pattygreen

With private industry (unless you're a voting shareholder) you have no say. But that doesn't mean our taxes don't support that business. They do - in the form of corporate welfare, which I have posted on here many times. Yes you do. Don't do business with them or work for them. You have the freedom of choice. If you don't feel that hellman's mayo Co. is treating you fairly, refuse to work for them, or buy Cain's mayo.

The banks paid the money back with more borrowed money. This is their way of being deceitful. I have already shown you the proof for that.

I feel that if women get pregnant, then they should be forced to carry the baby till it is born, unless if by doing so, the woman's life is in danger. We have laws about murder in this world, and they are there to protect the innocent. An unborn baby is an innocent.

How is a pregnancy detrimental to your well being? What are you talking about when you say it's not okay when they kill in the name of god? How is a a baby invading your body? Is the baby intentionally trying to harm you in some way?

You don't see the blue in that circle, along with the gray and the green. That makesup 1/2 the circle. ALL that is OBAMA spending! Stimulus, recession, and his agenda. I don't have any problem paying for the war. Any funds that go to military defense is acceptable to me. That's what the government is supposed to be there for.

Just because big companies don't do what's right, doesn't give the government a free ride to copy them. Discussing issues with you seems to always lead to a "If they can do it, so can the government" mentality. I can not tell private companies what to do with their business employees. If they choose to give them millions in pensions, what's that to me. It's their money, and they made it, and they can do as they please with their finances. The government, OTOH, is a company that I am forced to support with my finances and feel that they should get rid of pension plans that are outrageous! So, how is what I said about School superintendents getting a pension plan incorrect, as you stated? I was talking about a private school's superintendant. They don't get pensions like the public, government run school supers get. Also, big companies that give big pensions are just fine with me, so long as it's their money and not mine. I could care less what they give their employees.

Trust a neocon to blame the federal government for the cost of a jar of mayo from Hellman's who controls the cost - and sets prices to maximize profit. Companies that provide goods and services are not going to take a loss when they are taxed or regulated highly and it costs them more money. They will pass the expense down to the consumer. So, in essence, WE pay that tax in higher prices for every good we purchase, including Hellman's mayo. When we say that we are being highly taxed by the government, this is what we mean. We are taxed through the cost of living from the governments burden on businesses.

The federal government is bankrupting the private sector? It was the private sector banks on wall street that caused this economic collapse, not the federal government. It was the federal government that rescued the private sector. When they bailed them out with our tax money, they bankrupted us. They should have let them fail and allowed the chips to fall where they may.

In this scenario, when the people were unemployed, I was paying them unemployment, plus food stamps, plus all the other aid they were entitled to. When I hired them, I stopped paying them all of this and instead paid them a wage, from which they PAID ME TAXES. Then they used these wages to buy things in the economy from those who sell goods and services thus stimulating the economy, increasing demand and allowing the places that provide these goods and services to hire more people based on this increased demand. The difference is that when they were getting unemployment, it was a TEMPORARY help till they could find a private sector job. Once they were hired by the government, the paymnents you and I dish out to them every week NEVER ends. (even after they die, they get pensions) When have you ever heard of a government job, that was meant to be a permanent job for someone, end? Never, or rarely.

I feel that laws should not reflect upon a persons religion also, but when the laws take the lives of others, such as murder does, the people need to intercede and keep people from murdering others.

I did not pay much attention to what Bush was doing while he was the president. Like I said, I only recently became interested in politics the last year of Bush's presidency. So, I can't give you a list of his accomplishments. I belive that his accomplishments will be recognized when looked back upon in a decade or so. As far as economics go, all I know is Obama spends much, much more than any president ever did. He is very arrogant and prideful. Boastful and corrupt. This one gets me every time! "I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when...the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal." Talk about 'prideful'. He is the epitomy of the word!

...................................

True.... Very true.

All we can see are the failures of what is happening right now!

