thanks ladies...glad we are all so awesome! damn are our men lucky!
Posted by Songstress
Posted by PegaLega
Posted by Songstress
Posted by KittyGags
Posted by missliss
Posted by JJC
IMO Obama is a typical do nothing power broker. He ran for senate in Illinois basically un-opposed (a repeated theme for him). He promised change, but all the citizens of Illinois got was a man that planned his next gig. He is also linked to the most corrupt set of scandals in the nation not to mention the backing of the chicago mob (oh excuse me the democratic party). And look at the state of Illinois that he comes from. Highest in taxes (cook county and Chicago Highest in the nation). And most Corrupt (Last Governor in jail, and current Governor should be joining him soon). He hangs with antiSemite Louis Farakhan, William Ayers, the Mahajans and Nadmi Auchi, Ali Ata and numerous other controversial figures. One wonders whether Obama ever met and associated with normal people without their being felons, terroists or trouble makers.If Obama is elected be prepared to be taken over by illegal immigrants. Mexicans have their babies, Obama thinks it OK to kill ours.
Holy...inflammatory much???
just saying....
Everyone is entitled to their opinion...no drama.
What she posted was different from an opinion. And there is no drama.
I saw this on TV~cant remember exactly but I remember watching it. So the facts that she is pointing out are somewhere in the wind...I just wish Icould remember where
I would really love to see this. I dont like to make judgements on candidates without doing research and I havent seen this. Do you know where I could watch it??
I mean really, 'Be prepared to be taken over by illegal immigrants'
Dont you think thats a little extreme to say?? Last time I checked immigration is a touchy subject with some people and to speak of it that way is rude. That isnt an opinion, thats an outrageous prediction
Posted by PegaLega
um yes that is very extreme but thats not what I was pointing out-Im pointing out that everything she stated about the people he surrounds himself with is true. I didnt agree with her opinion just said I remembered watching something about these facts.
I wonder if the bail out plan will go through. Just saw on the news, the republicans in congress just spoke out and said they are against the plan. Up until now they didnt even want to sit down and negotiate but today they finally decided to at least sit down and talk about this. They have another plan that they would prefer to go through. Something about extended mortgages and for the holders to pay the insurance off for it, theres more to it though. But unfortunately people are saying that it would take too long for it to take effect and something needs to be done now.
Posted by Songstress
Posted by PegaLega
um yes that is very extreme but thats not what I was pointing out-Im pointing out that everything she stated about the people he surrounds himself with is true. I didnt agree with her opinion just said I remembered watching something about these facts.
Ohhh noo I didnt mean you said that! I just stuck that in there cause I was heated!
Posted by PegaLega
Posted by milana
Posted by KittyGags
Posted by JJC
Why do people think we need to be in constant growth in the economy? You can't have a period of great growth without some corrections. Ask any stock market expert...after a run up in the market, there has to be a correction.
The first 4 years of the Bush presidency had a pretty good economy. Also, look at the timeline and you'll see the dot com burst happened before Bush was elected. We give credit to Clinton for the dot com boom and blame bush for the burst of the bubble...not true...
I also find it funny how everyone wants to bail people out of the housing debacle, but no one asked the government for a bailout on the dot com bust...and it's the same thing. You have to let these economic conditions take their course and not reward poor decision making.
Now..heres the part most you wont like..buts its me stating my thoughts...so please respect that.
IMO Obama is a typical do nothing power broker. He ran for senate in Illinois basically un-opposed (a repeated theme for him). He promised change, but all the citizens of Illinois got was a man that planned his next gig. He is also linked to the most corrupt set of scandals in the nation not to mention the backing of the chicago mob (oh excuse me the democratic party). And look at the state of Illinois that he comes from. Highest in taxes (cook county and Chicago Highest in the nation). And most Corrupt (Last Governor in jail, and current Governor should be joining him soon). He hangs with antiSemite Louis Farakhan, William Ayers, the Mahajans and Nadmi Auchi, Ali Ata and numerous other controversial figures. One wonders whether Obama ever met and associated with normal people without their being felons, terroists or trouble makers.If Obama is elected be prepared to be taken over by illegal immigrants. Mexicans have their babies, Obama thinks it OK to kill ours.
In his years as state Senator and US Senator, what has Obama done to 'change' the way government is run? What has Obama done that has earned him this adulation, this acclaim? He is definitely going to change things, that's for sure. But do we want his radical change? The needs he discusses are real, but his plans are un workable and will never pass.
