify with the blood-thirsty behavior of their so-called leadership, political activism, association by marriage, relatives and the fact that I have lived in the region and experienced first-hand the devastation exacted at the hand of Israel.
Sabra and Shatila took me off any high horse I may have ever been on. You might want to remember that horror and dismount yourself. You are not talking to some ill-informed US media drone here, so don't try to clobber me with your "we were there first" nonsense. You and I both know that is hogwash and from where I sit, you are the one who is riding around in that bubble of blather.
Bottom line time. It's the occupation, stupid. Zionists will never have a moment's peace as long as they can't deal with that one universal truth. One only has to inspect the bloodshed statistics at the hands of the Israelis and the history of the wars they have fought to understand who the terrorists are and who cannot deal with the very notion of peace on earth. The ice water that runs through your veins and your lack of responsibiity and remorse over the pain and suffering Israel has caused speaks volumes about the humanitarian aspects of this tragedy.
I'm not in this for the support I may or may not get from them. For me, it is a simple question of right and wrong, but for the record, I enjoy open acceptance among my Arab friends and relatives. My relationships with them have enriched my life beyond measure.
of course he lied - but no one died - he had a young daughter to protect...
All men would lie - when, in fact, it was nobody's freakin' business........that was Hillary's problem
Obama drank and snorted cocaine when he was a young person....
does that mean you are not going to vote for him? Geez, what a cheap shot. You accept the same behavior in him and you want to rip kids who aren't even running for office. Just nasty little rascals, aren't you?
Yes - there was a young surgeon featured on one local TV program about this mess. SM
I didn't catch the first part of the segment, but he is having to think about joining the military medical corps because he had just opened his practice when the recession hit and can't pay his loans, and there aren't any openings in other practices around here now.
Young Voters Fall for Obama’s Promises Without Any Historical Perspective..sm
Election 2008: Young Voters Fall for Obama’s Promises Without Any Historical Perspective
By Liz Peek
Financial Columnist
Today we will almost surely elect Barack Obama President of the United States. A new generation will vote for Mr. Obama –- a generation that has grown up with the Internet. This new crop of voters has access to more information than any that came before, and yet has swallowed Obama’s impossible campaign promises and contradictory policies just as trustingly as those who in earlier times looked for a chicken in every pot.
Welcome to the disillusionment of another generation. I don’t anticipate this inevitable consequence of today’s election with any glee, believe me. To see young people turning out in droves to vote for this eloquent, attractive young man is inspiring. To hear them buy into his promises, though, is sobering.
For instance, we are told that the image of the United States has suffered mightily under George Bush, and that Obama is going to usher in a veritable global love-fest. Would those falling over themselves to herald our new president include the peoples of South Korea and Colombia –- allies both — whose much-needed free trade agreements with the U.S. Obama has opposed?
How about our neighbors in Canada or Mexico; will Obama’s promised re-write of NAFTA endear them to the U.S.? Is it possible that Obama’s opposition to free trade demonstrates his gratitude to labor unions –- groups that aroused his ire by donating to the Clinton and Edwards campaigns but suddenly were much more warmly welcomed when they began shifting funds his way?
Over a year ago I wrote a tongue-in-cheek column defending the status quo against the pressing demand for “Change” writ large. While politicians of all stripes were heralding new directions, they were ignoring, for example, that the U.S. has been blessed for many years with low inflation. Voters in their 30s and 40s could not be expected to remember the devastating inflation of the 1970s. They couldn’t be expected to understand how double-digit price hikes threw the fear of God into retirees on fixed incomes and created the same kind of paralysis in lending that we are witnessing today.
They might not connect the dots between Obama’s enthusiasm for the Employee Free Choice Act, a resurgence of unionization, and wage-driven inflation. They might not realize that restricting trade with China, re-writing NAFTA and barring adoption of free trade agreements with Colombia and South Korea will indeed drive prices higher.
