Barack Obama, our next President

[Dixie Chick]

carol wrote:

<quoted text>
So that means you approve of accelerating drones even though they are creating more animosity towards the U.S. I'm only assuming this by your vague response.
And you wouldn't be implying that I'm a "homebound sumbitch" just because I chose to learn a career allowing me to work from home so I could be more available for my child growing up. Would you?
Please clarify.

I don't think you're a "homebound sumbitch". I think you're more of an ancient poor white person who's daddy beat her stupid and still believes General Lee was the 19th President.

There is no use for your type in today's world. That's why you live what little life you have here on Topix.

That's what I think

[brown eyes]

I sent Phoenix report message report was delayed due to red tape. No red tape issues now United States Government. GF008 Safer World 2013

[new yawk]

On The Gun Control Issue; Trained, Skilled, Armed Personnel in Our Schools to Protect Our Children:

I think The Executive Director of The National Rifle Association,
Wayne LaPierre, addressed it best and covered all aspects of what the REAL problems and issues are:

The Guardian - Friday 21 December 2012 11.43 EST:
"Out of respect for those grieving families, and until the facts are known, the NRA has refrained from comment. While some have tried to exploit tragedy for political gain, we have remained respectfully silent.

Now, we must speak ... for the safety of our nation's children. Because for all the noise and anger directed at us over the past week, no one — nobody — has addressed the most important, pressing and immediate question we face: How do we protect our children right now, starting today, in a way that we know works?

The only way to answer that question is to face up to the truth. Politicians pass laws for Gun-Free School Zones. They issue press releases bragging about them. They post signs advertising them.
And in so doing, they tell every insane killer in America that schools are their safest place to inflict maximum mayhem with minimum risk.

How have our nation's priorities gotten so far out of order? Think about it. We care about our money, so we protect our banks with armed guards. American airports, office buildings, power plants, courthouses — even sports stadiums — are all protected by armed security.

We care about the President, so we protect him with armed Secret Service agents. Members of Congress work in offices surrounded by armed Capitol Police officers.

Yet when it comes to the most beloved, innocent and vulnerable members of the American family — our children — we as a society leave them utterly defenseless, and the monsters and predators of this world know it and exploit it. That must change now!

Good Gun Vs Bad Gun:

"A gun in the hands of a Secret Service agent protecting the President isn't a bad word. A gun in the hands of a soldier protecting the United States isn't a bad word. And when you hear the glass breaking in your living room at 3 a.m. and call 911, you won't be able to pray hard enough for a gun in the hands of a good guy to get there fast enough to protect you.

So why is the idea of a gun good when it's used to protect our President or our country or our police, but bad when it's used to protect our children in their schools"?

Read Full Article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/dec/21/n...

Yeah wrote:

<quoted text>lol! Right.
Sure.
When Gabby Giffords was shot, there was an armed citizen who didn't draw his weapon. His excuse was there were too many people.
Now you want to place people with weapons in a confined environment with kids.
I have yet to hear the acceptable level of collateral damage cons are will to have. For some reason, I don't believe they want to discuss that... only playing policeman is all.

[new yawk]

Page 2 OF 2 ... CONT'D

On The Gun Control Issue; Trained, Skilled, Armed Personnel in Our Schools to Protect Our Children:

I think The Executive Director of The National Rifle Association, Wayne LaPierre, addressed it best and covered all aspects of what the REAL problems and issues are:

The Guardian - Friday 21 December 2012 11.43 EST:

Adresses Societal Ills of Entertainment Industry and those responsible:
MONEY, MONEY, MONEY, MONEY !!

"And here's another dirty little truth that the media try their best to conceal: There exists in this country a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells, and sows, violence against its own people.

Through vicious, violent video games with names like Bulletstorm, Grand Theft Auto, Mortal Kombat and Splatterhouse. And here's one: it's called Kindergarten Killers. It's been online for 10 years. How come my research department could find it and all of yours either couldn't or didn't want anyone to know you had found it?

Then there's the blood-soaked slasher films like "American Psycho" and "Natural Born Killers" that are aired like propaganda loops on "Splatterdays" and every day, and a thousand music videos that portray life as a joke and murder as a way of life.
And then they have the nerve to call it "entertainment."

But is that what it really is? Isn't fantasizing about killing people as a way to get your kicks really the filthiest form of pornography?

In a race to the bottom, media conglomerates compete with one another to shock, violate and offend every standard of civilized society by bringing an ever-more-toxic mix of reckless behavior and criminal cruelty into our homes — every minute of every day of every month of every year.

A child growing up in America witnesses 16,000 murders and 200,000 acts of violence by the time he or she reaches the ripe old age of 18.

And throughout it all, too many in our national media ... their corporate owners ... and their stockholders ... act as silent enablers, if not complicit co-conspirators. Rather than face their own moral failings, the media demonize lawful gun owners, amplify their cries for more laws and fill the national debate with misinformation and dishonest thinking that only delay meaningful action and all but guarantee that the next atrocity is only a news cycle away".

Read Full Article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/dec/21/n...

[carol]

Nuculur option wrote:

<quoted text>
FAUX NEWS??
The same one that was clueless about the last elections??
Great reference.
Please point our th epork in the Bill and who put it there.
I've looked at the original Bill, the # of which you should be easily able to find, being the brilliant economist you are!! LOL
Tell me how much was pork, and which Senator placed it there.
You'll find it wasn't Democrats, nitwit.
Mitch McConnell loaded the Bill up, knowing it would be rejected by the House.
Just more obstructionism from the losers.
And you're too stuid to know that.

Fox called the election appropriately and without delay.

You're just upset Rove wanted to wait until all votes in Ohio were counted first.

He was voted down.

Also, your source is wrong, whatever it was.

CNN also reported that Congress approved a $9.7 billion Superstorm Sandy aid package after controversy over millions of dollars for unrelated projects.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/04/politics/house-...

It was the Senate Democrats who proposed a $60.4 billion bill.

You can thank conservative watch dog groups and House Republicans for scaling it back to meet just the needs of the victims and not Senate Democrats' pet projects.

[leosnana]

carol wrote:

<quoted text>
What's even more puzzling is liberals and pseudoliberals seemingly having no problem with them even though they're creating more animosity and resentment towards the U.S.
Here's an execise in perspective: Picture GW Bush being in Obama's shoes right now.

Wow! Banish the thought. If Dumbya were still in charge, we'd all be dead broke...make that broke then dead. Dumbya's war for oil, trumped up on lies about WMD that did not exist, created all the animosity and resentment necessary to last for five generations...oh, have I told you lately how insufferable I find you? Consider it said, you self-aggrandizing, narcissistic, sanctimonious imbecile.

[carol]

Dixie Chick wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't think you're a "homebound sumbitch". I think you're more of an ancient poor white person who's daddy beat her stupid and still believes General Lee was the 19th President.
There is no use for your type in today's world. That's why you live what little life you have here on Topix.
That's what I think

Which proves you probably shouldn't think too much. You're only confusing yourself.

[carol]

Thurston wrote:

<quoted text>
Not only that. I heard that he...GASP...is a colored fellow.

That sounds a bit racist if you don't mind my saying so.

[new yawk]

Page 1 OF 2 ( Didn't Post )!

On The Gun Control Issue; Trained, Skilled, Armed Personnel in Our Schools to Protect Our Children:

I think The Executive Director of The National Rifle Association, Wayne LaPierre, addressed it best and covered all aspects of what the REAL problems and issues are:

The Guardian - Friday 21 December 2012 11.43 EST:

"Out of respect for those grieving families, and until the facts are known, the NRA has refrained from comment. While some have tried to exploit tragedy for political gain, we have remained respectfully silent.

Now, we must speak ... for the safety of our nation's children. Because for all the noise and anger directed at us over the past week, no one — nobody — has addressed the most important, pressing and immediate question we face: How do we protect our children right now, starting today, in a way that we know works?

The only way to answer that question is to face up to the truth. Politicians pass laws for Gun-Free School Zones. They issue press releases bragging about them. They post signs advertising them.

And in so doing, they tell every insane killer in America that schools are their safest place to inflict maximum mayhem with minimum risk".

Good Word ( Gun ) Vs Bad Wor ( Gun ):

How have our nation's priorities gotten so far out of order? Think about it. We care about our money, so we protect our banks with armed guards. American airports, office buildings, power plants, courthouses — even sports stadiums — are all protected by armed security.

We care about the President, so we protect him with armed Secret Service agents. Members of Congress work in offices surrounded by armed Capitol Police officers.

Yet when it comes to the most beloved, innocent and vulnerable members of the American family — our children — we as a society leave them utterly defenseless, and the monsters and predators of this world know it and exploit it.
That must change now!

A gun in the hands of a Secret Service agent protecting the President isn't a bad word. A gun in the hands of a soldier protecting the United States isn't a bad word. And when you hear the glass breaking in your living room at 3 a.m. and call 911, you won't be able to pray hard enough for a gun in the hands of a good guy to get there fast enough to protect you.

So why is the idea of a gun good when it's used to protect our President or our country or our police, but bad when it's used to protect our children in their schools"?

Read Full Article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/dec/21/n...

