The Respectfully Republican Conversation

arnica

Very good example of how this thread is divisive and *not* respectful.

I "get" MOVING BEYOND.  I also understand what is respectful disagreement and what is a personal attack.  I don't expect to go to a breast cancer support forum and be attacked.

Fortunately, there are also other breast cancer support organizations.

Paulette531

Arnica/goneaway, whoever you are, for some reason you have singled me out. I suspect you are a person on here who has a bone to pick with me personally and if so, go ahead and I M me but it isn't necessary for you to do this on this particular thread. Although it doesn't bother me unless you are baiting and if that is the case if it makes you feel good, go ahead and do it. Also, if you took the time to read this thread from the beginning you would see it was created so Repubs could discuss their view without being attacked by liberal/dems as was the case in the other thread. Also, if you took the time to read the other thread you would see that most everyone posts in both threads albeit the liberal/dems post here infreuquently, hence my suspicion with your singling out. Your dramatic departure is classic of a troll/alternate whatever it is called now days while posting on boards. But as I said, if it makes you feel good, have at it! Since you have been on board since 9/11/07 I suspect you probably have a few names since name changes don't start you out on post number one.

FEB

Okay, it took me a while to figure out how to get back to you all, but I still cannot access my own "home." I keep getting a message that the site is going through maintenance. I have had no access for a week. Is anyone else having this problem, or have a suggesstion on how I can fix it?

Anonymous

Ya know, Goneaway, Paulette was not attacking anyone on this board when she called Obama a "snake."  Now, if she called ME a snake, that would be a personal attack.  Mucho difference.  That being said, Paulette, I agree with you...he IS a snake!

Anonymous

I've been away from the boards since Thursday or Friday.  I need to catch up on the reading Susie has posted.  I think Rosemary posted something (link/s) too.  Still have chemo/Arimidex/old age brain.  Really, I'm TRYING to "Move Beyond."  Thank God we can post topics other than just breast cancer.

Now, back to reading (in a minute ).

I'm still upset that the dems only want alternative energy.  I've heard Fox question a couple of dems about drilling for oil...NOOOOOO, we must find alternative energy.  Oh!  Really!  Why hasn't this been done 30 years ago.  Now look what's happening.  I'm so angry.

My dd and her dh came back from Africa Wednesday night.  I was preaching about our country needing to drill for oil.  Informed my family that China was drilling 75 miles off Florida's coast..Cuba.  I also listened to another fella (can't remember who he was) talking about ethanol.  He said we are getting 3% from it right now (and look what a problem it's causing).  He said if we used EVERY BIT OF CORN FOR FUEL...NOT FEEDING THE COWS WITH CORN, NOT USING IT FOR FOOD SOURCE, we would only get 10% of ethanol!  Stunning!  And, yes, these farmers are very happy.  Most money they ever made. 

My kids try to reason with me...Mom, we need to use alternative energy.  Of course, I say, but right now we also need to drill for more oil (although I know this isn't an immediate relief) and look for more alternative energy.  Nothing's happened over the past 30 years.  Our country's gonna be in a bigger mess (I don't even want to think about it).  And I hear Obama's speech, we need to eat less, can't keep our termostats at 72 degrees, stop driving our SUVs.  Okie dokie.  Let's see some of the big wigs set an example for us.  As sorry as I feel for Ted Kennedy he was picked up in a stretch limo.  C'mon!  Why not a hybrid!

Ya know, I'm tired of Gore and his ilk telling ME what to do when they don't do it.  He doesn't look too hungry to me.  I bet his house is warmed or cooled (and Obama's too) to whatever is comfy for them. 

My dd and sil was in the UK for a couple of weeks before returning to the states.  He said, you should be very happy you live in the U.S.

Needless to say, that comment did not make me happy!  I said, I AM!  He said that in the UK driving was discouraged (my word).  He said they are taxes something like $60 a day for the privilege of driving.  He said they expect to go to $200 a day.  I told him again how very happy I lived in this country.  I reminded him that this kind of tax was also in the Netherlands.   But, we cannot be penalized this way.  There is no transit system here like in other countries.  And, I told him I really didn't want to be forced to travel the transit systems.  I know they have them in New York and other places.  But what scares me is terrorism. 