The United States has also enjoyed a period of stable employment. The new generation has never seen serious unemployment. True, they have witnessed shifts in employment as manufacturing jobs have been lost to lower-priced locales. But they have never seen unemployment rates go much above 6%, where it is now. In 1982, when unemployment reached 9.7%, Obama was 21 years old. I doubt he was much focused on the dismal state of the economy. Voters, however, were focused, and gave Ronald Reagan a mandate to set the country on a new course –- one which encouraged growth through lower taxes, expanded trade and deregulation.
That program was adopted by both Democrats and Republicans because it worked. People in their thirties and forties cannot imagine that raising taxes on successful people might harm the economy. That’s because they weren’t around to witness the exodus of talent from England –- a country wherein punitive marginal tax rates squashed incentives and drove out anyone who could locate elsewhere. Margaret Thatcher didn’t just join the Reagan Revolution –- she clung to it for dear life.
What young voters have seen, and have responded to, is the collapse of Wall Street. Because bankers, politicians and speculators conspired to create the worst investment bubble in modern times, we are about to abandon the policies that brought millions of people around the world into the middle class. Policies that gave people real hope –- not just its rhetorical facsimile. This is a tragedy.
http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/11/04/lpeek_1104/#more-2415
If Palin is unable to supervise her young ones, how can she supervise a nation?
When I saw the picture of her daughter who is pregnant, my heart broke. She has the look of an adolescent. What in the world is she doing having sex? How could her mother miss the signs that her daughter was taking part in adult activity with dire consequences? Because she failed to provide supervision, this child woman will now be forced to forego a young adulthood in which Bristol discovers herself during the difficult phase called identity crisis all young people go through, disocvering the world and entering academia without the huge responsibility of raising a child, and making the choice of when to have a child when she is mature enough. This is a monumental failure.
New reason
Bush gives new reason for Iraq war
Says US must prevent oil fields from falling into hands of terrorists
By Jennifer Loven, Associated Press | August 31, 2005
CORONADO, Calif. -- President Bush answered growing antiwar protests
yesterday with a fresh reason for US troops to continue fighting in
Iraq: protection of the country's vast oil fields, which he said
would otherwise fall under the control of terrorist extremists.
The president, standing against a backdrop of the USS Ronald Reagan,
the newest aircraft carrier in the Navy's fleet, said terrorists
would be denied their goal of making Iraq a base from which to
recruit followers, train them, and finance attacks.
''We will defeat the terrorists, Bush said. ''We will build a free
Iraq that will fight terrorists instead of giving them aid and
sanctuary.
Appearing at Naval Air Station North Island to commemorate the
anniversary of the Allies' World War II victory over Japan, Bush
compared his resolve to President Franklin D. Roosevelt's in the
1940s and said America's mission in Iraq is to turn it into a
democratic ally just as the United States did with Japan after its
1945 surrender. Bush's V-J Day ceremony did not fall on the actual
anniversary. Japan announced its surrender on Aug. 15, 1945 -- Aug.
14 in the United States because of the time difference.
Democrats said Bush's leadership falls far short of Roosevelt's.
''Democratic Presidents Roosevelt and Truman led America to victory
in World War II because they laid out a clear plan for success to the
American people, America's allies, and America's troops, said Howard
Dean, Democratic Party chairman. ''President Bush has failed to put
together a plan, so despite the bravery and sacrifice of our troops,
we are not making the progress that we should be in Iraq. The troops,
our allies, and the American people deserve better leadership from
our commander in chief.
The speech was Bush's third in just over a week defending his Iraq
policies, as the White House scrambles to counter growing public
concern about the war. But the devastation wrought by Hurricane
Katrina in the Gulf Coast drew attention away; the White House
announced during the president's remarks that he was cutting his
August vacation short to return to Washington, D.C., to oversee the
federal response effort.
After the speech, Bush hurried back to Texas ahead of schedule to
prepare to fly back to the nation's capital today. He was to return
to the White House on Friday, after spending more than four weeks
operating from his ranch in Crawford.
Bush's August break has been marked by problems in Iraq.
It has been an especially deadly month there for US troops, with the
number of those who have died since the invasion of Iraq in March
2003 now nearing 1,900.
The growing death toll has become a regular feature of the slightly
larger protests that Bush now encounters everywhere he goes -- a
movement boosted by a vigil set up in a field down the road from the
president's ranch by a mother grieving the loss of her soldier son in
Iraq.