May 3, 2010 Federal Government Outpaces Private Sector in Job Creation Both see more hiring than firing; the opposite is true in state and local governments by Frank Newport PRINCETON, NJ -- Gallup's Job Creation Index for April reveals significantly more hiring within the federal government than in the private sector. Both show a substantially more positive picture than state and local governments, where firing far eclipses hiring. Gallup's Job Creation Index is based on the percentage of American workers who say their employers are hiring minus the percentage who say their employers are letting workers go. The overall Index value for American workers in April tilts positive, with 27% of workers saying their places of employment are hiring, and 22% saying their employers are letting people go -- resulting in an overall +5 Job Creation Index. These overall numbers, however, mask significantly different patterns across employment sectors. Based on these reports from workers, the federal government is a growth industry, while employment at state and local governments is shrinking. By almost a 2-to-1 margin, federal employees say their employer is hiring rather than firing, giving the federal government a relatively robust +18 Job Creation Index for April. (Federal workers make up about 5% of the sample of workers Gallup interviewed in April.) This contrasts with Index values of -28 among state and -26 among local government workers (about 7% and 5% of Gallup's workforce sample, respectively). The Job Creation Index among private-sector and other non-government workers is +9. Bottom Line Gallup's Job Creation Index clearly indicates that state and local governments are in the midst of significant downsizing, no doubt reflecting budgetary issues resulting from recessionary pressures on the tax (and other) revenue that funds these governments. Hiring at the federal level has apparently to date escaped these same fiscal pressures. Indeed, the federal government appears to be significantly outpacing the private sector in terms of the relative number of jobs created. How long this pattern will continue is difficult to project. The federal budget deficit is likely to become a prominent element of political debate in the months and years ahead, thus opening up the possibility of increased employment pressures at the federal level. At the moment, however, the federal government is one of the brightest spots in the nation's hiring picture.

Question News & Politics Will the Libs EVER quit bashing Bush? by Chico Posted 07/29/09 Originally published 04:45 a.m., July 29, 2009, updated 09:30 a.m., July 29, 2009 Obama still cashing in on Bush's failings Joseph Curl (Contact) Facing the first real rough patch of his presidency, President Obama and his supporters are once again resorting to a tried-and-true tactic: attacking George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. In his White House press conference last week, Mr. Obama referred to the Bush era at least nine times, three times lamenting that he "inherited" a $1.3 trillion debt that has set back his administration's efforts to fix the economy. With the former president lying low in Dallas, largely focused on crafting his memoirs, Mr. Obama has increasingly attempted to exploit Mr. Bush when discussing the weak economy, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the difficulty closing the military prison at U.S. Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. As he took power, Mr. Obama promised a "new era of responsibility" that would transcend partisan politics. "For a guy who campaigned on taking responsibility and looking forward, he spends an awful lot of time pointing fingers and looking backward," (Sounds like Cleo'smom)said former Bush deputy press secretary Tony Fratto, who has begun defending the previous administration. But Democrats think Mr. Obama would be remiss if he did not point out what he inherited. "I'm not convinced that Obama and his supporters are bashing Bush as much as they are quite rightfully reminding people that our current economic mess and the wars were inherited from the Bush administration," said Democratic strategist Bud Jackson. "It's important to remind people of this because Republicans are now criticizing the Obama administration as if they had no role in how we got here." Democratic Party strategist Liz Chadderdon said the strategy of blaming the previous team has been effective. "I think Bush-bashing has been alive and well since '07 and, since it keeps working, why not use it?" she said. "Voters have short memories. The administration needs to remind people that things were way worse over the last four years than in the last six months." Mixed feelings among voters about health care reform have shaken the president's approval ratings from the high poll numbers when he took office. Six months into his term, 30 percent of the nation's voters "strongly approve" of Mr. Obama's job performance, according to a survey released Monday by the Rasmussen polling organization. The poll showed that 40 percent "strongly disapprove" of the president's performance, marking the first time the disparity has reached double digits. (and now we are up over 62%) Since taking office, Mr. Obama has implemented a $787 billion stimulus package that has failed to produce a quick economic turnaround and the U.S. economy has shed more than 2.5 million jobs. Mr. Obama hardly ever refers to Mr. Bush by name. In fact, his Web site, whitehouse.gov, recently scrubbed the name of the former president out of a reference to Hurricane Katrina, which once read: "President Obama will keep the broken promises made by President Bush to rebuild New Orleans and the Gulf Coast." Now, the "President Bush" is gone. Although Mr. Obama's effort is subtle, his rhetoric is clear. On his first trip overseas, Mr. Obama referred to Mr. Bush's foreign policy and said the United States has "shown arrogance" and been "dismissive, even derisive." He said decisions of the past had "lowered our standing in the world." "There are some mornings I read the news and feel like it's January 2009 -- there are so many stories making the front page about things that President Bush thought about and didn't do," said former White House press secretary Dana Perino. "I find it hard to believe that there aren't more interesting stories affecting Americans in the here and now that can garner that kind of space. But the obsession continues unabated." Even when asserting his responsibility for addressing the nation's problems, Mr. Obama manages to highlight that he was left to deal with others' missteps. At a town-hall meeting this month in Michigan -- the state with the nation's highest jobless rate -- Mr. Obama said that fixing the economy is "a job I gladly accept." But he added, "I love these folks who helped get us in this mess. And then suddenly say, 'Oh, this is Obama's economy.'" The liberals can't get away from bashing Bush, yet critisize Conservatives for their Obama Bashing. Hypocrites!