Yes, I'm spoiled.  And some people better wake up and realize just how fortunate we are to live in the U.S.  It's not perfect, but it's a darn great country!

Okay.  Off my soapbox.  I need to move on and read all of the articles.

Shirley

FEB

goneaway

In response to your PM telling me I should get rid of this thread: I would just like to know, Who do you think you are?!! Have you ever heard of "Freedom of Speech"? Or are you one of those people who feel it only applies to those who agree with you? There are threads on this site which are for atheists and lesbians. I never check them out because I cannot relate to their opinions, but I respect their right to connect with each other.

 According to your opinion, we should only talk about BC here, so you must also feel that those who discuss American Idol or play name that song should also go somewhere else. Who made you the thought police?

Yes, all of us  here have had to go through a common, awful experience. That is what binds us, but there comes a time for all of us to move on and rejoin the real world. We all like to do it in different ways. And some of us find it comforting to have discussions with other survivors who we have come to know through our common reason for coming to this site to begin with.

It is totally wrong of anyone to tell others that they do not belong here unless they are intentionally trying to hurt others. What is your reasoning for telling us to get lost? 

I think all of us on this thread, with a passion for what is going on in the world, feel that we enjoy bantering with other survivors who feel the same as we do. I started this thread because I did not want to argue with those from the other side of the political spectrum and I am happy that others have joined me. We know that we can express our opinions without offending other survivors and getting into nasty debates.

However, we have every right to say whatever we want about polititians. What we say here is rather mild compared to some of  the hateful things that others have said about George Bush and other republicans on the other thread, but I still respect the fact that they are entitled to their opinions, and we are entitled to ours. I just do not bother to follow the other thread because I do not agree with them. Maybe you should just do the same.

Maybe you just need to to live up to your own moniker and go away to a different site if you find it so offensive here. But stop telling us that we are wrong for connecting with each other here.

saluki

For any of you Conservatives thinking to sit out the election or cast a protest vote for Barr consider this--This next President could possibly select 2 Supreme Court judges.---I don't think you gals will want to sit home.  Here is a very interesting article from Pajamas Media

----------------------------

Barack Obama may have been a professor of constitutional law, but some of his ideas about the role of the Supreme Court could be problematic. Which justices would he appoint if given the chance?

May 26, 2008 - by Jennifer Rubin

Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, never tires of telling his audiences that he was a constitutional law professor and, therefore, particularly qualified to address the sticky constitutional issues which the next president will face. Indeed, his early fame came, in large measure, from his status as the first African American editor of the Harvard Law Review.

Both because he offers his legal background as a qualification for the presidency and because the next president may have the opportunity to appoint five or more Supreme Court justices (plus as many as two hundred lower court judges), it is worthwhile to look at Obama’s views on the Constitution and his criteria for selecting judges.

Judges as social workers

Obama has described his views on the role of the courts and the proper criteria for picking judges. In a recent interview with Wolf Blitzer, Obama explained:

Now there’s going to be those 5 percent of cases or 1 percent of cases where the law isn’t clear. And the judge then has to bring in his or her own perspectives, his ethics, his or her moral bearings. And in those circumstances, what I do want is a judge who is sympathetic enough to those who are on the outside, those who are vulnerable, those who are powerless, those who can’t have access to political power and as a consequence can’t protect themselves from being — from being dealt with sometimes unfairly. That the courts become a refuge for justice. That’s been its historic role. That was its role in Brown v. Board of Education.

Recently his spokesman stated, “Barack Obama has always believed that our courts should stand up for social and economic justice, and what’s truly elitist is to appoint judges who will protect the powerful and leave ordinary Americans to fend for themselves.”

Well what’s wrong with all that? Plenty, if you believe in the separation of powers and democracy, according to noted conservative legal scholars.

