|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,414
Member
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,414 |
It appears that Enlightened Ex is getting his facts from the same source as the rest of the RNC mouthpieces: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080904/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_fact_checkJust a hint: but you may want to check out just who CONTROLLED the congress for 6 of the 8 Bush years ... it wasn't the D's.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4 |
2 Excellent 2 posts by Gagagool on page 3 of this thread!!!! I'm with you!!
Her family will be fine, they are so proud, and they will all work together to make the family that much stronger. Her husband will be home, they will advise each other on family matters. 2 of her kids are on their way out, one will be married, one will be in Iraq, that only leaves 3. The grandchild has a mother and 2 parents, who will learn to do things, which this pregnant girl already has some experience, since she is the oldest daughter of a busy mother and has younger siblings.
The baby is very well loved, as we all saw. That baby will have that love from so many, actually, from now an entire nation!! I think that is what the Downs child needs most, and I am sure she will find special programs that he will enter into when the time comes.
They come from a small town where everyone knows everyone. Sarah P parents look strong and healthy enough and are around....
WOW! Those kids are BLESSED!!!
How PROUD they all must be of their mom!!!!! So PROUD!!!
I am the mother of 7 and can totally see the dynamics of this family working, mine does! I had a baby at 45, and she came 10 yrs after the bunch of 6, and we all care for her, she is sooooo loved!!
Ulike,
Married 26+ yrs
7 children
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 11,539
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 11,539 |
I am also the mother of a special needs child, and I think it is unfair to discount the dad's ability to contribute as primary caregiver in this situation. I also trust that this was discussed with her husband and older children before she made the decision to accept the responsibility.
Both parents ARE important, but only one parent gets questioned about family commitment when career choice is part of the topic. I said that child needs BOTH parents and you should know that have a special needs child is a daunting task that gets harder, not easier, as they get older. He will need every resource available to have the best life possible. It takes both my husband and I, as well as an excellent helper, to take care of my son.
Faith
me: FWW/BS 52 H: FWH/BS 49
DS 30
DD 21
DS 15
OCDS 8
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345 |
they were beaten by someone they claim is not as smart, which means they are wrong about how smart their guy/side is. I'm missing the logic here, I guess. Who says that you cannot be beaten by someone who is dumb? It just means that the voters chose the dumb guy, nothing more. Either way, it must be a desperate tactic when you have to resort to trying to tear down the other guy instead of building up your guy. You are referring to Palin's speech last night, I presume? That's all that I heard from her - bash, bash, bash. spending is done by the Congress, and Congress has been run by the Democratic party for some years now. Seriously, Republicans had control of Congress and Presidency for 6 of last 8 years. And even now, Democrats do not have the majority to overcome a fillibuster or override the Republican President's veto. Blaming the economy on Democrats is, as you say, desperate and petty. AGG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,736
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,736 |
Never said REPUBLICANS didn't spend. I said BUSH didn't spend. Before you go accusing me of anything, make sure you understand what I was saying. Did the Democrats fix the spending? So what do you say about those who blame Reagan for the spending? Did the Republicans have both the House and Senate then? I think the Senate for some of his 8 years, but never the House. Spending bills originate in the House, IIRC, it's been a while. My point is, that much of the finger pointing ON BOTH SIDES, is not founded. Anytime you hear someone complain about the President spending, I wonder if they really understand how spending occurs. The President makes a budget request, but the House and Senate have to approve all spending. So to blame spending on the President makes about as much sense as to blame YOU or ME for how much the government spends. And now, we have both legislative bodies controlled by the Democrats, so if spending on the war was not the thing to do, then they should have stopped it. But since they are going along with it, how can anyone pin the blame ONLY on the president? The same would be true if the parties were reversed. Don't like spending, blame Congress, not the President, regardless of which party you support. I tend to lean to the right. But think all of our choices this year are poor. I'll probably vote Libertarian simply because my state will likely go for Obama and since it's based on the electorial vote, I don't think I'm wasting my vote by voting for one of the "other" candidates. But I just can't stand to see what appears to be un-informed complaining, such as blaming the President for spending. The president can't spend a penny that isn't authorized by Congress. And CURRENT spending is being done by a Democratically controlled congress. So to blame Republicans about this years budget and any deficits seems based on the hope that folks don't really understand how spending works. The same is true for surplusses during any President's term. He doesn't own them. The congress that was in session while those surplusses came about owns the surplusses. I think we attribute too much good or bad to the president. The real power, which is the power to spend, is in the Congress. The President really doesn't have that much power to make changes. So I don't understand why folks think it's so key to have "their guy" as President, other than for things like a judicial appointment, should they be needed during a president's term.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345 |