Government paid jobs DO NOT count as jobs created. They may be actual jobs for the individual who is wroking them, but they are jobs that ALL Americans will have to pay the salaries for from this day forward! Only Private sector jobs are considered a celebration. Government jobs have no "Congratulations President Obama" from me! The government payroll is far exceeding the private sector jobs. We will be dolling out more money than we are able to continue making. What one federal job pays to an individual, another individual has to work hard to pay them. Why is that a reason to rejoice, IYO? As for bashing Obama, I saw more bashing of Bush by liberals than what is happening with Obama, even though Obama has been squeezing in more of his agenda that the people do not approve of than any president has ever done. Liberals are STILL bashing Bush, even though he's not even there anymore. Bush-Basher Paul McCartney: Not Just Rude, But Wrong Posted by Jim Hoft on Thursday, June 3, 2010, 10:22 PM Those Obamas sure seem to like it when people from foreign countries say insulting things about Americans in the highest houses of our government. Sir Paul would be the latest. Too bad the cameras weren’t on the Obama’s after that Bush attack. You know they were chuckling along with all the other radicals at the party. It turns out that the ignorant one was Paul McCartney. Laura Bush is a librarian. She and her husband made a mini-cause of supporting literacy and public libraries both in Texas and in Washington DC. Charles Lane at the WaPo’s Post Partisan Blog reported: There are many things of which Bush may be fairly accused. It would be boring to list them all. My point here, however, is that those who smugly deride his ostensible ignorance often inadvertently demonstrate their own. And so it was with McCartney’s obnoxious crack, which was not only nasty, and totally inappropriate to the occasion, but also perfectly uninformed. Bush’s wife Laura is a librarian. She and her husband made a mini-cause of supporting literacy and public libraries, both when he was governor of Texas and when he was president. The Bush administration oversaw creation of a federal grant program to train a new generation of librarians. It’s called the Laura Bush 21st Century Librarian Program, and it has awarded $130 million to date. During Bush’s presidency, federal funding for public libraries grew from $163.2 million per year to $212.2 million per year – a 30 percent increase. In mocking the boorishness of a former U.S. president, Sir Paul, and those who roared at his remark, unfortunately demonstrated their own. To see the McCartney video, cklick here: http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/06/bush-basher-paul-mccartney-not-just-rude-but-wrong/

I agree. I get most of my news from FOX, but I also watch the other stations, but not for long, because I can't stomach their beliefs. I get my knowledge of the world from the bible. I also read newspapers like the Republican American and the Wall street journal and the Washington post. I never listen to radio commentators or news from the radio.

You're also boastful.

Any person that made such a statement to you, that your husband will not be allowed in Heaven and that he will be going to Hell, is arrogant and should be ignored. No one knows for sure who will enter into Heaven or who will not, except God himself. God does give us a clear word as to how to end up there, though. So, others may make a judgment in their opinion as to his destination by observing his fruits (or actions, deeds and words). But this is just their opinion, only God knows the true heart of every person. The only thing that keeps any person out of Heaven is a lack of faith in Jesus as their Savior. If this is the case with your husband, then I can not be sure that he will go there when he dies. Those who are trusting in Jesus to save them from perishing in Hell after they die will live in Heaven with their Creator, God. Those who do not put their faith in Jesus, God's son who took their punishment for them, will perish and be destroyed in Hell after their death. They will cease to exist, but those who believe in God will have eternal life in Heaven. For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life. (John 3:16) So you see, that scripture teaches that we have 2 choices after this life is over. We either "perish" (OR) we have "eternal life". But it is our decision to make. Each person must make that choice while he is alive on this earth. There is no purgatory or second chance after you die. The bible does not teach that. Why not settle the matter once and for all? Ask Jesus to be your Savior and to bring you into Heaven when your life here ends. Confess to Him that you believe in Him. Ask your husband to do the same. It's that easy. Why worry about your eternal destination all your life when you can put that matter into God's hand? He loves you.