Steven Calabresi, professor of law at Northwestern University and co-founder of the Federalist Society (who also serves on John McCain’s legal advisory committee), says “I think it means he has completely the wrong idea of what a judge is supposed to do.” He notes that since the first Congress all judges have taken an oath to “do equal justice unto the rich and the poor,” but, by asking judges in essence to side with the less well off, Obama is “calling on judges to disregard this.”

Taken literally, Obama’s conceives the role of the courts as roving advocates of the poor and disadvantaged who will look, not to the text and meaning of the Constitution, but to their own ethics and values — presumably very left-leaning ones — to override statutes, executive branch actions, and the American people themselves.

Given that, one wonders if confirmation hearings for Obama judicial appointees should skip over questions of the law and focus on the appointees’ religious and ethical views, their childhood experiences, and even their record of charitable giving. How else will we know whether they are “sympathetic enough”?

Aside from his judicial philosophy, Obama’s views on specific matters of constitutional law are no secret — and bear little resemblance to the body of case law which has built up over the last thirty years.

Abortion extremism

On abortion, Obama is an absolutist. Last April, he took strong exception to the Supreme Court’s ruling upholding the federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act (which had passed the House 281-142 and the Senate 64 [including 16 Democrats] to 33).

This is not simply then someone who believes women should have the last say in deciding whether to have an abortion, but one who believes that the courts should entirely displace the view of huge congressional majorities and public opinion to discern, as Calabresi bluntly puts it, “a constitutional right to dismember babies in a painful and somewhat violent way.” There is virtually no regulation or limit on abortion which Obama would likely find acceptable.

Here we see the fallacy of Obama’s notion that, in the absence of clear constitutional language, judges should resort to their own ethical precepts to decide cases. Obama’s own expressed views of judicial interpretation might lead many judges to a result utterly at odds with the one he has in mind. Robert P. George, Princeton professor of law (also on McCain’s legal advisory team) observes, “His definition of the ‘vulnerable’ and the ‘powerless’ fits the unborn to a ‘t’.”

George explains that we have disputes in our country both about who “counts” as powerless and how we should treat them, but that these issues must be resolved within our “constitutional system.” He says, “For courts to interfere with no constitutional warrant and displace the people is a sin against democracy.”

Colorblind racism

On matters of race Obama is no more moderate. Last year the Supreme Court decided cases from the Seattle and Louisville school systems which concerned whether, in the absence of any history of discrimination or after expiration of any court order to remedy past discrimination, children could be assigned to schools by race. A majority of the court held they could not under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Obama railed at the decisions, declaring they reflected “a disturbing view of the Constitution that equates voluntary integration with Jim Crow segregation — a view that is both legally and morally wrong” and would usher in an end to Brown v. Board of Education, which banned segregation in schools.

In his view, a bar on using race to assign children to school spells the return to “separate but equal.” Moreover, to reach that result (and agree with the dissenters in the cases) Obama would have demanded that the Court repeal more than twenty years of established case law which held that affirmative action measures must pass a “strict scrutiny” standard (requiring a compelling interest by the state and means narrowly tailored to reach that end).

But Obama’s view of these cases should come as no surprise. He has consistently opposed a colorblind view of civil rights. In 2006 the Michigan Civil Right Initiative appeared on the ballot and passed overwhelmingly, 58-42%. It stated, “The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.”

Obama did not merely oppose this measure; he cut a radio ad declaring: “If the initiative becomes law it would wipe out programs that help women and minorities get a good education and jobs. It would hurt initiatives that help women and minorities build their own businesses. And it would eliminate efforts to help our children enter fields such as science, engineering, and mathematics. Proposal 2 closes these doors to many in Michigan and it moves us further away from a country of full opportunity.”

But of course the measure did no such thing. It in no way affected efforts to “help children” or other programs so long as they did not use race or other protected categories to classify people. How would women and minorities have been hurt in building their own businesses by a measure that says all citizens should be treated without regard to gender and race? It is a mystery.

But what Obama opposes is crystal clear. Both as a matter of policy and Supreme Court doctrine, he objects to the concept that the government should not classify its citizens by race except in compelling circumstances (such as the need to remedy past discrimination).

