to clarify - the baby's safety is the first thing I thought of that was worrisome..
Posted By: MTpocketsTYGeorge on 2008-09-04
In Reply to: Who is Palin's pick for running mate again? - MTpocketsTYGeorge
it appeared tacky to me to use the baby in such a way. When I re-read my post I guess it could have been taken differently than it was meant. anywho - it is not a choice I would have made as a mother...
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
Well you didn't clarify a single thing,
just restated your point all over again. Which I still don't understand. Never mind. 
Have you ever thought maybe she wanted a baby
My cousin at 16 wanted a baby. Her parents tried talking her out of it. Explained what her life would be like. Told her about safe sex, birth control, etc. She still got pregnant and had a beautiful baby and she's a good mother. My other cousin (her sister) wanted a baby. Again my aunt and uncle talked to her. At 17 she had her baby and she is a wonderful mother.
So think people....it is possible her daughter wants a baby. Especially if all of her friends are having babies.
wow, nice thing to say about a Down Syndrome baby
how old do you think he is? babies SLEEP and Down syndrome babies are slower, are you not aware of this ? NICE POST
and the anchor baby thing needs to stop as
--
The last sentence is particularly worrisome for Michigan.....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/18/AR2009061804053.html?wpisrc=newsletter
Senate's Health-Care Draft Calls for Most to Buy Insurance, Nixes Obama's 'Public Option'
By Lori Montgomery and Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, June 19, 2009
A draft proposal in the Senate to overhaul the nation's health-care system would require most people to buy health insurance, authorize an expansion of Medicaid coverage and create consumer-owned cooperative plans instead of the government coverage that President Obama is seeking.
The document, distributed among members of the Senate Finance Committee yesterday afternoon, addressed none of the funding questions that have consumed House and Senate negotiators in recent days. But it included an array of coverage provisions that were drastically scaled back from earlier versions, as lawmakers seek to shrink the bill's overall cost. The proposal, for instance, would reduce the pool of middle-class beneficiaries eligible for a new tax credit meant to make insurance more affordable.
The absence of a "public option" marks perhaps the most significant omission. Obama and many Democrats had sought a public option to ensure affordable, universal coverage, but as many as 10 Senate Democrats have protested the idea as unfair to private insurers. In its place, the draft circulated yesterday outlines a co-op approach modeled after rural electricity and telecom providers, subject to government oversight and funded with federal seed money.
Yesterday, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) met with four Republicans, including Sen. Charles Grassley (Iowa), the ranking GOP member on the panel, along with two Democratic colleagues in an attempt to find bipartisan consensus. Baucus dubbed the group "the coalition of the willing."
Meanwhile, in the House, Democrats are exploring a range of funding options, including a surtax on the rich and an increase in the payroll tax imposed on all U.S. workers. The list also includes new taxes on sugary drinks and alcohol, along with broader levies, such as a national value-added tax of up to 3 percent.
The Senate's preferred option -- taxing the health benefits that millions of Americans receive through their employers -- is also on the House list. So is Obama's favorite idea: limiting the value of itemized deductions for the nation's wealthiest 3 million taxpayers.
Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.), chairman of the Ways and Means subcommittee charged with developing a financing plan, said lawmakers have not "embraced any particular source of revenue." But he confirmed that big, broad-based taxes like the payroll tax and a value-added tax are under discussion, mainly because they have the potential to raise "a lot of money" for an expansion of health coverage expected to cost more than $1 trillion over the next decade.
The House will not unveil a financing plan until after the July 4 recess, Neal said, though House leaders were expected to release an outline of the rest of their plan today, with a goal of putting a bill to vote later this summer. The Senate is aiming to debate its legislation in July as well, and is seeking a bill that would cost less than $1 trillion.
Maintaining that tight schedule could prove difficult, though, because daunting issues remain in both chambers. One area of contention is the extent to which private employers must subsidize public coverage for their workers if the companies don't offer their own plan or if the premiums are unaffordable. The Congressional Budget Office has warned that if lawmakers don't find the right formula, employees may flee their company plans for federal coverage, sending government costs soaring.
