OT: r - I thought you should see this

Page 10 of 11  


Parts of it and I have problems with the law. The most distasteful things are usually wrapped in appeals to patriotism. As I understand it, it requires legislative renewal. That's a Good Thing. More than anything, I can't help but wonder what its supporters will say after its powers are wielded by President Barry HUSSEIN Obama.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jeff wrote:

When extraordinary circumstances require unusual laws - say ones that have the potential to become used to abuse civil liberties because the problems of the moment may mandate it - we should at least demand two things:
Sunshine - The law is clear, its terms and scope precise, and its effects clearly laid out for all to see.
Sunset - The law in question should have an expiration date - and a short one at that.
I don't worry about Patriot *right now*. I worry what happens when it becomes a permanent fixture of American law and gets in the hands of some future petty tyrant or wannabe dictator (and no, for all you Bush-haters, that's not W, however much you don't like him). I'd like to see laws like Patriot automatically expire annually and force the politicians to publicly re-declare that we still need them.
On a broader note, what we really need to do is amend the Constitution and replace the House and Senate with one legislative branch that *makes* laws - and requires a 2/3 majority for passage, and another branch that *repeals* laws with a simple majority. Having a built in process to get rid of contentious laws quickly would go a long way to eliminating abuses that are latent in something like Patriot.
Again, I speak as someone who grants that some parts of Patriot are probably necessary *at the moment*, but it ought not to stand forever.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I suppose I can talk to you as JEFFRY Dahmer then?
Been boiling any young boys lately, JEFF???
get my drift?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Unfortunately, you missed mine...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Yep. Nailshooter wins this one....
Well done.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Not a big deal, but I can't stand her grading voice. I think she would make a (slightly) better President than Obama. If she makes it, I won't be watching her speeches. I have nicknamed her "Screamin' Meemee." Poor Bill.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Phisherman wrote:

"grading"? She's a teacher? :)
Chris
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Chris Friesen wrote:

Someone just got an F in grammar!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 19:08:14 +0000, DS wrote:

ITYM spelling...
F- 0/10
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
PCPaul wrote:

Depends on whether he used the wrong word, or misspelled the right word.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Number one reason, I don't know of any other reason that she is using to run for office except to fix the health care system. About 16 years ago her husband put her in charge of doing just that. Reason enough for me.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 17:32:50 GMT, "Leon"

One issue I see is that far too many people are in the category of "I got mine and don't give a $hit about anyone else". Note that this is a 2 phrase sentence with an "and".
'Cause, you see, I do "got mine" but see lotsa problems in our current health care system.
Some fundamental problems, as well as a few other thrown in (but not an all encompassing list):
It's employer dependent. Heaven forbid you need/want to change jobs if you have one of those dreaded "pre-existing conditions". Or get laid off. Or...
You can spend a ton of dough on health insurance if you're not employed, but, heaven forbid you actually try to use it - or they'll raise your rates. Heck, they raise your rates anyway. Regularly.
You can be excluded from buying health insurance.
Accountant types screen your needs. Medical, pharmaceutical, otherwise.
Doctors tend to act in ways to not 'annoy' the insurance companies at times.
Seems like a number of tales have been told about insurance companies denying care. They are FOR PROFIT institutions and YOUR health isn't their primary concern. Suing them isn't the answer.
Please don't say one can shop around for a better plan. Usually, they aren't that much different, and those that are very, very costly.
Emergency room care ain't free.
The focus on not helping "freeloaders" is ridiculous 'cause the problems extend well beyond those "lazy a$$ed SOBs not willing to work" for which you don't want your hard earned tax $ to go toward.
Renata
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Fri, Feb 29, 2008, 4:59am (EST-3) snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com (Jeff) who doth proclaimeth: <snip> There's an angry old man running around this group with a signature that declares her the terrorists' choice. <snip>
LMAO Silly, if you'd read the sig, it plainly says that is from a bumper sticker. I thought it was funny, and still do. Angry? Another 5 second psychoanalysis of me. No, I'm not angry. However, the prospect of Hillary as president DOES scare the crap out of me. I believe she is not morally qualified for the position; not qualified period for the position; and totally untrustworthy. In otherwords, I simply consider her the worst possible candicate out of a selection of really lousy choices. The thought of any of them in office scares me, she just scares me the most.
I have no plans to change the sig yet.
JOAT 10 Out Of 10 Terrorists Prefer Hillary For President - Bumper Sticker I do not have a problem with a woman president - except for Hillary.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Feb 29, 3:26 pm, snipped-for-privacy@webtv.net (J T) wrote:

C'mon, Theo. The only President in recent years who might have been "morally qualified" was Jimmy Carter.
I'll take a lack of morals ANY day.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Charlie said:

Wow... That truly is an amazing statement.
Just... wow...
Go America....
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Were you old enough to know what was happening when Carter was President, the number of ways he screwed up from the day he was sworn in?
Clinton had the morals of a billygoat, but did a pretty good job. Come to think of it, if Kennedy had lived, he might have done something to earn the name he has; he was reputed to be ready to screw a snake if someone would hold its head. Truman may have been moral in the true sense of the word, and Ike came close--but missed. Hell, even Nixon was a far, far better President than Carter, something I never thought I'd say about that weirdo.
So, no, I don't spend a lot of time worrying about Presidential morals. If you do, more power to you, but, I hope, less to your candidates.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 15:02:29 -0800 (PST), Charlie Self

I am old enough.
I happen to believe that a President's legacy is formed more by the times than anything they actually do. Economic and social upheaval cycles are a reality and presidents who inherit them can have little impact on them other than to promote good fiscal and policy restraint while weathering the storm. If the times were good, the president is considered a good one. If the times were bad then maybe not.
Jimmy Carter happened to be in office during one of the worst economic periods since the depression. The worst stagflation brought on by the first oil crisis, the one no one could see coming (I was in the industry, believe me, no one saw it coming), and the negative impact of social welfare programs established during the Johnson era. Mortage rates went to 15% and gasoline tripled almost overnight.
Years later, when Powell or Swartzkoff I can't remember which, was asked who was responsible for the effectiveness of the smart weapons and the short duration of Desert Storm, he replied that Jimmy Carter was so appalled by war and the potential loss of life, he promoted and approved research into any weapon system that would shorten the duration of any future conflict and particularly any that would be selective with regard to infrastructure rather than killing humans.
I've always remembered that. Of course, legacy credit for that outcome will be given to Bush senior.
Additionally, Carter has done more with his time for the betterment of the human race since his presidency than any other president in my lifetime.
Just my opinion.
Frank

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<snip> However, the

This is not meant as a shot at you Charlie. I believe your statement is a very pragmatic response common to many good and well intended people. However, I fear that our shift towards pragmatism has gone too far in this country. I think that there needs to be a reassertion of principles and ethics in all of our thinking and discussions. When we dismiss principles as the core of our thinking what are we left with?
SteveP.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Read my earlier response. Then go back and read some biographies of earlier Presidents. There is no shift. Ethical behavior died with George Washington, if it ever existed at all in politics. It is time we recognize that, instead of scrabbling for an ideal candidate, who doesn't and cannot exist. We vote on issues, just as the country as whole has for its entire existence. Morals only enter into the picture when some horses' ass gets jealous of another politician, or thinks he sees a way to grab an edge.
Morals or ethics whatever word you choose, are hard to find in today's society--but they were no easier to locate in the 1770s and 1800s than they are now.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 15:10:02 -0800, Charlie Self wrote:

You're a optimist, Charlie :-). A whole lot of people vote based on the candidates looks, religion, etc.. I wish it weren't so, but....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.