Gun ban: Tipping his hand

When it suits him, Obama declares that it is not appropriate for him to comment on constitutional case law. With regard to the most significant Second Amendment case in 40 years, District of Columbia v. Heller, Obama has claimed it improper (for unknown reasons) for him to opine on a pending case. In this case the D.C. Circuit Court struck down what is essentially a total ban on handgun ownership, finding that the Second Amendment should be interpreted as securing an individual right to bear arms.

In deflecting questions on this case Obama has alternately claimed that he does not comment on pending legal matters (Except on race or abortion cases? Or only if they don’t impact swing state voters?), or that he is unfamiliar with the case, an odd remark from a constitutional scholar on a case that has been the subject of dozens of detailed press accounts over the last year. But he did provide one hint: he declined to join with 55 of his Senate and 250 of his House colleagues in an amicus brief urging that the Court strike down the handgun ban.

And here again we see at work the worst of his results-oriented legal reasoning. Obama at times has suggested that an individual right to own a handgun might exist but that the “common sense” regulation by the District of Colombia might be upheld.

But this is simply incorrect as a matter of basic constitutional principles. It is casebook law that a constitutional right once determined can only be abrogated (as it was, the circuit court decided, by an outright ban in the D.C. gun case) when the law at issue passes muster under the strict scrutiny standard, not merely by a finding that the law is a “common sense” or, in legal parlance, “reasonable” one.

Indeed, if his theory of constitutional law were applied in the abortion arena, not only would partial birth abortion bans be upheld but so would many other types of “common sense” regulations such as waiting time periods. As Calabresi points out, Obama’s view seems to be that “it’s just fine with guns but not if you’re a teenage girl wanting an abortion.” Calabresi concludes that these are simply Obama’s personal policy views which have “nothing to do with the Constitution.”

Shaping the courts for generations

These issues and many others are not mere academic exercises. Under the next president, nearly 200 lower courts, which are in essence the “minor leagues” for future Supreme Court appointments, will be filled. And of course the entire Supreme Court could be refashioned.

We know from Obama’s vote (one of only 22) opposing the confirmation of now-Chief Justice Roberts that Obama will not be content to appoint a highly regarded Supreme Court advocate and judge. He apparently wants no part of a judge whose judicial philosophy can be summed up as: “Judges are like umpires. Umpires don’t make the rules, they apply them.” We’ve seen repeatedly that Obama wants, not a referee, but a tenth man on the field — or rather one who always joins the team currently behind on the scoreboard.

Would Obama appoint his noted legal advisor and University of Chicago Law School professor Cass Sunstein? Ivy league law schools are now filled with scholars like Sunstein who argue that the Constitution secures rights such as the right to welfare or who contend that not only is abortion a constitutional right, but so is the right to government funding of those abortions.

Certainly, Obama will find no shortage of liberal law professors who do not take the words of the First Amendment literally and would uphold not just restrictions on free speech in campaign finance reform, but the return of the so-called “fairness doctrine” which would enact equal time mandates, essentially driving talk radio out of business.

Too far-fetched you say? Not at all. When a president and his appointees depart from the notion that the proper role of judges is (as best as they are able) to interpret and apply the language and meaning of statutes and the Constitution, we head into a brave new era of rule by judges who are very likely to share the ultra-left-leaning views of the president who appoints them.

And if Americans have come to believe the rhetoric of Democrats from numerous confirmation hearings that there are few values dearer than stare decisis (the respect accorded precedent in judicial interpretation), they might be sorely disappointed in an Obama judiciary. For to achieve the ends he seeks, we will need to travel back in time to the era of the (Earl) Warren Court — ripping up case after case as we go to arrive back in a time when the issue was not what does the law say but, in the frequent refrain of Chief Justice Warren, “Is it fair?”

We know for sure is that this is precisely what Obama wants and very likely what he will get if elected.

PJM’s special DC correspondent Jennifer Rubin is a writer living in Virginia. She is a regular contributor to Human Events, American Spectator and the New York Observer and blogs at Commentary’s Contentions.