Yes very well said. While watching a two hour documentary about Obama and his rise to presidetial candidancy on CNN they brought up every single point you just mentioned!![]()
Maybe this is where I watched it![]()
hmmm, i watched the same thing i think. some things i learned (from that and other sources) scared the living day lights out of me to be honest. are ppl who are planning to vote for him really not concerned by the connections at all? not to open up a whole other can of worms but sometimes im just genuinely curious about this.
Posted by JJC
i know M/P have crap in their closets too...everybody does....I just prefer their closests....
Posted by Songstress
JJC!! Its cool! People get passionate about their beliefs and I respect that. Im also PRO-LIFE believe it or not. As passionate as I am about allowing women to have a choice, I dont believe in abortion. I know it sounds hypocritical but just because Im against it doesnt mean I dont think women shouldnt have a choice. I think partial abortion is absolutely despicable. But I dont think Obama is thinking partial abortion is the cool thing to do and getting abortions is awesome. He's just not interested in overturning Roe V. Wade and believes women should have a choice with what to do with their bodies. And thats my stand.
I think we kept this pretty peaceful though! Even though I did get a little Cunty![]()
Posted by Aug07OFCbride
Posted by Songstress
JJC!! Its cool! People get passionate about their beliefs and I respect that. Im also PRO-LIFE believe it or not. As passionate as I am about allowing women to have a choice, I dont believe in abortion. I know it sounds hypocritical but just because Im against it doesnt mean I dont think women shouldnt have a choice. I think partial abortion is absolutely despicable. But I dont think Obama is thinking partial abortion is the cool thing to do and getting abortions is awesome. He's just not interested in overturning Roe V. Wade and believes women should have a choice with what to do with their bodies. And thats my stand.
I think we kept this pretty peaceful though! Even though I did get a little Cunty![]()
in all fairness obamas stance on abortion isn't as harmless as youre making it sound. there is HUGE gray area b/n thinking abortions are awesome and not overturning roe vs. wade. dont forget that as a senator, obama voted against 'born alive' bills in 2001, 2002 and 2003 which would give medical care if there are vital signs present after a failed abortion. unfortunately its not as easy as saying he just doesnt want to overturn roe v wade, kwim?
Posted by Aug07OFCbride
w/ the born again bill... its saying *if vital signs are present' after a failed/botched abortion, meaning the child is still alive!!, and would not receive the necessary care. i appreciate you taking the time to respond on this tho.
ahhh, the whole thing is just so heart wrenching to even read/write about!! i dont get at all how it is EVER 'a hard decision' to save an (innocent) child's life.![]()
![]()
, jmo. just leaving an innocent child to die after a botched abortion, i can't beginnnnn to fathom. but thats just me.
my husband, as a special educator, has worked with a child born at 24 wks gestation! a beautiful boy named Tristan and he had a tough time at first, but caught up after a few years of interventions w/ the appropriate services. isn't that worth saving a life? imagine if that was your child or you.![]()
oh politics politics politics
Posted by beram63
i'm personally voting for obama based on his approach to foreign policy--not experience, mind you, but a philosphy about HOW you work things out. forgive me but, considering the track record we have, i don't want a president whose been a part of washington's decision-making for the last 26 years if this is what they've come up with. we need to see a return to diplomacy in this country, and Mccain's trigger finger is just as itchy as the current administration's. as we hemorrhage 10 billion a month with a grand total equivalent to this wall street bailout, this country will eventually go broke from having to defend itself in 9,000 conflicts all over the world. i mean, we're already occupying iraq and afghanistan. the administration was tossing around an invasion of iran and using force to punish them for testing missiles (a response to israel's ongoing overly aggressive nature and constant needling of its neighbors). we're prepared to use force to defend georgia against the russians. we spend 60% of our budget on defense and other expenses related to national security. we will eventually go broke, and then after instigating conflicts all over the world with no money to continue to defend ourselves--then you will really see a rise in terrorism on US soil.
instead of negotiating with world leaders, we're too quick to ship out troops and missiles. truth: the american government bears some level of responsibility for 9/11 because they promoted a level of hostility that they took for granted. to quote bill maher (here's one for you, songstress), it's not our freedom they hate us for; it's our air strikes.' i'm tired of watching them push through unconstitutional legislation to allow torture and spying as a means of defending us againts a threat that they created with hasty use of force. stop trampling on my civil liberties, and go out there and TALK to the people who hate us. diplomacy, diplomacy, diplomacy.
