I concede, but Bush will not win the fight!!!
- Thread starter UrbanPancake
- Start date
Look in the mirror. The guy looking back at you is solely responsible for this mess. You are not an innocent victim.
D
dems4me
Guest
UrbanPancake said:
I saw it as a backhanded concession :shrug:
How would I handle the name calling :shrug: don't know, I've never been called anything but nice on here :shrug:
I still think you are a little angry... here -- use some of these smilies -- they will take the edge off your posts...
Thanks. I always like reading jokes.UrbanPancake
Right=Wrong/Left=Right
ylexot said:
I agree with you. But why couldn't it have been left to the states government? Why did it make it as a referendum during such a hot and pivotal presidential election?
And the disinformation continues, the marriage amendment would have done nothing like what you suggest, read the words of the amendment for yourself and you will see that it says `Marriage in the United States shall consist solely of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.' Notice that it doesn’t say that a state cannot grant unions or equivalent status only that they are not required to recognize those established elsewhere.
As to the war with Iraq, read the text of PL107-243 and then get to me on this, you have no understanding of why Congress voted to give the President the authority.
Actually the 100 point bounce yesterday along with the cuts Bush has gotten passed are what has kept us from really feeling how screwed up Clinton left the economy. Bush halted a full-fledged recession by taking action after Clinton spent his last days sitting there handing out pardons. Bush's desire to shore up Social Security is reasonable when you consider that in just a few years there will only be two workers for every retiree. Something needs done and wishing for a magical solution by doing nothing isn’t what is needed.
Give me a break, the government controls the healthcare for the Federal employees and would have had its hands all in it under the Kerry plan, to say otherwise is absurd and unknowing of how much involvement the government has in the FEHB plans already.
We need to do something about immigration reform, though I have heard nothing about the oil connection you claim with Mexico, link please.
As to what you say about jobs I find no credence in your words, just speculation and innuendo. I know for a fact that the government hasn’t grown anywhere near the numbers that have been tossed around out here as the only new agency – Homeland Defense is mostly comprised of employees assigned to other agencies already in existence. There has been very little hiring; it’s mostly a reorganization. As to jobs that have left, I would say that this is because the companies could make more using cheaper foreign employees and getting deals elsewhere to move their operations. American manufacturing jobs have out-priced themselves for the most part.
As to the war with Iraq, read the text of PL107-243 and then get to me on this, you have no understanding of why Congress voted to give the President the authority.
Actually the 100 point bounce yesterday along with the cuts Bush has gotten passed are what has kept us from really feeling how screwed up Clinton left the economy. Bush halted a full-fledged recession by taking action after Clinton spent his last days sitting there handing out pardons. Bush's desire to shore up Social Security is reasonable when you consider that in just a few years there will only be two workers for every retiree. Something needs done and wishing for a magical solution by doing nothing isn’t what is needed.
Give me a break, the government controls the healthcare for the Federal employees and would have had its hands all in it under the Kerry plan, to say otherwise is absurd and unknowing of how much involvement the government has in the FEHB plans already.
We need to do something about immigration reform, though I have heard nothing about the oil connection you claim with Mexico, link please.
As to what you say about jobs I find no credence in your words, just speculation and innuendo. I know for a fact that the government hasn’t grown anywhere near the numbers that have been tossed around out here as the only new agency – Homeland Defense is mostly comprised of employees assigned to other agencies already in existence. There has been very little hiring; it’s mostly a reorganization. As to jobs that have left, I would say that this is because the companies could make more using cheaper foreign employees and getting deals elsewhere to move their operations. American manufacturing jobs have out-priced themselves for the most part.
ylexot
Super Genius
The states can do it any way they want. But consider this. Initiatives were on the ballots in 11 states: Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, N Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Utah. The initiatives had no effect on 8 of those (they were all locks including OR that went to Kerry). So what was the reason for having it on the ballot in those states? They may have had an effect on Michigan, Mississippi, and Ohio.UrbanPancake said:
Nope. And it worked, too.UrbanPancake said:
Kind of like the Democrats getting all those entertainers to piss and moan so the kids would vote. That didn't pan out nearly as well as the Republican plan did.