[brown eyes]

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell had black favorite cat just like mine Sylvester was my cat's name. My cat was taken to animal shelter and rescued at one time. GF008 Safer World 2013

[sonicfilter]

Scarborough: If The GOP Follows The Hannity-Drudge Line, It Will Stop "Being A Player In Presidential Politics"

http://mediamatters.org/video/2013/01/14/scar...

talk about stating the obvious.

say what Mitt?

[sonicfilter]

Hostility to Hagel Is Worsening the GOP’s Foreign Policy Predicament

James Joyner quoted a comment from Susan Eisenhower in his recent article on Republican foreign policy that merits some discussion. Eisenhower wrote:

The Republican Party is now at a crossroads. Over the last decade moderate Republicans have felt increasingly out of place in its ranks. If the GOP confirms Hagel, it could bolster the idea of a ‘big tent’ Republican Party. A GOP-led rejection of a Republican war hero with impeccable centrist credentials, however, could well be a fatal blow to that concept, along with some of the party’s longest and most successful traditions.

There is a third possibility that hasn’t received much attention: Hagel could be confirmed over the opposition of a very large number of Senate Republicans. That’s an acceptable outcome for the administration and the country, but it would sabotage any chance that Republican leaders would come to their senses on military and foreign policy matters in the short term. It would still represent a pointed rejection of Hagel and his views by perhaps as much as half of the Senate GOP, and it is likely that many of the party’s youngest and newest Senators would be voting nay. Ted Cruz has already declared his opposition, and it would be genuinely surprising if Rubio didn’t end up voting the same way. Unfortunately, opposing Hagel seems to be something that many hawkish Republicans believe they have to do in order to maintain their hawkish credentials, and the more ambitious hawks in the Senate might want to distinguish themselves by being as vocal and obnoxious in their opposition to Hagel as they can. That doesn’t bode well for the immediate future of Republican foreign policy thinking.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/lariso...

The campaign against Hagel has already done further substantial damage to the party by demonstrating how committed so many Republicans still are to aggressive and confrontational policies. Keeping the military budget excessively large and promoting hawkish foreign policy appear to be among the only things that Republican elites won’t seriously question, and most movement conservatives appear to be just as ready as always to cheer their leaders on as they lead them deeper into the political and policy wilderness.

[brown eyes]

I think I can I think I can was one of first books I learned to read about a little train huffing and puffing up hill also see spot run about a dog United States Governmenr. Ithink uphill battle to solve tax issues can be resolved. GF008 Safer World 2013

[brown eyes]

I still think I am listed with oil shares on the Stock exchange United States Government, I don't think WTO would lie to me. You have my permission to open blue book NYSE if it will improve American economy. GF008 Safer World 2013

[Yeah]

carol wrote:

<quoted text>
So that means you approve of accelerating drones even though they are creating more animosity towards the U.S. I'm only assuming this by your vague response.
And you wouldn't be implying that I'm a "homebound sumbitch" just because I chose to learn a career allowing me to work from home so I could be more available for my child growing up. Would you?
Please clarify.

lol! Let me know when you want to eliminate satellites son.

[Chicagoan by Birth]

Yeah wrote:

<quoted text>lol! Well! The cons have now decided to take out the 1st Amendment!
Or at the very least be selective on how it's applied!

Yeahoo you don't know what the 1st Amendment says or means? Get off your high horse.. Oops being in a squating position doesn't allow you to have a 'high horse' does it??

[LRS]

Chicagoan by Birth wrote:

<quoted text>Yeahoo you don't know what the 1st Amendment says or means? Get off your high horse.. Oops being in a squating position doesn't allow you to have a 'high horse' does it??

Chicagoan by birth, we're so sorry!

[Yeah]

Chicagoan by Birth wrote:

<quoted text>Yeahoo you don't know what the 1st Amendment says or means? Get off your high horse.. Oops being in a squating position doesn't allow you to have a 'high horse' does it??

lol! When you find out something about the Constitution chica, let me know so I can bust out laughing!

[Eman]

Yeah wrote:

<quoted text>lol! Let me know when you want to eliminate satellites son.

I just read an article on that very subject

" WASHINGTON, Jan 14 (Reuters)- The United States is concerned about China's expanding ability to disrupt the most sensitive U.S. military and intelligence satellites, as Beijing pursues its expanded ambitions in space, according to multiple sources in the U.S. government and outside space experts."

[RealDave]

John Galt wrote:

<quoted text>
There must be a foreign port included in the voyage.

Typically when a vessel is being loaded to say, Japan. They may pick up freight from a several US ports before heading to Japan.

So they do sail port to port.

What a foreign flagged vessel can't do is pick up US freight from a US port & unload that freight in a US port. Ocean freight from US port to US port must be done by US flagged vessel.