Posted by KittyGags
Posted by beram63
i'm personally voting for obama based on his approach to foreign policy--not experience, mind you, but a philosphy about HOW you work things out. forgive me but, considering the track record we have, i don't want a president whose been a part of washington's decision-making for the last 26 years if this is what they've come up with. we need to see a return to diplomacy in this country, and Mccain's trigger finger is just as itchy as the current administration's. as we hemorrhage 10 billion a month with a grand total equivalent to this wall street bailout, this country will eventually go broke from having to defend itself in 9,000 conflicts all over the world. i mean, we're already occupying iraq and afghanistan. the administration was tossing around an invasion of iran and using force to punish them for testing missiles (a response to israel's ongoing overly aggressive nature and constant needling of its neighbors). we're prepared to use force to defend georgia against the russians. we spend 60% of our budget on defense and other expenses related to national security. we will eventually go broke, and then after instigating conflicts all over the world with no money to continue to defend ourselves--then you will really see a rise in terrorism on US soil.
instead of negotiating with world leaders, we're too quick to ship out troops and missiles. truth: the american government bears some level of responsibility for 9/11 because they promoted a level of hostility that they took for granted. to quote bill maher (here's one for you, songstress), it's not our freedom they hate us for; it's our air strikes.' i'm tired of watching them push through unconstitutional legislation to allow torture and spying as a means of defending us againts a threat that they created with hasty use of force. stop trampling on my civil liberties, and go out there and TALK to the people who hate us. diplomacy, diplomacy, diplomacy.
Not sure if you watched the debate or not--but I did. And if you think that Obama is thinking about keeping our troops home, you are sadly mistaken. This is taken DIRECTLY from the debate transcripts in which he discusses attacking PAKISTAN (OUR ALLY, HELLO?!?! and he says its not attacking them, but when I read TAKE THEM OUT, I take that as an attack) as well as IRAN.
Enjoy.
OBAMA: Nobody talked about attacking Pakistan. Here's what I said.
And if John wants to disagree with this, he can let me know, that, if the United States has al Qaeda, bin Laden, top-level lieutenants in our sights, and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to act, then we should take them out.
Now, I think that's the right strategy; I think that's the right policy.
And, John, I -- you're absolutely right that presidents have to be prudent in what they say. But, you know, coming from you, who, you know, in the past has threatened extinction for North Korea and, you know, sung songs about bombing Iran, I don't know, you know, how credible that is. I think this is the right strategy.
Now, Senator McCain is also right that it's difficult. This is not an easy situation. You've got cross-border attacks against U.S. troops.
And we've got a choice. We could allow our troops to just be on the defensive and absorb those blows again and again and again, if Pakistan is unwilling to cooperate, or we have to start making some decisions.
And the problem, John, with the strategy that's been pursued was that, for 10 years, we coddled Musharraf, we alienated the Pakistani population, because we were anti-democratic. We had a 20th-century mindset that basically said, 'Well, you know, he may be a dictator, but he's our dictator.'
And as a consequence, we lost legitimacy in Pakistan. We spent $10 billion. And in the meantime, they weren't going after al Qaeda, and they are more powerful now than at any time since we began the war in Afghanistan.
That's going to change when I'm president of the United States.
The subsequent Iran discussion can be found on this page, its too long to post.
LINK
Sorry but I respectfully disagree.
Posted by KittyGags
Oh and if you're into diplomacy you will LOVE Ron Paul like I do!
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/
:)![]()
Posted by beram63
Posted by KittyGags
Posted by beram63
i'm personally voting for obama based on his approach to foreign policy--not experience, mind you, but a philosphy about HOW you work things out. forgive me but, considering the track record we have, i don't want a president whose been a part of washington's decision-making for the last 26 years if this is what they've come up with. we need to see a return to diplomacy in this country, and Mccain's trigger finger is just as itchy as the current administration's. as we hemorrhage 10 billion a month with a grand total equivalent to this wall street bailout, this country will eventually go broke from having to defend itself in 9,000 conflicts all over the world. i mean, we're already occupying iraq and afghanistan. the administration was tossing around an invasion of iran and using force to punish them for testing missiles (a response to israel's ongoing overly aggressive nature and constant needling of its neighbors). we're prepared to use force to defend georgia against the russians. we spend 60% of our budget on defense and other expenses related to national security. we will eventually go broke, and then after instigating conflicts all over the world with no money to continue to defend ourselves--then you will really see a rise in terrorism on US soil.