And that 44% was just 2 months ago in April. It just gets worse and worse as the months tick by. We're at 62% now who feel the country is on the wrong track. The more Obama does, the less the people care for him. He needs to GO! 2012 can't come soon enough for me!

Devastating Poll Numbers for President Obama Americans are more pessimistic about the state of the country and less confident in President Barack Obama's leadership than at any point since Mr. Obama entered the White House, according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll. The survey also shows grave and growing concerns about the Gulf oil spill, with overwhelming majorities of adults favoring stronger regulation of the oil industry and believing that the spill will affect the nation's economy and environment. Sixty-two percent of adults in the survey feel the country is on the wrong track, the highest level since before the 2008 election. Just one-third think the economy will get better over the next year, a 7-point drop from a month ago and the low point of Mr. Obama's tenure. Amid anxiety over the nation's course, support for Mr. Obama and other incumbents is eroding. For the first time, more people disapprove of Mr. Obama's job performance than approve. And 57% of voters would prefer to elect a new person to Congress than re-elect their local representatives, the highest share in 18 years. President Barack Obama pauses in the East Room of the White House in Washington on April 6. The results show "a really ugly mood and an unhappy electorate," said Democratic pollster Peter Hart, who conducts the Journal/NBC poll with GOP pollster Bill McInturff. "The voters, I think, are just looking for change, and that means bad news for incumbents and in particular for the Democrats."