So I don't understand why folks think it's so key to have "their guy" as President, other than for things like a judicial appointment Or starting a new war.... AGG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,736
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,736 |
So I don't understand why folks think it's so key to have "their guy" as President, other than for things like a judicial appointment Or starting a new war.... AGG As one who has served, I can tell you that most folks I know, who lean to the right are NOT in favor of cavalierly starting wars. Personally, I think the war is Iraq was a "lightning rod" to attract attention away from our domestic targets. I certainly don't think it was for more oil, as we haven't seemed to get more oil. Think what you want, but if an oil man wanted more oil, it would have been flowing by now. So going for oil was out. But can you announce to the world that your intention is to send our troops overseas to be a lightning rod for terrorists everywhere? Of course not. So the story presented was Saddam needs to go. WMD's, he's a bad leader. There was some smoke there. Maybe or maybe not enough to warrant going for those reasons, I agree it's debatable. However, if that is sufficient to get them over there, assuming it's a diversionary action so the terrorists attack them there, instead of us here, then that's what they did. Now if you agree or disagree is another question, and I can certainly see both sides of that. However, that is why I really think we went to Iraq, to draw the fire of the terrorists, so they would attack us there, instead of flying more planes into buildings here. But you'll never hear anyone say that's the reason, because even if my speculation is right, no one can admit to it. Not because they believe it was wrong to do it, but because it will expose the nation to further attacks on our own soil. But that's only my theory, I reserve the right to be wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,736
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,736 |
So I don't understand why folks think it's so key to have "their guy" as President, other than for things like a judicial appointment Or starting a new war.... AGG PS, the President only has limited powers to wage war. Eventually Congress must approve. The funding is also key. Congress can always cut funding. So a president can't start a major military action without getting buy-off by the congress. The only reason we are still in Iraq today is because two things are happening, the President wants to be there and Congress keeps funding the operation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 614
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 614 |
So I don't understand why folks think it's so key to have "their guy" as President, other than for things like a judicial appointment Or starting a new war.... AGG Which John McCain fully intends to do. He actually wants to increase the troops in the region. Quote: JohnMcCain.com Call for International Pressure on Syria and Iran
Syria and Iran have aided and abetted the violence in Iraq for too long. Syria has refused to crack down on Iraqi insurgents and foreign terrorists operating within its territory. Iran has been providing the most extreme and violent Shia militias with training, weapons, and technology that kill American and Iraqi troops. American military spokesmen have also said there is evidence that Iran has provided aid to Sunni insurgents.
The answer is not unconditional dialogues with these two dictatorships from a position of weakness. The answer is for the international community to apply real pressure to Syria and Iran to change their behavior. The United States must also bolster its regional military posture to make clear to Iran our determination to protect our forces and deter Iranian intervention. That's a great idea. Pick on someone who can actually fight back. It will make the war in Iraq look like a picnic. Want2Stay
BS-me 36 FWW-34 DS-7 & DS-3 PA - 7/06-8/06 EA - 6/06-1/07 D-Day: wife confessed 2-17-07, suspected 8-02-06 Broke NC: 2-19-07, 3-24-07, 5/07 My StoryMy Wife's Story --------------------- Healing one day at a time.....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 15,310
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 15,310 |
Which John McCain fully intends to do. He actually wants to increase the troops in the region. THIS IS SCARY!! I reside in a military town and the EFFECTS of the WAR on the troops and their families are EVIDENTLY DEVASTATING!! This war has resulted in a higher incidence of PTSD than the VIETNAM WAR!! The PSYCHOLOGY/PSYCHIATRY facilities cannot fully serve the needs of the troops and their families.