instead of negotiating with world leaders, we're too quick to ship out troops and missiles. truth: the american government bears some level of responsibility for 9/11 because they promoted a level of hostility that they took for granted. to quote bill maher (here's one for you, songstress), it's not our freedom they hate us for; it's our air strikes.' i'm tired of watching them push through unconstitutional legislation to allow torture and spying as a means of defending us againts a threat that they created with hasty use of force. stop trampling on my civil liberties, and go out there and TALK to the people who hate us. diplomacy, diplomacy, diplomacy.
Not sure if you watched the debate or not--but I did. And if you think that Obama is thinking about keeping our troops home, you are sadly mistaken. This is taken DIRECTLY from the debate transcripts in which he discusses attacking PAKISTAN (OUR ALLY, HELLO?!?! and he says its not attacking them, but when I read TAKE THEM OUT, I take that as an attack) as well as IRAN.
Enjoy.
OBAMA: Nobody talked about attacking Pakistan. Here's what I said.
And if John wants to disagree with this, he can let me know, that, if the United States has al Qaeda, bin Laden, top-level lieutenants in our sights, and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to act, then we should take them out.
Now, I think that's the right strategy; I think that's the right policy.
And, John, I -- you're absolutely right that presidents have to be prudent in what they say. But, you know, coming from you, who, you know, in the past has threatened extinction for North Korea and, you know, sung songs about bombing Iran, I don't know, you know, how credible that is. I think this is the right strategy.
Now, Senator McCain is also right that it's difficult. This is not an easy situation. You've got cross-border attacks against U.S. troops.
And we've got a choice. We could allow our troops to just be on the defensive and absorb those blows again and again and again, if Pakistan is unwilling to cooperate, or we have to start making some decisions.
And the problem, John, with the strategy that's been pursued was that, for 10 years, we coddled Musharraf, we alienated the Pakistani population, because we were anti-democratic. We had a 20th-century mindset that basically said, 'Well, you know, he may be a dictator, but he's our dictator.'
And as a consequence, we lost legitimacy in Pakistan. We spent $10 billion. And in the meantime, they weren't going after al Qaeda, and they are more powerful now than at any time since we began the war in Afghanistan.
That's going to change when I'm president of the United States.
The subsequent Iran discussion can be found on this page, its too long to post.
LINK
Sorry but I respectfully disagree.
i did watch the debate, and i have to respectfully say that your accurate transcript was taken somewhat out of context.
obama's discussion of how to deal with iran highlights the differences between them that are swaying my vote. obama is talking about negotiating--not only with other democratic nations like mccain suggested--to gain an alliance that would allow them to manipulate iran through trade rather than air strikes. he talked about getting russia and china on-board because, while they are not completely aligned with our point of view, they have a stake in preventing iran from getting its hands on nuclear weapons.
the dicsussion of pakistan arose bc they have neglected the situation in afghanistan, which has strengthened the taliban and created a hideout for terrorist organizations in the northern region of pakistan where it borders afghanistan. the point he was making is that the administration has used fear of terrorism in the wake of 9/11 to justify this war with iraq. in the mean time, we have been sending money to pakistan that they're supposed to be using to help us deal with the terrosist hide-outs on the borders. in the mean time, we've occupied afghanistan in numbers that are too small to make a difference for 8 years with nothing to show for it. obama's talking about expediting the pull-out from iraq and moving forces to afghanistan so we can end that occupation once and for all as well. he's talking about squeezing pakistan (first through negotiation, and then through force IF NECESSARY) because we need their cooperation to deal with afghanistan. he's talking about catching bin laden and disarming al qaeda, an organization that did not have a presence in iraq until after we invaded it. that's what should have happened in the first place. the rest of this is all oil company sponsored bull$hit.
i say this nearly a trillion dollars later. i'm not voting for the guy who voted yes for the conflict in iraq. i'm not voting for the guy who said the invasion of afghanistan would be quick and easy. i'm not voting for the guy who suggested in response to the economic crisis a spending freeze on everything except defense and veterans benefits. i'm voting for the new guys because with him at least we have a shot.
Posted by beram63
Posted by KittyGags
Oh and if you're into diplomacy you will LOVE Ron Paul like I do!
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/
:)![]()
i love this guy!