Obama's Oscar Posted: March 08, 2010 1:00 am Eastern © 2010 Fulton J. Sheen once said, "Pride is an admission of weakness; it secretly fears all competition and dreads all rivals." I am no pinnacle of humility, and I've learned my fair share of hard lessons from the camps of conceit. But I'm not sure the former Chicago politician occupying the White House has ever been schooled with a primer on the perils of pride. It's one thing (though still distasteful) to be boastful in a sports or fighting ring – it's quite another in the Oval Office. We were promised change, but it seems to me this White House's smug swagger and strut rivals the great taunts and bluster of Mohammed Ali in his heyday. In fact, if I were handing out awards, President Obama would win hands down the Oscar for overconfidence and arrogance. Here are a few examples of his Oscar political performances: Who can forget the State of the Union back in January, when the president utterly disregarded and disrespected our military commanders and the U.S. Supreme Court? President Obama rebutted the entire Supreme Court in its presence and before the whole nation, with a premeditated and prepared accusation that the justices "reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections." (We now know why U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito immediately shook his head in dismay and mouthed the words "not true," because there are at least three accounts in the 183-page ruling that forbid its application to foreign nationals, groups or corporations.) I ask you, which is worse: South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson's impromptu outburst "You lie" to President Obama during his September 2009 address to Congress or the president's premeditated public innuendo and lie during the State of the Union that the U.S. Supreme Court justices are not protecting American sovereignty but handing over political sway to international powers? And did anyone see the mainstream media afterward pressure the president to apologize the way Wilson had to? And what about the faces on the military commanders during the State of the Union? Regardless of one's views on gays in the military, the president's smug demeanor in pushing the issue and our military's stoic response prompted me to ask, "Is the State of the Union really the place for a commander in chief to cast in-your-face politics before his leading military personnel, with all America watching?" Consider even the recent so-called health-care summit. It might sound simple to some, but I believe it is symptomatic when, away from the teleprompters but still on C-Span, other members of Congress call the president "Mr. President," while he calls them only by their first name. For example, when Minority Leader Rep. John Boehner started his remarks, the president said, "John, go ahead." And Rep. Boehner replied, "Mr. President, I want to say thank you for having us here," to which Boehner added at least another five addresses to "Mr. President." At the end of his statement, President Obama again replied, "John, you know, the challenge I have here …" The president went the entire six hours or so in this room full of Washington politicians and various notables addressing them by their first names, rather than the socially accepted and proper forms of address for senators and congressman that the rest of us use: "Paul … Jim … Charles … George … Eric … Louise … Tom … Jay … Marsha," etc. One may argue that these are examples of familiarity, but I believe they are of contempt. In addition, to Sen. John McCain's, R-Ariz., genuine concern for ramming a pork-ridden health-care bill through Congress by politics as usual, president Obama replied, "We're not campaigning anymore. The election is over." And after Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., politely opened his remarks by saying, "Mr. President, thank you again very much for having us and for staying with us for the six hours. I appreciate that," the president sarcastically commented about the high stack of pages in front of Rep. Cantor by saying: "Let me just guess – that's the 2,400-page health-care bill. Is that right?" Is it just me, or does the president's lofty arrogance bother anyone else, too? Imagine how it would make headline news if anyone in that health-care summit addressed the president as simply: "Well, Barack, let me tell you my opinion …" Down here, particularly in the South, we use sir, ma'am, Mr., and Mrs., your honor, etc., and every other fitting and proper title in addressing others. People call it Southern hospitality. Mom raised me on it in Wilson, Okla. As a result, I believe respect is deserved by all people – regardless of color or creed. Of course, in martial arts, restraint and respect are two of the most critical components. I might have played tough guys in movies and television, but in real life it's respect all the way. But I confess that those to whom I often find it most difficult to show respect are the kings of conceit – those who lord and laud themselves over others. I mean, how much pride and arrogance does it take for a president to ramrod a national health-care bill through Congress and down the throats of all Americans, despite a majority of Americans have voiced opposition to it, every Republican in the House and Senate opposes it and Michigan Rep. Bart Stupak and 11 other Democratic lawmakers vow to kill it? And to those average Americans and others who oppose Obama's far left agenda, rather than respecting their opinion or working with their differences, the president spoke about them before a live audience and condescendingly declared, "To those who are trying to stand in the way of [my] progress, let me tell you: I'm just getting started! I don't quit. I'm not tired. I'm just getting started! It's important for those folks to know: We're just going to keep on going." And President Obama had the audacity before an audience in France in to call America "arrogant"? The president believes he is above any opposition, and even tried to demonize No. 1 Fox News as an illegitimate news organization because some commentators disagree with him. was right when he concluded that, "This White House has no humility." Amazingly, and a shocking testimony to a society blindly drinking Washington's political Kool-Aid, most mainstream media still marvel over Obama's deification. Many are under some type of political hypnosis, like the editor of Newsweek who gloated last year on MSNBC's Chris Matthews' show, "I mean, in a way Obama's standing above the country, above the world. He's sort of God." No wonder one acrostic for E.G.O. is "edging God out." The president doesn't just lord himself over broadcasts agencies, other politicians, his opponents and the American people, but over its most precious founding documents. As I noted in last week's column, I repeat here for emphasis: described the Constitution as "an imperfect document … a document that reflects some deep flaws … an enormous blind spot … and that the framers had that same blind spot." In so doing, the president places himself above the Constitution and those "blind framers" who just couldn't see the big picture as he does today. After all, he's the constitutional scholar and the framers were just, well, the creators of the document! It might have worked for Al Capone, but the Chicago politics slogan is unbecoming for any occupant of the White House: "Hire your friends, and smash your enemies." Lou Pritchett, a former vice president of Procter & Gamble who worked for that company for 36 years until his retirement in 1989, hit the nail on the head when he wrote his now famous "open letter to President Obama": "You are the thirteenth president under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me. … You scare me because you lack humility and 'class,' always blaming others." Even stranger and possibly his gravest error, President Obama haughtily placed himself above the Judeo-Christian religion and scriptures, when as a senator of Illinois. In that message, he denigrated biblical books like Leviticus and Deuteronomy, ridiculed the issue of inerrancy and the Bible, called the Sermon on the Mount a radically inapplicable passage of scripture, and declared that basing public policies upon the Bible "would be a dangerous thing." He arrogantly concluded that "folks haven't been reading their Bible," setting himself not only above most others' understanding of scripture but all of us who read it. In olden days, such sacred contempt would have been regarded as an abominable desecration – a man standing in the house of God claiming to be like a god, above others and even scripture itself. President Obama, I don't know if you've spent a day in a Sunday-school class, so here's a verse that might help you. Proverbs 16:18: "Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall."