Obama's stimulus package decision

[pattygreen 5]

Now I know why green started calling you battygreen.

It doesn't bother me that people call me names. You will notice that I never resort to that though. Some people just adore name calling. To me, name calling is what most counselors call an outlet for a lack of self esteem.

"Marriage" is a governmentally recognized and controlled institution.

The gov. may recognize God's institution if they choose. That doesn't mean it should change it to mean something else it wasn't meant to be.

The laws apply differently to "married" people than to single people.

Then they may write their own laws for their 'civil union' or whatever they want to call it.

For you to want to deny "marriage" to people just because you do not approve of their lifestyle, is gross discrimination. To want our government to exclude a segment of the population by denying them the right to be married is simply wrong. It is discrimination against people - people who are citizens just like you and me.

Yes, I want to deny marriage to anyone unless you are male and female together. But I don't want to deny same sex couples their right to do as they please. Just call it something else. 'marriage' is for a man and a woman. Whether I approve of their lifestyle or not doesn't matter. There are alot of things I don't approve of, but we all have to make our own decisions in life and live with the consequences of them. So, I don't begrudge anyone to live the way they choose.

Keep your religious marriage out of it, if you like. But until the government stops using the term "marriage" it is not solely a religious union in the United States, as you claim. Under the law, it can be just a civil marriage or it can be a civil and a religious marriage combined, but a religious ceremony by itself cannot be considered a legal marriage in the U.S.

I don't understand what you are saying above here.

So with regard to the law - marriage should absolutely be legal between two consenting adults, gay, lesbian, heretosexual, black, white, yellow, red - and all of the above.

If you want to make the term "marriage" exclusive to religion and certain churches, then your job is to go about changing that law.

Why? The term 'marriage' already is and has been since the beginning of time for men and women all along.

But,as it stands, you have no right to discriminate against human beings just because you believe that God, if he were here, would deny something or other that you say he doesn't like, to certain people in our society.

Why is it soooo important to homosexuals to have what their relationship is be called a 'marriage'? They can still live together and have the same rights and privileges as marriages have under the name 'civil union'. It just differentiates between homosexuals and those that are not.

And your attitude is exactly why all those laws that you want included or excluded based upon your religious beliefs, have absolutely no place in this country - land of the free, home of the brave.

This is where I totally disagree wih you. This country was founded by our Christian forefathers who came here to be able to worship God and live by biblical standards. Over time this country is more and more straying fom the truths of God's word. Without the laws of God, we would not have had a base to go by. All of the great first documents of this country were written by God fearing men and they understood that we were 'created'. They did not exclude God or his laws.

And trust me, all of us who voted for President Obama hope against hope that we get what we voted for. God Bless America!

Oh, you'll get what you voted for alright!

A national debt that far outweighs what ANY past president has ever dreamed

of spending. (And all the past presidents put together have never spent that much) Do you understand that with just the stimulus package alone, you could spend 1 million dollars a DAY for the next 480 YEARS, YEARS!!!! and not reach the amount of money that Obama proposed to spend in his first 2 months of being president??!! NO Joke!!! AND he claims to have the national deficit cut in half by the end of his first term. :thumbup: What a dreamer! It's just not possible. Our kids and great, great grandkids will be in debt forever.

When the people turn their hearts away from God and choose to live their own way, He will give them what they desire. So, yes, you will get what you voted for, but in the end you may not like it.

[green 6]

Now I know why green started calling you battygreen.

"Marriage" is a governmentally recognized and controlled institution. The laws apply differently to "married" people than to single people. For you to want to deny "marriage" to people just because you do not approve of their lifestyle, is gross discrimination. To want our government to exclude a segment of the population by denying them the right to be married is simply wrong. It is discrimination against people - people who are citizens just like you and me.

Keep your religious marriage out of it, if you like. But until the government stops using the term "marriage" it is not solely a religious union in the United States, as you claim. Under the law, it can be just a civil marriage or it can be a civil and a religious marriage combined, but a religious ceremony by itself cannot be considered a legal marriage in the U.S.

So with regard to the law - marriage should absolutely be legal between two consenting adults, gay, lesbian, heretosexual, black, white, yellow, red - and all of the above.

If you want to make the term "marriage" exclusive to religion and certain churches, then your job is to go about changing that law.

But,as it stands, you have no right to discriminate against human beings just because you believe that God, if he were here, would deny something or other that you say he doesn't like, to certain people in our society.

And your attitude is exactly why all those laws that you want included or excluded based upon your religious beliefs, have absolutely no place in this country - land of the free, home of the brave.

And trust me, all of us who voted for President Obama hope against hope that we get what we voted for. God Bless America!

Thanks, BJean, for your fine reply. If Batty doesn't have the ears to hear, well, I am inclined to blame her God for this. As for the soubriquet 'Batty,' I calls 'em as I sees 'em.

[plain 12]

oh less we forget - what happened when baby bush went looking for those WMD???....trying to right the wrong of daddy bush...they weren't THERE!

But every other government believed they were too. Or do you think Bush was such a statesman that he "conned" British and Israeli intel agencies? This is one thing that I don't get from the Bush haters: Did Bush engage in a conspiricy of lies to invade Iraq for the oil (or money, or revenge, or....pick your theory) or was he the stupidest man in American government?

Or join the email list of moveon.org.

Moveon - yeesh. Remember when they were just an apologist website that wanted everybody to move on from the activities that Clinton did in the oval office?

But plain, the trickle down theory is just that, a theory. It doesn't work.

Worked for Reagan. He turned around the double-digit inflation that the Carter administration caused. He ushered in a fantastic economy that lasted (one could argue) into the 90's.

Paying their fair share only means just that. I'm not saying they should pay everybody's share - just their own. Tax them like they tax the rest of us.

So everybody should be taxed 40% of their income?

How is our presence in Afghanistan going to allow us to keep Pakistan from being taken over by the Taliban?

The current governments (in both Afghanistan and Pakistan) don't want the taliban to have any more power.....but they can't openly "root out" the terrorists because the taliban claims they doing the work of Allah. Therefore, Pakistan and Afghanistan are more than happy to let us "evil" westerners fight for them, while they straddle the fence. It's not an ideal situation, but what else can Obama do? He cannot risk Pakistan's nukes falling into terrorists' hands.

America has been funding with your tax dollars Pakistan who in turn has been sheltering and aiding and abetting the Taliban insurgents.

See my above post. We pay Pakistan an assload of money....simply for them to let us risk our troops fighting terrorists. Green, if your new leader doesn't think Afghanistan is winnable, why does he still commit troops? It sounds like he may be doing a little political fence-sitting of his own?

This post touches me very much. Obama visited Canada recently where he received a very warm welcome. His values are Canadian values and our banks were relatively unaffected by the great upheaval south of the border; this was due to our government's legislative interference. We also have universal health care and none of our citizens are left uncovered by the cost of health insurance premiums. It is the taxpayer which pays for this, it is true, but this system cuts out the big business middleman, and is much cheaper (by approximately 2,000 dollars per capita than your system). Up here same sex marriage is legal. Why? Because we have legislation in place which protects the rights of minorities. The majority certainly will not do so.

Respectfully, Green, I don't want my country to turn into Canada....much like you wouldn't want your country turning into America, no?

It is for this reason that legislation is required to curb raw capitalism. Remember, PattyG, that it is easier for the wealthy to enter through the eye of the needle than it is for them to enter Heaven. Is that not what it says in yer Bible????

Ah, but capitalism is what America is founded on. The percieved change from capitalism is what has much of the conservatives and moderates so stirred up right now. And capitalism is not really a bad thing. The quote from Jesus about the rich man is not that he won't get into heaven because he's wealthy, but because he valued his wealth more than he valued God.

Thanks, Green. I didn't know you are from Canada. You do have a good system but the right wing has done what it does very well - reduce everything to a few, scary (untrue) sound-bites. Iraq war? If we don't invade, mushroom clouds will erupt in our country. Universal health care? The government will take over health care and tell you what doctor to visit and what medical procedures you can have. Canada's health care?: You have to wait forever for procedures. Government funding for poor people: Socialism (but not when it's for corporations), Elect John Kerry? - we will be attacked again if he's elected. So, you see how they operate. Say something fearful and untrue and say it over and over again and people remember that and repeat it. They demonize government. Government is not the enemy. The government is the people - we are the government and we, the voters spoke loudly and rejected the failed policies of the republicans and conservatives. Let's move on.

P.S. Did you see sicko. Great movie!!

Uh-oh....I smell propaganda. And the mention of any of Michael Moore's movies seals the deal.

Well said, Green. Our health system is profit driven and has become only affordable for the rich, well-employed or Medicaid for the very poor. That leaves 47 million without health care. As an example. A man without health care cut off two of his fingers with a table saw. The index and middle finger. He saved the fingers. The hospital gave him the price for re-attaching each finger. He would have to pay out of pocket and was only able to afford to re-attach one finger.

Cleo's mom, you can't really use an example from Sicko to illustrate the ills of American care. If you believed Moore, then Cuba's medical system is much better than ours. Do you think that's true?

We live in a country where the greedy corporate heads take $350 billion of our tax money to bail them out for their bad financial decisions and then use $20 billion of that money for bonuses - and this man can't afford to get both fingers re-attached. What is wrong with this picture? Nothing, according to the heartless neo-cons. That's the free market.

Except that the conservatives were the ones that squealed the loudests about the bailouts. Yes, even though Bush first proposed it. And for the record, bailouts are NOT the free market. The free market says that only the strongest survive.....and the competition to be the strongest drives down costs to consumers and creates jobs.

Those without health care die of cancer at a much higher rate than those with health care. No surprise there, but the neo-cons are just fine with that, too.

Really? That's in the position papers? I'll have to read the fine print...I might have to choose between espousing conversative values and hating cancer. :thumbup:

Locally (Texas) it falls on deaf ears most of the time, but I know that at least in Washington, they do read mail from their constituents and many of them respond with serious answers.

It's kind of hard to rail too loudly against Texas though, when we're one of only a handful of states that aren't begging for federal dollars vs. bankruptcy.

It's interesting to note green, that when Bush took office the opposition party didn't jump all over him and accuse him of high crimes and misdemeanors in the media like the Republicans are doing to Obama now.

Can you provide a link to this? Is this really true, or are you exaggerating? I've not heard of republicans accusing Obama of any crimes (unlike the democrats and Bush)....but I've not had the chance to catch the news in about a week.

[luluc 6]

But every other government believed they were too. Or do you think Bush was such a statesman that he "conned" British and Israeli intel agencies? This is one thing that I don't get from the Bush haters: Did Bush engage in a conspiricy of lies to invade Iraq for the oil (or money, or revenge, or....pick your theory) or was he the stupidest man in American government?.

i'll only address my comments.

*not every other govt' believed, nor did every US congress person or citizen buy into the WMD theory

*bush was never a statesman - he couldn't con a con artist

* i never mentioned oil - anywhere so i'd appreciate you post a quote made otherwise.. read what's been posted. i've said all along he's only smart enough to be a follower & right his daddy's wrongs. don't go lumping, cause apparently you don't like the same.

* and YES he is the stupidest man EVER in american govt

[plain 12]

i'll only address my comments.

*not every other govt' believed, nor did every US congress person or citizen buy into the WMD theory

*bush was never a statesman - he couldn't con a con artist

* i never mentioned oil - anywhere so i'd appreciate you post a quote made otherwise.. read what's been posted. i've said all along he's only smart enough to be a follower & right his daddy's wrongs. don't go lumping, cause apparently you don't like the same.