I made it happen..a joyful life..filled with peace, contentment, happiness and fabulocity.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,736
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,736 |
So I don't understand why folks think it's so key to have "their guy" as President, other than for things like a judicial appointment Or starting a new war.... AGG Which John McCain fully intends to do. He actually wants to increase the troops in the region. Quote: JohnMcCain.com Call for International Pressure on Syria and Iran
Syria and Iran have aided and abetted the violence in Iraq for too long. Syria has refused to crack down on Iraqi insurgents and foreign terrorists operating within its territory. Iran has been providing the most extreme and violent Shia militias with training, weapons, and technology that kill American and Iraqi troops. American military spokesmen have also said there is evidence that Iran has provided aid to Sunni insurgents.
The answer is not unconditional dialogues with these two dictatorships from a position of weakness. The answer is for the international community to apply real pressure to Syria and Iran to change their behavior. The United States must also bolster its regional military posture to make clear to Iran our determination to protect our forces and deter Iranian intervention. That's a great idea. Pick on someone who can actually fight back. It will make the war in Iraq look like a picnic. Want2Stay Iran and Iraq fought for years to a stalemate. I think Iran is no more of a threat than Iraq. While I would not be in favor of going there, I don't fear them either. Ditto for Syria. I think the world would turn against us, should we unilaterally attack. However, if Iran came into Iraq today, I think it would turn into the same sort of turkey shoot we saw with Iraq. Even more so if the Syran's came across the border of Iraq as a traditional military force. Let's all pray that it doesn't come to that. However, let's not lose site of the fact that these folks are the very ones that the "lightning rod" is designed to attract, and that if they do become more hostile, that it's better to engage them there, than to have them attacking our people on our soil. Do I think we can resolve Mid-East issues? Of course not. Thousands of years of conflict and bad blood are in that area's history. However, do I think we should wait for one of those groups to try to sucker-punch us again? Nope. I think we should be watching very closely and make it abundantly clear that we are not afraid to fight, should they think they are called to attack us, and that if attacked, we respond in with the intention to totally defeat anyone who dares attack. I was reading years ago about how bin Laden called America the weak horse, but don't take my word for it, read the transscript UBL: (...Inaudible...) when people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse. This is only one goal; those who want people to worship the lord of the people, without following that doctrine, will be following the doctrine of Muhammad, peace be upon him. (UBL quotes several short and incomplete Hadith verses, as follows): "I was ordered to fight the people until they say there is no god but Allah, and his prophet Muhammad." "Some people may ask: why do you want to fight us?" "There is an association between those who say: I believe in one god and Muhammad is his prophet, and those who don't (...inaudible...) "Those who do not follow the true fiqh. The fiqh of Muhammad, the real fiqh. They are just accepting what is being said at face value."
UBL: Those youth who conducted the operations did not accept any fiqh in the popular terms, but they accepted the fiqh that the prophet Muhammad brought. Those young men (...inaudible...) said in deeds, in New York and Washington, speeches that overshadowed all other speeches made everywhere else in the world. The speeches are understood by both Arabs and non-Arabs-even by Chinese. It is above all the media said. Some of them said that in Holland, at one of the centers, the number of people who accepted Islam during the days that followed the operations were more than the people who accepted Islam in the last eleven years. I heard someone on Islamic radio who owns a school in America say: "We don't have time to keep up with the demands of those who are asking about Islamic books to learn about Islam." This event made people think (about true Islam) which benefited Islam greatly.
Shaykh: Hundreds of people used to doubt you and few only would follow you until this huge event happened. Now hundreds of people are coming out to join you. I remember a vision by Shaykh Salih Al-((Shuaybi)). He said: "There will be a great hit and people will go out by hundreds to Afghanistan." I asked him (Salih): "To Afghanistan?" He replied, "Yes." According to him, the only ones who stay behind will be the mentally impotent and the liars (hypocrites). I remembered his saying that hundreds of people will go out to Afghanistan. He had this vision a year ago. This event discriminated between the different types of followers.
