http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/5592/lookssi6.jpg
Printable View
My cousin sent me a poll yesterday and 1/2 of Americans polled, in both parties, stated they would NOT vote for her under any circumstance. That's good. But Obama scares me more than she does...
She's killed far fewer soldiers than your president has. As a matter of fact, I don't think she has killed any. Your president, on the other hand...
How many are dead now?
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ October 24, 2007 09:41 AM: Message edited by: The Big Sexy ]</font>
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">So when did you renounce your US citizenship?Quote:
Originally posted by The Big Sexy:
She's killed far fewer soldiers than your president has. As a matter of fact, I don't think she has killed any. Your president, on the other hand...
How many are dead now?
<font color="#a62a2a"><font size="1">[ October 24, 2007 09:41 AM: Message edited by: The Big Sexy ]</font></font>
Whether you like him or not Bush is the President of this county and if you?re a citizen then he is your President too. Did you fail high school civics?
By the way Lincoln ?killed? more Americans in one day then Bush has in 6 years.
Hey BS:
Actually, the death toll in Iraq went up considerably after YOUR leftist press made the Abu-Gharaib prison abuse "scandal" their top priority. Before that, there was a relative calm in Iraq, the majority of Iraquis being relieved to have been rid of Saddam. But in their never ending quest to demonize and thwart anything and everything the current administration has tried to do, they don't care who dies in the process. You say BS how stupid Bush is. How fucking stupid is Nancy Pelosi? The House measure condemning Turkey for what the House considers genocide almost 100 years ago. At a time when we need Turkey's cooperation. There is nothing in that motion short of trying to undermine the POTUS. Maybe your Dummycratic controlled Congress should look at our own history and condemn Federal treatment of Blacks and Native Americans. You and your whining, leftist tribe love to refer to Bush as "your president" Trav summed it up, he IS your POTUS too whether you like him or not. You should show a little respect. I don't think he is our best POTUS, I think being in Iraq is a mistake. But look a little further than your own myopic political views before laying all the blame on him.
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ October 24, 2007 10:07 AM: Message edited by: Beachcomber ]</font>
http://cagle.com/working/071018/asay.gif
http://cagle.com/working/071018/eagan.jpg
http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/1...hillarylw2.jpg
http://cagle.msnbc.com/working/071017/parker.jpg
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ October 24, 2007 10:13 AM: Message edited by: travelinman ]</font>
[img]http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9iby6GbUh9HjxcAlmWjzbkF/SIG=13duq5r3e/EXP=1193321499/**http%3A//hillary.org/archives/Free.Republic/Free.Republic.page.three_files/heil-lesbian.jpg[/img]
I think the Democrats have to be a little more realistic. In my lifetime, there have been three Presidential elections won by moderate Southern Democrats (1976, 1992, 1996) plus a 4th in which a moderate southerner won the popular vote (I can just hear Trav screaming at me now for using the world "moderate"). Kerry's 2004 showing notwithstanding, I believe that the only Democrat capable of winning in 2008 is Edwards.
There is a question I've asked minority women that I've ever been around or worked with (and that I felt comfortable asking)- in their lifetimes, have they encountered more problems being a minority or being a woman. And each and every one of them (I'm guessing we're talking about 20 or so, most of them black) have answered that being a woman has caused them the most resistance, and they answer that question without hesitation. Now granted, that's not a big enough sample to draw any conclusions from, but my guess is that the American voters are more ready to elect a black President than they are a woman. Now, let me say if that's the case, that's sad, esepcially in this day and age.
And believe me, I'm not saying that Hilary's detractors necessarily feel that way. I am satisfied that Trav's objection to her is based on her politics, not her gender (especially since he felt the same way towards her husband). But there are going to be those voters out there who will not vote for her based on gender, and while that may be a sad statement, the Dems have to decide is it more important to win the election or to make a statement. And it it's the former, then they need to run an electable candidate (I'm not saying Hilary isn't qualified, I'm just saying I don't think she's electable).
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If the Democrats didn't take over the House, we'd still have a president pretending everything is fine in Iraq. It was only after the Democrats won was the president forced to do something different.Quote:
Originally posted by Beachcomber:
Hey BS:
Actually, the death toll in Iraq went up considerably after YOUR leftist press made the Abu-Gharaib prison abuse "scandal" their top priority. Before that, there was a relative calm in Iraq, the majority of Iraquis being relieved to have been rid of Saddam. But in their never ending quest to demonize and thwart anything and everything the current administration has tried to do, they don't care who dies in the process. You say BS how stupid Bush is. How fucking stupid is Nancy Pelosi? The House measure condemning Turkey for what the House considers genocide almost 100 years ago. At a time when we need Turkey's cooperation. There is nothing in that motion short of trying to undermine the POTUS. Maybe your Dummycratic controlled Congress should look at our own history and condemn Federal treatment of Blacks and Native Americans. You and your whining, leftist tribe love to refer to Bush as "your president" Trav summed it up, he IS your POTUS too whether you like him or not. You should show a little respect. I don't think he is our best POTUS, I think being in Iraq is a mistake. But look a little further than your own myopic political views before laying all the blame on him.
<font color="#a62a2a"><font size="1">[ October 24, 2007 10:07 AM: Message edited by: Beachcomber ]</font></font>
So score one for the Democrats - who by the way wouldn't leave Iraq even if they controlled everything. But it does make for good pressure for a president who does things because he believes things to be true, not because he knows them to be true.
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ November 01, 2007 02:47 PM: Message edited by: The Big Sexy ]</font>
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">So when did you renounce your US citizenship?Quote:
Originally posted by travelinman:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by The Big Sexy:
She's killed far fewer soldiers than your president has. As a matter of fact, I don't think she has killed any. Your president, on the other hand...
How many are dead now?
<font color="#a62a2a"><font size="1">[ October 24, 2007 09:41 AM: Message edited by: The Big Sexy ]</font></font>
Whether you like him or not Bush is the President of this county and if you?re a citizen then he is your President too. Did you fail high school civics?
By the way Lincoln ?killed? more Americans in one day then Bush has in 6 years.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Did you learn civics in "collage"? I'm guessing you did. "Collage" is where opinions like yours are formed.
As far as Bush being my President, nah. I suppose he can force me to do things, but I can assure you he doesn't represent me nor The Constitution.
I'm not even that big a fan of President Bush, I do not rank him as one of our "great" presidents. But with that having been said, there hasn't been another attack on US soil since 9/11. Mark my word, no matter who is elected in 2008 there will be another attack on US soil sometime in 2009. The first WTC bombing was in 1993, shortly after President Clinton took office. Then 9/11 only 8 months after Bush took office. They will test us again. The next POTUS better be ready....
Whether Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., is a military leader is for the people of New York and the military to decide, according to a spokeswoman for President Bush.
The issue came up because of Clinton's choice to be in California on a campaign trip instead of in a ceremony this week at which President Bush posthumously awarded the nation's highest military honor to Navy Seal Lt. Michael Murphy of New York.
The question came from Les Kinsolving, WND's correspondent at the White House. He asked: "When the president posthumously awarded our nation's highest military honor to Navy SEAL Lt. Michael Murphy of New York, Sen. [Charles] Schumer of New York was present. But New York's other U.S. senator was absent, 'campaigning in California,' her office explained. And my question: Does the White House believe that any political campaigning justified this New York candidate for ? commander-in-chief of our armed forces being absent from this ceremony for a killed-in-action U.S. Navy hero?"
"I don't know ? look, I don't know the details surrounding that senator's schedule, and I'll let the people of New York and the people of the military decide that," said Dana Perino, Bush's spokeswoman.
The award for Murphy, presented to his parents, is the third Medal of Honor bestowed on the war on terror, all posthumously.
Murphy, of Patchogue on Long Island, was the 29-year-old officer who commanded a four-man SEAL team doing reconnaissance. He was given the assignment of capturing or killing a high-ranking Taliban leader in the Hindu Kush mountains behind enemy lines.
However, the team came under fire from as many as 100 insurgents.
Murphy, already wounded, moved out from behind cover in search of open air for a radio signal to seek help for his comrades. He was shot in the back, dropped the transmitter, but picked it up and completed the call.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No what I learned in collage was how to cut out little pieces of paper from magazines, glue them to cardboard and hang the in my dorm room.Quote:
Originally posted by The Big Sexy:
Did you learn civics in "collage"? I'm guessing you did. "Collage" is where opinions like yours are formed.