* and YES he is the stupidest man EVER in american govt

I wasn't trying to "lump in" your position, as such (By that, I mean that I know you didn't say Bush invaded for oil. Your post would indicate that you think Bush invaded for reasons that pertain to Bush Sr). I included the most-recited reasons that I hear for the US invasion of Iraq, but it was certainly an error for me to state oil first and revenge in parenthesis. I should have done the inverse.

But my point remains that you criticize Bush in looking for WMD. Not all governments believed there were such weapons, but the governments of Japan, England, Italy, Israel, Australia, and Spain certainly did. So......if Bush is indeed the stupidest man ever in American government, how did he snow the intelligence agencies of these countries? Or is it possible that Bush made a legit mistake?

[luluc 6]

. So......if Bush is indeed the stupidest man ever in American government, how did he snow the intelligence agencies of these countries? Or is it possible that Bush made a legit mistake?

lies, fear - like that couldn't be a possibity?

really plain, with all due respect - bush, or rather chenney had a large window to snow who they wanted to with inaccurate information. take that as you may,

[plain 12]

lies, fear - like that couldn't be a possibity?

really plain, with all due respect - bush, or rather chenney had a large window to snow who they wanted to with inaccurate information. take that as you may,

Well, see we're taking up space on the Obama thread with Bush, but I don't care, heehee.

I think that Bush and / or Cheney would find it difficult to mislead foreign governments' intelligence agencies. They all bought into the same lie about the WMD (which was Saddam's lie, BTW). I read once (but cannot recall where) that even the higher ranking members of the republican guard (Iraq's elite corp) were asking for permission to use the chemical weapons against the invading forces......even they believed such things existed.

[luluc 6]

Well, see we're taking up space on the Obama thread with Bush, but I don't care, heehee.

but you do - or wouldn't have mentioned it. i think if some can go down the abortion/gay marriage path in this thread .... well i get to bash my dumb ex gov. same rules apply don't they??

I think that Bush and / or Cheney would find it difficult to mislead foreign governments' intelligence agencies.

really? ugh - get real.

They all bought into the same lie about the WMD (which was Saddam's lie, BTW).

no plain - your perception; not all buy the story your were sold

I read once (but cannot recall where) that even the higher ranking members of the republican guard (Iraq's elite corp) were asking for permission to use the chemical weapons against the invading forces......even they believed such things existed.

quote it then.

back to topic, cause we wouldn't want a mod to stray from his fan club ...// i give obama a solid A, 50 days in.

[BJean 16]

plain you seem kinda silly claiming that those who support Obama and criticize Bush are spouting propaganda. But all the stuff you say is the God's honest truth, right?

You've bought into the Republican spin just as thoroughly as any of us have the Democratic spin. And there is nothing that you've said that is convincing regarding Bush's intelligence (his personal or his government).

We've listened to all the Republican explanations and denials and promises and we've lived through them. We've seen what has happened under the Bush administration. It's not something we've read about or assumed. We aren't guessing about what we're saying. So to argue it at this point is pointless. If you continue to believe what you're saying, then why argue with you? The evidence has come to bite you in the butt and you're still living on the lies and disinformation as far as we're concerned.

[lellow 1,713]

I can't say exactly why our ex-Australian Prime Minister decided to send our troops to Iraq. I suspect, however, that it was more due to the fact that the US remains our biggest and strongest ally, and therefore sending troops into a war that an important ally wished to engage in seemed the diplomatic thing to do.

Even as we were preparing to send troops, the feeling was that we were doing it to support the US, and very little was done to even try to convince the Australian public that Sadam had WMDs. In fact Australia in general wasn't imminent danger even if Sadam had WMDs.

The popular consensus here in Australia, to be honest, was that we didn't want our troops being sent to a war for no other reason than our govt wanting to stay in favour with our ally. Because I don't think many Australians really believed we were doing it to protect the world from Sadam Hussein.

So it was very likely a purely political move for Australia to send troops to assist our ally, than any belief that there may be WMDs.