Cindy Sheehan arrived in Crawford only days after Bush did, asking
for a meeting so he could explain why her son and others are dying in
Iraq. The White House refused, and Sheehan's camp turned into a hub
of activity for hundreds of activists around the country demanding
that troops be brought home.
This week, the administration also had to defend the proposed
constitution produced in Iraq at US urging. Critics fear the impact
of its rejection by many Sunnis, and say it fails to protect
religious freedom and women's rights.
At the naval base, Bush declared, ''We will not rest until victory is
America's and our freedom is secure from Al Qaeda and its forces in
Iraq led by Abu Musab alZarqawi.
''If Zarqawi and [Osama] bin Laden gain control of Iraq, they would
create a new training ground for future terrorist attacks, Bush
said. ''They'd seize oil fields to fund their ambitions. They could
recruit more terrorists by claiming a historic victory over the
United States and our coalition.
The reason
Like GT so eloquently wrote below, she has nothing to do with my request that you leave our board. The only person who has anything to do with it is YOU.
You and every single one of your *friends* are rude, crude, abrasive, insulting, and continually lie, lie, LIE. You are the kind of people I would choose NOT to associate with in real life because you have no values and you have a gang mentality, but most of all, you're just deplorable human beings, as you yourselves have demonstrated through your posts.
You have your own board. Would you please just go back there? You are offensive to many on this board. This is the liberal board. You clearly don't belong here any more than I don't belong on your board, where you and you *friends* indeed constantly gang up on anyone who disagrees with you. If that's how you want to conduct yourselves on your own board, that's fine. It's your board, and if you choose to turn it into a filthy sewer, that's your option. But you don't have the right do that on the liberal board. I'm very close to writing to the administrator and complaining about you all before I leave, as well. You don't contribute anything of value to this board, and all you morons do is chase kind, loving and intelligent people away.
As GT says in her posts, you are clearly obsessed with her, and I don't understand why, but you're becoming psychotic about it, and you're showing that psychosis to anyone who reads this board. You paint her to be a terrible person, and from what I read in her posts, she is NOT a terrible person. She is loving and caring and intelligent..all traits that not ONE of you posseses. You are way out of your limited ignorant hateful league on this board. Please. JUST GO AWAY.
There's no other reason.
All they want to do is start trouble. Ignore the gnats.
The reason for this. sm
and something that is not in this short article is the language of the bill and the loopholes it leaves open. I have no doubt at all that the NRA would back terrorists or suspected terrorists from getting guns. However, this bill is badly written and needs to be revised to leave no loopholes for further legislation not included in the bill, which often happens.
This is one BIG reason why
I don't want government involved in my health care. The VA is a joke and our veterans do not get the care that they need and deserve. If heroes like that aren't taken care of by our government....what in the he11 makes us think that the government will take care of us? 
You are the reason I put it in here, to
see just how much it would bother you. Knew you would make a fool of yourself again and give us all another good laugh for the day. It's just another name to me, could be Tom Thumb as far as I care.
I am sorry that is the only reason you
want Obama to win this election. I am afraid you are in for a rude awakening, my child! No need for rubbing in my face, I can easily live it, I have a higher power on my side! As stated earlier, I have a life outside this election, I only wish the same for you.
Here's another possible reason:
Maybe people who are struggling to afford healthcare, fill up their gas tanks and feed their families just happen to agree with his VIEWS on the issues.
This is the reason
We have always felt O was wrong for the position. We have been discussing what his policies will mean to the country. His lack of knowledge, his plans are bad for the country and will not keep us safe, his redistribution of wealth and how that will not help the economy and will put us into a depression. It will now mean there will no longer be a middle income anymore. Those middle income will now be among the low income and the downright poor will now also join the low income. So we've tried discussing O and his plans/issues. Nobody wanted to listen. They are just too he!!-bent on hating Bush with such abhorrence they won't listen to reason. O tells people he's going to give them all this stuff for free and people believe it. We've tried pointing out his character flaws and who he keeps for company - Ayers, Wright, Farrahkan, etc. Only after he hears an outcry from some he decides to say, oh yeah, I don't agree with him, he just happened to be someone in my neighborhood which is an outright lie, but people just hate Bush/Cheney so much they won't see past his lies.