Typical ?Liberal? Arts education.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No what I learned in collage was how to cut out little pieces of paper from magazines, glue them to cardboard and hang the in my dorm room.Quote:
Originally posted by travelinman:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by The Big Sexy:
Did you learn civics in "collage"? I'm guessing you did. "Collage" is where opinions like yours are formed.
Typical ?Liberal? Arts education.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">...and mindlessly post them on chat boards.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I don't think that's nearly as bad as undermining democracy by ripping up The Constitution and sending off brave soldiers into a war without a viable plan.Quote:
Originally posted by travelinman:
Whether Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., is a military leader is for the people of New York and the military to decide, according to a spokeswoman for President Bush.
The issue came up because of Clinton's choice to be in California on a campaign trip instead of in a ceremony this week at which President Bush posthumously awarded the nation's highest military honor to Navy Seal Lt. Michael Murphy of New York.
The question came from Les Kinsolving, WND's correspondent at the White House. He asked: "When the president posthumously awarded our nation's highest military honor to Navy SEAL Lt. Michael Murphy of New York, Sen. [Charles] Schumer of New York was present. But New York's other U.S. senator was absent, 'campaigning in California,' her office explained. And my question: Does the White House believe that any political campaigning justified this New York candidate for ? commander-in-chief of our armed forces being absent from this ceremony for a killed-in-action U.S. Navy hero?"
"I don't know ? look, I don't know the details surrounding that senator's schedule, and I'll let the people of New York and the people of the military decide that," said Dana Perino, Bush's spokeswoman.
The award for Murphy, presented to his parents, is the third Medal of Honor bestowed on the war on terror, all posthumously.
Murphy, of Patchogue on Long Island, was the 29-year-old officer who commanded a four-man SEAL team doing reconnaissance. He was given the assignment of capturing or killing a high-ranking Taliban leader in the Hindu Kush mountains behind enemy lines.
However, the team came under fire from as many as 100 insurgents.
Murphy, already wounded, moved out from behind cover in search of open air for a radio signal to seek help for his comrades. He was shot in the back, dropped the transmitter, but picked it up and completed the call.
Who respects our soldiers less? Easily, the answer is Bush/Cheney.
All one needs to do is go back to Iran/Contra to see what this current administration is about. Cheney flat out said that it's ok for the President to have "monarchial powers" (trav, you'll have to look "monarchial" up, then check to see where those powers are included in The Constitution.) Cheney also said it was "ok" for Oliver North to lie to Congress.
Well, neither monarchial powers nor lying to Congress is condoned by The Constitution.
But when asked more recently about the President's powers, Cheney said to refer to his comments about Iran/Contra.
For a democracy to appropriately function, the populace needs to be informed. Because the Bush Adminstration blantantly misinforms, we end up with sheep like trav, who like to talk about guns instead of doing anything close to thinking with their heads.
We aren't just treading water with this endless war in Iraq. We are being bled financially to death, with no end in sight. We've lost moral authority. We have a leader who can't be believed, where material lies are ok if the ends justify *his* means. We've lost leadership authority. We are losing this battle in many important ways.
As the dollar declines to near record lows, the government continues to spend and spend, the gap between the uber wealthy and regular joes widens, remember that we have a President who think he has to answer to no one here. To him The Constitution means nothing.
Isn't The Constitution the reason our soldiers are fighting?
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ November 01, 2007 04:09 PM: Message edited by: The Big Sexy ]</font>
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You don't seriously believe we are any safer than we were before 9-11, do you? While security is certainly beefed up, we're still grossly unprepared for a major catastrophy, and the threat is proportionally bigger, also.Quote:
Originally posted by Beachcomber:
I'm not even that big a fan of President Bush, I do not rank him as one of our "great" presidents. But with that having been said, there hasn't been another attack on US soil since 9/11. Mark my word, no matter who is elected in 2008 there will be another attack on US soil sometime in 2009. The first WTC bombing was in 1993, shortly after President Clinton took office. Then 9/11 only 8 months after Bush took office. They will test us again. The next POTUS better be ready....
Just about anyone in the know will tell you that a catastrophic terrorist attack on US soil is not an "if" but "when".