Ha ha.
UrbanPancake
Right=Wrong/Left=Right
So you don't think the christian coalition will use this at all to sue states that offer civil unions?
So your saying that the economy in the 90's was bad? I remember it being a hell of a lot better than it is today. If you read what I said I also agree that something needs to be done about SS. I just don't think Bush has a real plan when it comes to securing the benefits for the seniors and baby boomers who will be withdrawing SS in the very near future. (especially with the tax cuts)
I guess you believe in conspiracy theories.
http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=747&fcategory_desc=Under+Reported
D
dems4me
Guest
I guess you believe in conspiracy theories.
http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=747&fcategory_desc=Under+Reported[/QUOTE]
You forgot the smilies again
I told you they make you appear more cival and less irrate :
http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=747&fcategory_desc=Under+Reported[/QUOTE]
You forgot the smilies again
I told you they make you appear more cival and less irrate :UrbanPancake
Right=Wrong/Left=Right
dems4me said:
This is actual news. Not something I created.
-I remembered this time.
D
dems4me
Guest
UrbanPancake said:This is actual news. Not something I created.
-I remembered this time.
See that's better!!!
You have a smile and not one that I would imagine to be a deranged smile
Much better - thanks!!!
Aimhigh2000
Active Member
Bad Karma
Ok, I may get some bad karma for this, but can some of you lay off of the nasty gay epithets please? I don't really care what ya'll think of UP, but most of you know that I am gay and not afraid to admit it. I don't go around calling any of you breeders or other derogatory things, and some of your comments really do offend me. Sorry, I just think some of it is crossing the line.
Ok, I may get some bad karma for this, but can some of you lay off of the nasty gay epithets please? I don't really care what ya'll think of UP, but most of you know that I am gay and not afraid to admit it. I don't go around calling any of you breeders or other derogatory things, and some of your comments really do offend me. Sorry, I just think some of it is crossing the line.
I agree. It's rude and shows poor character. Most of you would never dream of calling a black person a "######", but you don't hesitate to flame someone with gay slurs. It's just wrong.Aimhigh2000 said:
Aimhigh2000
Active Member
I was right
Yeah, some of you have already flooded the bad karma, thanks, and I am not bi**chin. I am just saying that I was offended by some of the comments.
Yeah, some of you have already flooded the bad karma, thanks, and I am not bi**chin. I am just saying that I was offended by some of the comments.
D
dems4me
Guest
Aimhigh2000 said:
I'm sorry you had to witness all the meaness people sometimes bestow on their fellow man
Nope, not at all as they would have no legal standing for such a suit as long as the unions are in accordance with the state laws.
Where did I say that the economy of the 90s was either good or bad? What I said was that President Bush took immediate action upon coming into office to halt the recession that Clinton failed to recognize or do anything about at the end of his term.
Nope being a realist. I participate in the FEHB of which the government picks up the tab for roughly 75%, now if this is expanded to include all citizens the cost would be prohibitive to our government. I also know that there are many government officials involved in determining the rates and which insurance companies get to play in the system. So tell me how it would not be a government controlled program?
Checked your link and see in the text that credit for the amendment to the State Department funding bill was given to Cass Ballenger. I checked his legislative initiatives for both the 107th and 108th Congress and he made no such amendment. And I really like how in that article they have statements attributed as being made by the company Pemex.
Aimhigh2000
Active Member
Clinton Recession
Didn't he know about it, its just he knew he was leaving, his numbers were good, so he didn't care? I bet he was thinking "I'd Love to see Al fix this one!"
Didn't he know about it, its just he knew he was leaving, his numbers were good, so he didn't care? I bet he was thinking "I'd Love to see Al fix this one!"