I think we all have a feeling O will win, unless a miracle happens (and they can - we can all hope and pray), but a lot do not know what it is like to live in a socialist country. Where what you work for his taken away from you without your consent and given to others who like most are now saying they will quit and just get the handouts O is promising.
We are trying to expose O for what he truly is. His followers do not seem to care that he sat through 20 years of Wright's hateful anti-American sermons twice a month for the past 20 years and never got up and walked out of any of them. His followers do not seem to care that he will blantantly change the constitution just so he can be elected. His followers do not seem to care that the people who gave him his start in politics are Ayers. While you all choose to believe he was "just a guy in my neighborhood". His followers do not seem to care that he is accepting money from countries like Libya and our other enemies - the same ones who are trying to destroy us and wipe us off the planet as a nation unless we convert to Islam. There are so many reasons we are so appalled that this character slimed his way up and stole the election from Hillary. As election day comes closer we are ever more worried that that O could get in. We will hope and pray he doesn't but the thought of what will happen to our country. Everything our country was based on and evertything our founding fathers went through to make this a great country will be lost forever. But that is okay for his followers. After all Farrakan said he is the messiah, so most of his followers must be Farrakan supporters too. It's a very sad time to see how many of O's followers want to live in socialism, how many of you do not care if the country is safe, how many don't care that they are have re-education camps to throw those who do not think like them in and if they cannot be re-educated they will be eliminated. It's frightening to think many who support him will most likely be like those in Germany who turned in people who didn't agree with the Fuhrer. I just don't want to live in a country like that, but many do say "History will repeat itself".
For some reason......
they didn't want to give you that loan. Refusal because of $11? Sounds like an excuse to me. Our lender (who also sold us the property) even lied about how much we put down..........
The only reason I have
ever called you a kool-aid drinker is because you constantly post about rhetoric. When will you wake up and realize that even democrat politicians say one thing and do another. You can't get much more obvious about than the Obama administration and yet you continue to sing his praise. You are blinded by your own political party.
Obama...the man who said he would sign no bill with pork in it and then did without batting an eyelash.
The man who said he would pull troops out of Iraq and has extended the time frame to keep troops in Iraq longer and to deploy more in Afghan. He ridiculed McCain for not wanting a time line but I guess a time line is okay as long as you can push it back whenever you feel the need, huh?
A man who promised tax cuts on 95% of the American people and yet he wants cap and trade which will tax everyone A LOT.
Gay rights activists sing his praise and yet Obama himself isn't for same sex marriage.
He wants people to have the right to choose to carry a child or abort it and yet he takes the rights away from hospitals and doctors by not allowing them to refuse to perform that procedure. You complain about taking the rights away from people but yet you have no problem taking rights away from people with a different view point than yourself.
Yet all you ever come back with is that we are a bunch of babies who need to grow some balls and how ignorant we are for watching Fox News even though Fox has higher ratings than the crap you watch.
The channels you profess to tell the truth aren't even covering the tea parties. I personally feel that thousands and thousands of Americans protesting is a big deal and should be reported on whether or not a channel agrees with the reason behind it. Picking and choosing what to report is not telling the truth. It is being very one sided. Any open minded person would realize that.
Reason
Can you demonsrate that the health of those without healthcare coverage is better or equal to that of those who have healthcare coverage?
I see no reason why
marriage would not still be limited to two people (of whatever flavor) at a time. Bygamy would still be bygamy.
You're right. Think what men with half a dozen legal wives and a couple of dozen kids could do to any medical plan, let alone our system for deducting dependents from income tax.
On the other hand, I have a same-sex housemate who is disabled, unemployed and uninsured. We are not gay, but if same-sex marriage were legal, I could marry her and get her insured under my plan. Many marriages involve no sex. Maybe they didn't start out that way but over time they evolve in that direction. We would simply be skipping the honeymoon part.
|