Someone check into where all those billions of dollars for Homeland Security went. See if they were directed at making us safer. What you'll find will make you sick.
Fred speaks
Border Security and Immigration Reform Plan
In the post-9/11 world, immigration is much more of a national security issue. A government that cannot secure its borders and determine who may enter and who may not, fails in a fundamental responsibility. As we take steps to secure our borders and enforce our laws, we must also ensure that our immigration laws and policies advance our national interests in a variety of areas, and that the immigration process itself is as fair, efficient, and effective as possible.
Securing the Border and Enforcing the Law
A fundamental responsibility of the federal government is to secure the nation's borders and enforce the law. The following policies and initiatives will put the nation on a path to success:
No Amnesty. Do not provide legal status to illegal aliens. Amnesty undermines U.S. law and policy, rewards bad behavior, and is unfair to the millions of immigrants who follow the law and are awaiting legal entry into the United States. In some cases, those law-abiding and aspiring immigrants have been waiting for several years.
Attrition through Enforcement. Reduce the number of illegal aliens through increased enforcement against unauthorized alien workers and their employers. Without illegal employment opportunities available, fewer illegal aliens will attempt to enter the country, and many of those illegally in the country now likely will return home. Self-deportation can also be maximized by stepping up the enforcement levels of other existing immigration laws. This course of action offers a reasonable alternative to the false choices currently proposed to deal with the 12 million or more aliens already in the U.S. illegally: either arrest and deport them all, or give them all amnesty. Attrition through enforcement is a more reasonable and achievable solution, but this approach requires additional resources for enforcement and border security:
Doubling ICE agents handling interior enforcement, increasing the Border Patrol to at least 25,000 agents, and increasing detention space to incarcerate illegal aliens we arrest rather than letting them go with a promise to show up later for legal proceedings against them.
Adding resources for the Department of Justice to prosecute alien smugglers, people involved in trafficking in false identification documents, and previously deported felons.
Maximizing efforts to prosecute and convict members of criminal alien gangs, such as MS-13 and affiliated gangs. These gangs have brought unusual levels of violence to more than 30 U.S. states and have also become very active in drug-smuggling, gun-smuggling, and alien-smuggling.
Implementing fully and making greater use of the expedited removal process already allowed under federal law.
Enabling the Social Security Administration to share relevant information with immigration and law enforcement personnel in a manner that will support effective interior enforcement efforts.
Enforce Existing Federal Laws. Enforce the laws Congress has already enacted to prevent illegal aliens from unlawfully benefiting from their presence in the country:
End Sanctuary Cities by cutting off discretionary federal grant funds as appropriate to any community that, by law, ordinance, executive order, or other formal policy directs its public officials not to comply with the provisions of 8 USC 1373 and 8 USC 1644, which prohibit any state or local government from restricting in any way communications with the Department of Homeland Security regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of an alien in the United States.
Deny discretionary Federal education grants as appropriate to public universities that violate federal law by offering in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens without also offering identical benefits to United States citizens, regardless of whether or not they live in the state, as required by 8 USC 1623.
Deny discretionary Federal grants as appropriate to states and local governments that violate federal law by offering public benefits to illegal aliens, as prohibited by 8 USC 1621(a).
Reduce the Jobs Incentive. Ensure employee verification by requiring that all U.S. employers use the Department of Homeland Security's electronic database (the E-Verify system) to confirm that a prospective employee is authorized to work in the U.S. Now that the technology is proven, provide sufficient resources to make the system as thorough, fast, accurate, and easy-to-use as possible.
Bolster Border Security. Finish building the 854-mile wall along the border by 2010 as required by 8 USC 1103. Extend the wall beyond that as appropriate and deploy new technologies and additional resources to enhance detection and rapid apprehension along our borders by 2012.
Increased Prosecution. Deploy the additional assets outlined above to prosecute alien smugglers ("coyotes"), alien gang members, previously deported felons, and aliens who have repeatedly violated our immigration laws much more vigorously.
Rigorous Entry/Exit Tracking. Complete the implementation of a system to track visa entrants and exits, as has been required by federal law for more than ten years, and connect it to the FBI's National Crime Information Center (NCIC), in order to curb visa overstays and permit more effective enforcement.
source
Off the topic at hand, but I thought you might dig this Trav...
VETERANS DAY