Edited March 12, 2009 by lellow

[BJean 16]

Obama gets a A+ because I do not believe that any candidate in recent history could be doing a better job of handling the mess that has been left after the Bush administration's departure. It's like the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. We gotta rebuild and it isn't in just one area, it's EVERYWHERE!

[BJean 16]

lellow- I think you're right on about Australia's support of the U.S. involvment in Iraq. And I believe that the other countries who sent troops were similarly motivated to back our government. Everyone was sympathetic because of 9/11. But it was all very political.

The fact was that most countries did not feel that it was the right thing to do and that is why they refused to support Bush and refused to send their people into that war.

It has been said that Bush and his peeps believed that there were WMD's and that's why he insisted on bringing his astonishing night of "shock and awe" down on the people of Bagdad.

The fact of the matter is that good intelligence reports said that those weapons were not there. He just refused to accept those reports and saw to it that someone got him some data to support his WMD theory so that he could justify bombing the hell out of that country.

It's interesting how some people like to re-write history. That may work after 30 or 40 years, but when you have so many people who were present when it took place, it is pretty hard to pull off.

[plain 12]

plain you seem kinda silly claiming that those who support Obama and criticize Bush are spouting propaganda. But all the stuff you say is the God's honest truth, right?

To be fair, I only claim "propaganda" when somebody offers up generalized ideology instead of facts.

Example: Neocons are ok with the idea of the uninsured dying of cancer (propaganda). Republicans have no basis to decry earmarks, as they are responsible for roughly half of the "pork" (legit debatable fact that can be researched). See the difference?

Also, I critize Bush and defend Obama all the time. I don't play party politics. I'm not a republican, I'm not a democrat....I'm a conservative. I will gladly "call out" those that post unabashed propaganda on either side. Total disclosure......The thing I wrote about the republican guard & the WMD can rightfully be considered propaganda until (or if ever) I find a link to back it up. I did however, state that I couldn't recall where I read that

You've bought into the Republican spin just as thoroughly as any of us have the Democratic spin. And there is nothing that you've said that is convincing regarding Bush's intelligence (his personal or his government).

No I haven't. And I'm not trying to convince anybody of Bush's intelligence. I was just saying that some people couldn't have it both ways....Bush cannot be a lumbering buffoon and orchestrated (fill in the blank.....9/11, invasion of Iraq, Patriot act). Ya gotta pick one until history reveals what was going on.

The evidence has come to bite you in the butt and you're still living on the lies and disinformation as far as we're concerned.

As far as who is concerned, BJean? Who is "we"? For all your talk of unting a country and healing a great divide that Bush caused, you sure use divisive language. I claim to speak only for myself, and will gladly keep an open mind to opposing views, as long as we debate facts, not emotions.

back to topic, cause we wouldn't want a mod to stray from his fan club ...// i give obama a solid A, 50 days in.

Are you talking about me? Because to my knowledge there are only 2 male mods. If you were referring to me, then who's in my fan club, Lu? I'm guessing you're not filling out the application to become a member? I'll give you a solid discount on the yearly membership dues.

Obama gets a A+ because I do not believe that any candidate in recent history could be doing a better job of handling the mess that has been left after the Bush administration's departure. It's like the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. We gotta rebuild and it isn't in just one area, it's EVERYWHERE!

I give him a B. So far my complaints are his horrible picks for his cabinet (all small political stuff until it comes to treasury secretary/tax cheat Tim Geither.......read here to see where Geither pledges to crack down on tax cheats: Geithner Says U.S. Financial Rescue ?Might Cost More? (Update4) - Bloomberg.com), and the fact that he passed the budget with all the earmarks, despite earlier campaign promises that he'd reject them. I would have at least liked him to send the bill back and admonish the congress to take some pork out. So, kinda petty stuff, but he could have done better. A solid B.

[BJean 16]

Heh, heh, heh. Fair enough, plain!

[*barbara* 0]

is it 2012 yet?!?!?!