The draft in the Senate committee spells out one possible solution: It would require employers to pay 50 percent of Medicaid costs for workers enrolled in the low-income program and 100 percent of the cost of health-insurance tax credits for eligible employees. Workers could forfeit employer coverage only if the cost exceeds 12.5 percent of their income.
The draft, earlier reported on by washingtonpost.com blogger Ezra Klein, spells out four options for requiring employers to provide coverage, with exemptions for firms with up to 200 employees. It would fine individuals who do not purchase coverage, though certain groups, including Native Americans and undocumented workers, would be exempted.
It also would loosen eligibility requirements for Medicaid, a proposal certain to alarm many governors who are grappling with budget crises.
I always thought the same thing about you! sm
Small world, huh? I always thought you were the one posting as everyone else because most of the posts on here are all the same. I remember on the old board when it had the times and they all showed up at the same time, too. I guess paranoia works both ways.
I thought the same thing.
Just look at who employs more woman and how they are paid. You will definitely see Obama not practicing what he preaches on this subject. Like Sam said, McCain has more women on his staff and they are paid well.
Seriously think about that before you make that your reason for voting for Obama.
I thought the same thing.
That was just ridiculous.
One other thing I thought of
as I was reading your post and was thinking - he is a great speaker. He has a very deep and calming voice and I think that is a large part as to why a lot of people like him. I've always said he would be a very calming person in any emergency situation (I'll bet he was a great coach when his wife was giving birth). No doubt that he is a very charismatic person like Bill Clinton was, but one thing I have found out is that he does not think very well on his own and is way too dependent on teleprompters. Like you said though, there are many times he'll be speaking and I too say, "He didn't just say that did he? Quick, give him a teleprompter" And I too think "and they made fun of Palin?" :-o
I would keep my ears and eyes open though for the "anything is possible" situation.
I thought the same thing. Wow.
I thought the same thing.
When I read that....I was like....how in the he!! did they not make that connection. Unless they obviously don't any attention to ads whatsoever.
Isn't that like a federal crime to threaten the president's life? I know this person didn't actually threaten to kill Obama, but is wishing him to be assassinated enough to land them in jail?
Melanoma, especially above the neck, is extremely worrisome..sm
for eventual metastasis to the brain. I think we have the right to see his medical records.
ROFL. Thought the same thing.
Not Krispy Kreme! Why God....Why? In this time of economic crisis.....WE NEED COMFORT FOOD!!!! 
I thought the same thing but was wrong
Have gotten to finally draw mine after all those longgggg years. One thing that I wish others would do and that is not be so early to retire if healthy to stay on. Think it would be almost impossible for most to retire at my age and then find another job, at least outside of MTing.
Dejavu(sp). I thought the same thing! (nm)
.
I thought the same thing about people who voted for...
Bill Clinton twice. Takes all kinds I guess.
as a mother I would not subject my baby, or anyone's baby
to that type of situation. but then again, I am not the kind of mother who agrees with the village raising the child, or whatever Hillary used to say. to me the child's safety would come first above and beyond what I was doing, and I would not expose the baby to all that. that is just me.
mostly I am talking about at the end of her speech when the baby was being passed around and then she eventually grabbed him, half paying attention to him.
it is my opinion but I found it a little troubling and my heart kind of went out to that little baby.
I have a gun and have taken a safety course, but,
by the grace of God, I have not had to fire it for those reasons. I would if I felt it was necessary, though!
Your safety threatened?
Who has threatened you, PK? Who is stalking you? You were just called on the carpet, and you let your paranoia take it from there.
Nobody is stalking you, and you are perfectly safe.
Obama safety
I agree with you also. I remember the riots of the 60s all too well.
Same here. I am very concerned for the safety of
nm
Let me clarify it for you.
.......hatred of Clinton, anything to do with Clinton. The mere mention of his name causes the bile to rise and the red mist to engulf them. They hate, hate, hate. They blame, blame, blame. It's what they do. There is no having conversations with them. They don't see reason. They don't see fairness. They see nothing but hate. I remember this very same venom directed at Clinton, for about 8 years.
I don't hate Bush. I hate what his administration has done to our country and I always say his administration because I do not believe his personal merits, whatever they are, are presidential. I believe Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rove, the unholy trinity, serve as president. I have said and continue to say, Bush is just not good enough to be president. Hundreds of thousands of Americans do not have what it takes to be the President of the United States and George W. Bush he is one of them.
Let ME clarify....
in the same league... that is generalization...like a baseball league, a football league...covers a large number of people. I see equal meaning a more one on one comparison. Frankly, I do not consider you and Lurker equal. I see rather large differences both in personality (at least the personality displayed here), way of expressing yourselves, etc. She comes from a different point of view, and she is nowhere near as angry or condescending in her posting. It is merely an observation on my part, an opinion, because I have been on the receiving end of a lot of posts from both of you. In my mind, there is a big difference. So now we can stop beating this dead horse, shall we? Neither you nor Lurker give a tinker's darn what I think of you, so what does it matter? I only said it in the first place because you have invoked her a few times to make a point. I will not do so again. My opinion is my own and will remain the same until I see something to change it...I will just refrain from posting it.
Have a good day.
Just to clarify....
Here is one thing that I must clarify in your post. Obama didn't have his hand over his heart during the singing of the national anthem. He claims that during the pledge he does put his hand over his heart but was never taught to put his hand over his heart during the national anthem.
Everything else you say....I agree with though.
Safety of American People
What a joke, we are not talking about what the world thinks of us...we are talking about keeping the American people safe; me you, my children, your children, our grandchildren, my mother, father and sisters, my husband, my husband's family. Do you think I give 2 cents about what the world thinks of us if we don't keep our own people safe? You are a moron.
Safety of American People
What a joke, we are not talking about what the world thinks of us...we are talking about keeping the American people safe; me you, my children, your children, our grandchildren, my mother, father and sisters, my husband, my husband's family. Do you think I give 2 cents about what the world thinks of us if we don't keep our own people safe? You are a moron.
Maybe this will clarify why ND responded that way.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-12-10-corruptstates_N.htm
Yes I read their comments about USA Today. The OP did analysis had very similar results. Here are a few more who beg to differ:
http://www.drudge.com/news/115767/nd-most-corrupt-state
http://minnesotaindependent.com/20089/most-corrupt-new-york-times-vindicates-north-dakota-sort-of
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2008/12/is_illinois_the_most_corrupt_s.html
http://leisureguy.wordpress.com/2008/01/29/louisiana-most-corrupt-state-in-the-us/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/jan/18/20040118-114320-9103r/
http://www.commondreams.org/news2007/1008-04.htm
I should clarify......thanks dems
for letting us pay for your retreat. People are losing jobs, houses, etc. and they feel the need to go to a friggin spa. Times are tough and sometimes you have to break tradition to save money. Personally, I think both pubs and dems should have just stayed in D.C. and had a little group meeting or maybe a pitch in dinner.....pay for it themselves. The pubs retreat was paid for by lobbyists and the dems retreat was paid for by taxpayers while they bragged about not having lobbyists at the retreat. I don't care if Obama just showed up.......if government really cared about us, like they claim to, they would put any spa retreats on hold and SAVE SOME MONEY FOR ONCE INSTEAD OF SPENDING IT FOR CHRIST'S SAKE!
To clarify...I'm an independent who
leans conservative. I don't care for either far left or far right. I think that there are nut jobs in both extremes.
There are many things that run through my head when I think of President Obama. To me, Obama is too far left for my taste.
Some things that we should do right away is get the heck out of the middle east. Use our troops in rotation to guard our border with Mexico. Honestly, if we would keep our nose out of the middle east's business, maybe they would just keep fighting amongst themselves and we would have less to worry about. I know that sounds horrible, but there has been fighting in that region since the beginning of time. No amount of money we spend is going to change that. We need to worry more about our problems at home including illegal immigrants. They are costing us WAY too much money per year.
I do not want big government. I do not feel that government should have to bail us out. I believe that government created this problem allowing bad loans to be given out to people who couldn't afford to pay them. However, I feel that these "programs" that Obama wants to enforce really won't help the middle class he professes to be looking out for. Bigger government and more government programs does nothing more than promote and reward irresponsibility and laziness. Our coutry cannot afford to continually bail banks, companies, and people out. We have no money. China won't even help us out any more....not that I really like the idea of getting money from China...but you get my point.