UBL: (...Inaudible...) we calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who would be killed based on the position of the tower. We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all. (...Inaudible...) due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only. This is all that we had hoped for. OBL is calling America, or the west the "weak horse" and by attacking us, he is trying to show the world he is the strong horse, the one to be followed. That is the language of many of the folks in that area of the world. He understands that folks in that area of the world, due to the thousands of years of fighting, follow those who appear to be strong and strength is characterized by winning battles based on the history of that region. So it appears, the only thing many from that area of the world understand is such strength. That doesn't mean we should conquer, as I don't think America should be an imperialist nation. However, I do think that we need to effectively deliver the message that not only are we strong, but we are not afraid to use that strength when attacked. Am I saying Iraq was responsible for the attacks on us? Nope, not saying it. I'm saying we used Iraq as a stage to counter OBL's assertion that we were the weak horse, the one that had strength, but would not use it, that he was stronger. He is now in hiding, Saddam is not only no longer in power in Iraq, but no longer among the living, and America still stands. No, I don't think Iran or Syria really want to be too overt in their jabs against the US. We don't have to attack, but we do have to stay strong. I think this is what McCain is saying. Don't give away the strength we do have. That's how I read it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 614
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 614 |
I certainly don't think it was for more oil, as we haven't seemed to get more oil. Think what you want, but if an oil man wanted more oil, it would have been flowing by now. So going for oil was out. We didn't need to get more oil for it to be about oil. All we had to do was create enough instability in the region to justify raising prices. All you have to do is take a look at this chart for Exxon Mobil's stock to see where the money went.
BS-me 36 FWW-34 DS-7 & DS-3 PA - 7/06-8/06 EA - 6/06-1/07 D-Day: wife confessed 2-17-07, suspected 8-02-06 Broke NC: 2-19-07, 3-24-07, 5/07 My StoryMy Wife's Story --------------------- Healing one day at a time.....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 3,703
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 3,703 |
What is her level of education?
Neither McCain or Palin seem all that bright to me.
****************************************
She seemed very 'bright' to me , just not very sophisticated.
I read she attended Hawaii Pacific College and then transferred and graduated from University of Idaho w/ a degree in journalism and/or political science. (?)
There really isn't much information available about her yet.
It doesn't bother 'me' that she didn't attend an Ivy League University, but she isn't what I needed to make me comfortable voting for John McCain. I was really hoping for someone w/ more economic and foreign policy experience. I was actually getting comfortable w/ the idea of Mitt Romney.
I was hoping she'd win me over last night but she didn't.
Last edited by nia17; 09/04/08 01:01 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345 |
PS, the President only has limited powers to wage war. Eventually Congress must approve. Shrug - I was just pointing out that the Pres can do way more than just appoint justices, as your original comment implied. War is a pretty big power, IMO. So a president can't start a major military action without getting buy-off by the congress. Oh sure he can. As Commander in Chief, he can send troops anywhere anytime if there is a crisis, something that is always open to interpretation. The only reason we are still in Iraq today is because two things are happening, the President wants to be there and Congress keeps funding the operation. Well, for the first six years, it was a Republican Congress. Besides, it is much more difficult cut off the funding once you have hundreds of thousands of people half a world away in harm's way than to not send them there to begin with. You are not blaming the Congress for not cutting off the funding are you? That would be "cutting and running". AGG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,736
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,736 |
Wait, I say it was for Google, not XOM. Look at how much more Google's stock has risen XOM v GOOGLE I certainly don't think it was for more oil, as we haven't seemed to get more oil. Think what you want, but if an oil man wanted more oil, it would have been flowing by now. So going for oil was out. We didn't need to get more oil for it to be about oil. All we had to do was create enough instability in the region to justify raising prices. All you have to do is take a look at this chart for Exxon Mobil's stock to see where the money went. Even $4/gallon gas doesn't seem to have helped XOM, as it's stock is DOWN 15% since the beginning of the year. It's not a recent loss either, it's been dropping the whole year XOM vs Google YTD If you really think XOM is making too much money, buy the stock. However, it looks like owning XOM this year has been a losing proposition.