Rosemary44

I just found this video.  Do you think these are coming from just everyday citizens or friends of? 

http://digg.com/educational/Obama_2_2_5_3

I'm trying to find the video of Chris Matthrews being razzed by some people sitting with him about his comments on Obama.  It was hilarious.  They were rolling laughing, and you had to see the look on Matthews face.  It's worth finding.

FEB

If you are free to read this, Thank a soldier! If you are free to write your opinions, Thank a soldier! Freedom isn't free. Thank You soldiers!!

Rosemary, good link. It is Obama in a nutshell. They left out Wright though, and the fact that for the first two years as my senator, he was so busy making the rounds, selling his book, he didn't do much in the Senate. I remember thinking at the time, that this guy doesn't have any intentions of being a senator. He is running around the country getting free publicity for his books and campaigning for the pres. That's when I began to lose faith in him as my senator. It sure took everyone else a long time to reexamine who he really is.

Susie, good point about the supreme court issues. We definitely have to worry about the courts changing the laws in the guise of interpreting it.

saluki

Wow I am truly amazed you actually found something critical of Obama on Digg---that is a rarity.

Was this what you were referring to Rosemary?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhnynk6XkkU

 

Rosemary44

Susie,

I didn't even know what a Digg is.  So it's an individual, not connected with any campaign that you know of?  Some of these video's are very telling and it's a shame the mainstream media isn't after him much.  Especially the speeches.  Now we know he has speech writers. 

Yes, that was the video, I might have seen a different version because I remember Matthew's face when they were rolling laughing over him.

Linda, he's getting away with anything.  I've never seen the likes of this.  He's on record saying one thing, then says another, and no one cares.  He calls McCain a flip-flopper, and everyone gasps.  I don't know how many votes a State Senate does every year, but I would think 130 Presents is quite a few for any senate.  Well, at least he was there.

saluki

Rosemary--Digg is a site where you can post stuff to share with others no matter how obscure and you can vote on the popularity.

There are others like Flock, del.icio.us and Furl.  There are others.  I have their RSS feeds on my homepage.

Actually, my quarrel with sites like Digg and others is the veracity.  Many things are taken out of context or misrepresented or sensationalized.

  Most of the time only the most outrageous or sensationalized stories or out and out falsehood comes in on the feed because of the viewers those stories attract and thus they get the most hits.

I'll give you an example that enraged me and probably ended a friendship.

I had posted a while back about a friend- an Obama supporter that was continuously sending me e-mails trashing Hillary (amazingly viscious stuff about Hillary) and McCain.  They would come in the form of forward from Diversity for Obama or Jews for Obama etc.   

Well one of the emails involved a write in campaign to get the editor of the Jewish Exponent fired for daring to criticize the twenty-year relationship with Rev. Wright and their perceived bias against Obama-----It was a big editorial and I posted the article on this forum a few months back.-----

Well--A month later I get another forward from- I think it was from Jews for Obama linking to Digg---saying Philadelphia paper endorses Obama ---so I click on it.   It says its the Jewish Exponent?????    It then gives

this Obama---article full of praise.

I'm thinking this is truly weird.

Turns out it was not a newspaper endorsement but letter to the editor.

  Just like on the other political threads either the Republicans, Moderates and Independents are just not as vociferous, or are badly outnumbered on these sites.

Here is an example of my Digg feed

• Assassination Chatter and the End of Legitimacy - 1 hour agoWe have seen a return this year to the politics of delegitimation by the extreme Republican right. Yet what has been most surprising is the complicity, and then the open participation in that process ...
• Clinton's Grim Scenario - 1 hour agoRobinson deftly puts the Hillary RFK remark in perspective.
• OLPC software maker splits from X0 hardware, goes solo - 1 hour agoOne Laptop Per Child's former president of software is forming a new foundation that will focus on developing open source education software and will attempt to bring the taste of Sugar to a broad...
• Argentine farm crisis ploughs on - 1 hour agoArgentina could face more protests after talks to end a tax row broke down on Thursday.Farm leaders met the government to try to end a three-month dispute over higher taxes on exports.They are angry a...
• Will Bob Barr Help Obama Beat McCain? - 2 hours ago

Rosemary--That is why I made the comment.