What I want is for government to stop handing out and stop spending money it doesn't have. Get rid of our tax code and have a flat tax for everyone. You pay more based on the more you earn. That way it closes loopholes for crooks so they don't have to pay their taxes or they "make a mistake" and don't pay their taxes.
I'm tired of packages filled with pork and I'm pointing fingers at both dems and pubs on this one as both parties are guilty. Get rid of the pork and the pet projects.
The idea of Obama wanting to do away with secret ballots in union votes....I totally disagree with. Why shouldn't they continue to be secret? Making that information known just gives unions the chance to bully people and that isn't looking out for employees like the unions claim to do.....even though it is proven that unionized states show less production and less job growth than states without unions.
Bigger government also scares me because obviously politicians are too crooked....how can we trust them to run everything in this country.
We also need to reform welfare. I was truly upset when I heard Obama wanted to get rid of the reform that Clinton had done on welfare. We need some regulations and limitations to our welfare system.
I do not have much hope in change. So far all I see are the same old cronies that were in Washington before. We have too many crooked politicians and too many people giving money to them in order to get them elected so they have a puppet in Washington to do their bidding.
Just to clarify, Hannibal.
I am not the poster who apologized to you and asked you not to go. Judging by the length of your rambling post, you never had any intention of leaving anyway.
Don't worry honey, our safety is gone now...be prepared! nm
//
Don't worry honey, our safety is gone now...be prepared! nm
//
The fire safety argument is a lot of hooey.
Is it more of a fire hazard just because more than 15 people meet on a regular basis than if someone has a single party for 30 people?
As long as you and the other wiccans are clothed and no open-burning laws are being broken (in a residential area, that would be a fire hazard) I would have no particular problem with your rituals. Depending on the time of day/night and loudness of chanting, it might constitute a disturbance of the peace, same as a loud barbecue party in the neighborhood. But with the basic concept of your meeting, no big deal.
To clarify your misguided attempt
I am not a republican, I do not care for Hannity, and I don't particularly care for McCain either. As far as Obama, I know a skunk when I smell one.....
Sorry to pop your bubble.
Just to clarify, inciting one is a felony. sm
That would include just warning people to get their money out. They warn us about this in discussions we have in finance forums.
Washington Mutual was limiting or refusing withdrawals to depositors. I am not leaving my money in the bank, only enough to keep the account open. I do not want them making money off me. For every $1,000 you leave in the bank, they create $10,000 in credit, and debt is our biggest problem.
Huh? Care to clarify this incoherence?
su
And to clarify...I did not insinuate that the new Prez...
has to respond NOW and neither did Russia. They just threw down the gauntlet. It is up to him how and when he responds.
As to communism...there is no "authority" required for an opinion. Obama has been influenced by Marxists throughout his life...first Frank Marshall Davis, followed by the Marxist professors and students he said in his book he sought out....followed by Bill Ayers...that he taught and used the Saul Alinsky method community organizing..and on and on. The influence is there. Karl Marx said socialism was a start but it did not go far enough because it did not address redistribution of wealth. We know where Obama stands on redistribution of wealth. Everything he has been and everything he says tells me he thinks he can make it work and very well may attempt to in this country. They had a Marxist revolution in Russia. We see how that turned out. They had a Marxist revolution in Cuba. We see how that turned out. So far they are just socialist in Venezuela, but we see how that turned out. There will have to be no revolution here, because our new Prez and apparently 51% of the American people think it will work too. We may very well be the USSA...or worse, the UCSA. Taken over from within without having to fire a shot. THAT is what I meant about communism, and it is a far statement based on Obama's entire history from childhood into adulthood. I have no reason to think he is turning from that now. I will wait and see, of course. But just because he won does not mean I will change everything I want and believe overnight...just like I think he will not change everything he has thought and believed throughout his life. I think it is very naive to ignore that and think that he somehow has.
Again...this has nothing whatsoever to do with Bush. I don't care what Bush does; he's gone. What I care about is the man with the power for the next 4 years.
Just to clarify, I like Palin and am not the same Kendra as above...
I just quit posting on here because I get too irritated with people like my namesake here.
Just to clarify - this is for infants who were actually born .
x
For full impact: McC's nuclear safety policy:
That's blah x4. Got it?