Last edited by Enlightened_Ex; 09/04/08 12:53 PM. Reason: Fixed Quotes
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345 |
Which John McCain fully intends to do. He actually wants to increase the troops in the region. Quote: JohnMcCain.com Call for International Pressure on Syria and Iran
Syria and Iran have aided and abetted the violence in Iraq for too long. Syria has refused to crack down on Iraqi insurgents and foreign terrorists operating within its territory. Iran has been providing the most extreme and violent Shia militias with training, weapons, and technology that kill American and Iraqi troops. American military spokesmen have also said there is evidence that Iran has provided aid to Sunni insurgents. It's especially scary coming from someone who has been known to sing "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran", while needing Lieberman to whisper in his ear to remind him that Iran is Shiite, not Sunni. More than once. I can't tell if McCain is really that ignorant, or senile. Not sure which is worse. AGG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,736
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,736 |
PS, the President only has limited powers to wage war. Eventually Congress must approve. Shrug - I was just pointing out that the Pres can do way more than just appoint justices, as your original comment implied. War is a pretty big power, IMO. So a president can't start a major military action without getting buy-off by the congress. Oh sure he can. As Commander in Chief, he can send troops anywhere anytime if there is a crisis, something that is always open to interpretation. The only reason we are still in Iraq today is because two things are happening, the President wants to be there and Congress keeps funding the operation. Well, for the first six years, it was a Republican Congress. Besides, it is much more difficult cut off the funding once you have hundreds of thousands of people half a world away in harm's way than to not send them there to begin with. You are not blaming the Congress for not cutting off the funding are you? That would be "cutting and running". AGG If congress and those who are in congress think the war is wrong, then they need to vote that way. If their only way to accomplish this is to limit funding to a pull out, then they need to do this. I'm not saying I'm for cutting and running, or whatever you want to call it. What I'm saying is that as long as congress is still writing the checks, you can't in good faith pin whatever happens only on the president. If Peolsi and Reid think the war is a bad idea, they need to stop spending taxpayer money on the war. If they keep funding it, they lose the right to say it's a bad idea. Oh, they can say it. But their actions speak something completely different. Besides, if they are such smart people, they should be able to figure out how to get the troops out, safely, by funding a withdraw, but not funding any more action in Iraq. They control the budget, so if they say we'll not fund this action, then the President has to bring the troops home. As long as the Congress keeps writing the checks, they are approving of the President's actions where it matters, with the taxpayers money.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,834
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,834 |
Exxon-Mobils stock is dropping because IT isn't pumping the oil out of the ground like it used to. Please review it's income statement>>> XOM IncomeStm It clearly indicates it's climbing revenues (from higher gas prices $102B in Sep 07 to $138B in Jun 08) But falling profitability in the result 1. Sep 07 $9,410M Profit / $102,337M in Sales = 9.195% profit. 2. Jun 08 $11,680M profit / $138,072M in Sales = 8.459% profit. In effect, XOM in sending the increased $ in gas prices back to the OPEC cartels. Now, IF XOM was pumping more oil from the ground in the US? Those dollars would STAY HERE. But XOM isn't doing that. And it's stock price has been hammered, with good reason. Also: Please note the Income tax exp each QUARTER going from $7.3B to $10.5B. THATS a windfall profits tax. I didn't really get cheered by the "Drill, Baby, Drill" chant. But exploring for oil safely in the US and keeping the dollars here makes alot of sense to me. Developing the new personal transportation systems for the future makes sense also. And that is NOT going to happen until economically feasible. (i.e. Gas at $5-6 a gallon consistently.) Just my .02. I fell asleep during Obama's speech. I did stay awake for Palin's. LG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345 |
If Peolsi and Reid think the war is a bad idea, they need to stop spending taxpayer money on the war. Sure, if only life were that simple. Like I said, they came to power with the situation already knee deep in doo doo, and just cutting off the funding is not as simple as it sounds. AGG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,834
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,834 |
ElEx: I agree completely with this: If Peolsi and Reid think the war is a bad idea, they need to stop spending taxpayer money on the war.
If they keep funding it, they lose the right to say it's a bad idea. Oh, they can say it. But their actions speak something completely different. Peolsi ran on the platform that she was going to get the troops out. And won the House for Democrats with it. But she only talks about cutting the funding, and then gives the President what he asks for. Wasn't the "surge" funded and approved by this Congress? Yes, WE HAVE to clean up the mess we created there. We CAN NOT leave over night. However, the Democrats only want to be able to say "No". But they do NOT back it up. LG
|
|
|
Moderated by Ariel, BerlinMB, Denali, Fordude, IrishGreen, MBeliever, MBSync, McLovin, Mizar, PhoenixMB, Toujours
|
0 members (),
267
guests, and
65
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