 

You can find unique  and useful stuff on these sites but the homework is up to you.

Rosemary44

Thanks Susie,

I see what it is.  Just a place to plant stories and hope they take off.

I read the one about Clinton you posted above and couldn't be more pleased if someone delivered me a hot fudge sundae.  I hope they make too much over her remark about RFK.  I don't want her to be asked to be the Veep.  I want Obama gone.  Whatever it takes.

Rosemary44

Thanks Susie,

I see what it is.  Just a place to plant stories and hope they take off.

I read the one about Clinton you posted above and couldn't be more pleased if someone delivered me a hot fudge sundae.  I hope they make too much over her remark about RFK.  I don't want her to be asked to be his Veep.  The press is doing my bidding.  They're talking about it till hell freezes.  Lovely.

Bren-2007

Sorry ... don't have any political posts ... but I'm trying to find out if anyone has heard from Shokk lately.  She's been MIA.  Shirley did she say something about a vacation and I missed it??

Thanks gals,

Bren

PS .. I did read back a bit and I think Obama is "snake-like."  Still a Hillary supporter, but will most likely have to go with McCain the way things are going.

Rosemary44

The GOP is coming out swinging:

Obama likes to change history.  I think this goes too far in pandering for the Jewish vote.  Especially since it's not even a true story:

http://www.gop.com/News/NewsRead.aspx?Guid=d0bc8b64-5199-4178-b952-1baf7a20ee1e

saluki

You do realize had McCain come up with that one they would have called him senile.  Had Hillary come up with this one the press would have had a field day and it would have been viewed as further proof of her untrustability and stretching of the truth. 

-------------------------------------------

Did I say Auschwitz? I meant Selma! or Kabul! or...

Submitted by Jeff Emanuel on Tue, 05/27/2008 - 4:44pm.

Lo and behold, after his supporters spent the better part of their mornings defending Obama's claim that his uncle helped (the Red Army) liberate the survivors of Auschwitz concentration camp in 1945, the campaign came on out and issued a retraction. According to the AP:

Barack Obama's campaign says the candidate made a mistake when he said a great uncle helped liberate the Nazi death camp at Auschwitz during World War II.

Obama said Monday that his uncle was among the first U.S. troops at Auschwitz. But Auschwitz was liberated by Soviet forces.

The campaign said Tuesday that he named the wrong camp. They said it was actually Buchenwald.

Aides said his grandmother's brother, Charlie Payne, helped liberate a Buchenwald sub-camp in April 1945 as part of the 89th Infantry Division.

Yet another retraction forced by the New Media, after a CBS reporter took the statement at face value and reported it without subjecting it to any of that healthy media skepticism we've spent the last seven-plus years hearing about the importance of.

Ah well.

saluki

Obama addressing his Jewish problem and giving change----cute!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NOXvCXV968

Rosemary44

"The campaign said Tuesday that he named the wrong camp. They said it was actually Buchenwald"

How do we know that's true? 

That was a cute video.  What people can think up.

saluki

Ought to be easy enough to check where the 89th infantry was in April of

of 1945 and whether a Charlie Payne was in that infantry.-----Why would they want to cover it up with a bigger blunder?  Strange exaggeration but this sounds more like the truth.

All that to try to underline his patriotism and create a narrative that would gain him points with veterans as well as Jews.  Weird.  Apparently he's placed his uncle a couple of countries over.  Not a great history student apparently----A Buchenwald subcamp?

Very few would confuse Buchenwald, a labor camp in Germany where 56,000 died with Auschwitz in Poland- an extermination camp where a million and a half people died................

His uncle liberated Auschwitz?????- Quite a stretch

saluki

By the way not the only gaffe yesterday.  He started off yesterday speaking to dead people.  Who wrote this speech?????? 

"On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes -- and I see many of them in the audience here today -- our sense of patriotism is particularly strong."