When Obama said we can't give up our ideals for safety... they showed Bush's embarrassed face
His lame patriot act was being referred to.
Totally digging the food safety overhaul - no more downed cows. Good job Obama! sm
I didn't vote for Obama, I was one of those on the fencers. But I must say one thing I am impressed with so far is his complete overhaul of the US food safety system and the new rule of no downed cows being put into our food system.
Some things should just be common sense, and they weren't being implemented. Good job Obama!
I just thought it might be nice to hear an original thought. sm
I guess I was reaching.
to clarify - NO to fed laws superseding laws of State of California against voters
nm
Thought this was good so I thought I'd share
Down the drain? Beware of Obama's plan to 'spread the wealth around'
By Betsy Newmark
High School History and Government Teacher/Blogger
If the McCain campaign can’t use this Obama quote to raise doubts about his attitude towards wealth and success, then they deserve the shellacking they seem headed for.
“Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn’t it?” the plumber asked, complaining that he was being taxed “more and more for fulfilling the American dream.”
“It’s not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance for success too,” Obama responded. “My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody … I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”
Plumbers of the country, unite! Forget about the work and effort you put into building up a business or the scummy work that you do that many of us don’t know or don’t want to do. If you have succeeded, you should be willing to give up more of what you earn to help those who haven’t had the great good luck that you have had to be a successful plumber. Remember how Obama is going to give 95% of all of us a tax cut even though over 30% of the population doesn’t pay taxes?
He might call it a tax credit, but what he’s really doing is his vision of “spreading the wealth around.” It sounds a lot like Huey Long’s 1935 plan to “Share the Wealth.” And when he finds that he can’t tax the top 5% of the population to gain enough wealth to spread to the 95% of the rest of us, do you really think that he’ll stop with that 5%?
Remember…This is the guy who said in the ABC debate during the primary season that his approach to raising tax on capital gains is not based on whether it would provide more revenue but on his idea of what is fair:
GIBSON: All right. You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, “I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton,” which was 28 percent. It’s now 15 percent. That’s almost a doubling, if you went to 28 percent.
But actually, Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.
OBAMA: Right.
GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.
OBAMA: Right.
GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.
So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?
OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.
Just what we need in these fragile economic times — a guy who wants to raise taxes because he thinks it’s a matter of “fairness” and time to “spread the wealth around.”
That will be some incentive for other plumbers who want to work hard and build up a successful business.
But don’t worry - according to Joe Biden, it’s the patriotic thing to do.
Haha! I thought I was the only one who thought he looked
Right on, baby!
Cuz you know, the answer my friend (to all this brouhaha) is blowin' in the wind......
I'm heading out now for a lunch with my Harley-riding, beer-swigging, antique-collecting redneck friend. No kidding!! Strange things can happen in this big ole universe and that's just the way I like it. Actually, he quit drnking beer about 10 years ago, and quit riding the Harley after he went broke trying to sell antiques....but he's still pretty much of a redneck.
Thanks for helping me have a laugh and see some humor where I thought there was none!!
Except for the baby..............
Use the baby in WHAT way? If you want to know why
further than this board full of none other than women, most of whom I presume are MTs and therefore working mothers themselves!! How do you reconcile ripping someone down for being the very thing you are? By criticizing SP or Hillary or any other prominent woman figure who happens to be a mother, you are only applying the exact same things to yourselves, ladies. This has to be one of the most disgusting things I see on here. Take pot shots at her skills or work history, but how can you possibly rip on her for having a career and children? Do you want us all barefoot, pregnant, and waiting on Ward hand and foot again? Grow up. I, for one, am ashamed to be a woman and lumped in with such juvenile BS when I see this nonsense.
I didn't care for Hillary, but I still hailed the fact that she was campaigning. It meant maybe women are finally gaining recognition and respect. Want to know why our wages are less than men's and why every time women make one step forward, they take 2 steps back? It's because the very gender prominent women hope to elevate will attack those women out of jealousy or worse yet, because they don't happen to ascribe to their own set of beliefs. It makes the whole lot of us look petty and ridiculous.
There's a saying, it's better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and prove it to the world.
Welcome baby!
I didn't know there was such a thing!
what about the baby's
x
|