 

Let's hope that he didn't see any fallen heroes in the audience!

http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2008/05/27/obama-speaks-to-fallen-heroes/

Anonymous

If this man gets elected I will be sick.

shokk

Good afternoon my fellow Republicans......have been away suffering from a lung infection but now I am better and think it's safe enough to post again........may wait one more day before venturing over to the "other" political thread.......must be on your toes or will be eaten alive........well the last thing I remember was Friday and Hillary referring to Robert Kennedy and I thought oh jeez she is going to get bashed for that........but one thing that really set me off was Obama and talking about his "uncle" and coming home from ww2.......ok it was his great uncle....then worse was getting the concentration camps mixed up but what was the clincher was not that his uncle had walked into a genocide camp and was forever traumatized probably from the smell, the sight of hundreds of people starving, the dead but when he got home he didn't have any follow up care............Obama didn't get his family story right because he doesn't care.......he could care less about what his Uncle witness but that he wasn't taken care of when he returned.........ok got to go home but I will check back in.......Shokk

Anonymous

The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting."

So he is FOR affirmative action .... in a day where many men, women of all races and colors are needing a good job or frankly, just need any job!!

Anonymous

I think I posted a bunch of Obama's gaffes on the other political thread!!  I should have posted them here ... but I keep wondering why his blunders aren't more widely reported.  I mean, how many legs did the Quayle potato"e" have?

saluki

That everyone is giving him a pass on that irks me.  But then, it touched a nerve with me.   One of my Uncles survived both Buchenwald and Auschwitz Two (Birkenau) as a teenager only to die at a very early age of heart disease from an untreated infection from the camps.  He wrote a book called The Yellow Star- of his experience.--It's out of print but is still available second hand.

So on hearing Obama's reality--It rang so very hollow.

My cousin (his son)  referred me to an amazing and chilling video from Newt Gingrich----Why this man is worried??---------must see viewing.

Especially, Rockermom-- in light of the gaffe you posted

---------------------------------------------------

And in perhaps the most seriously troubling set of gaffes of them all, "Obama told a Portland crowd over the weekend that Iran doesn't "pose a serious threat to us" -- cluelessly arguing that "tiny countries" with small defense budgets can't do us harm" -- and then promptly flip-flopped the next day, claiming, "I've made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave."

Newt's --Why he is worried!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZiw3qVdFzw

FEB

Susie

Thanks for the link to Newt. He is such a brilliant historian. Too bad he has a few skeletons in his own closet or he would make a great pres or VP.

I will mention this again, but if Newt's speech did not scare you enough, read " While Europe Slept, how radical Isalm is taking over Europe from the Inside". This book has a lot of scenerios that you can see happening here. Most especially, those who think they are being nice by being tolerant of Islamic mosques establishing fundamentalist laws in European countries . Now they realize these extremists want to change the laws in their new countries. I just hope everyone wakes up before it is too late here.

I met a Frenchman this weekend at the local farmer's market. He has lived here for 25 years and would like to go back to his family but he says he can't. He says the EU has made it impossible for farmers to make a living with all the regulation, and socialism is destroying France. He says everyone he knows there is miserable. There are no opportunities and bureaucracy the is horrible.As much as he misses France, he says, it is not the same country he once knew. So for those who want all these government programs, just remember how much control we lose when the government takes over. They can't run our schools, how in the world are they going to be able to run our health care?

Rosemary44

Obama has another religious advisor going nuts at the Trinity church this last weekend.  We won't be hearing anything much about it.  I saw the video, he was making fun of Hillary and all the people were going nuts and enjoying his diatribe.  Just having a grand old time. 

Now forget I said anything.  Wipe it out of your minds, it didn't happen. 

Rosemary44

Thanks Susie,

That was a good video of Newt.  It is chilling to think of what our future will be like for our grandchildren if we don't get a handle on these killers.  It's not just us that should be worried, what's the rest of the world community doing and thinking? 

This reminds me of when Hitler war arming up and the only person who took heed was Churchill.  That's how he became P.M.  We just don't have enough "worried" countries out there who are willing to send troops to take them on, until they have to. 

Paulette531

Linda...according to a few in the "other" thread Europeans hated us and our way of life, so are you absolutely sure the French man said that to you? LOL!